Minor, Yet Horrifically Anger Inducing, Irritants #1

Logging on to the work network some mornings, this message comes up:

"Your password needs to be changed in fourteen days time. Do you wish to change it now?"

No I fucking don't! 14 days away? So what? Why not tell me when the password actually needs to be fucking changed, rather than a whole frigging fortnight before I have to do anything? Every time this fucking message turns up it wastes perhaps a whole second of my life because I have to click on the "No" button. A valuable second that I could have spent doing, you know, something else. Something very brief, mind.

I suppose I could just calm down and change my password when the warning first comes up. But where's the fun in that?

Being Nasty to Christians

Via DK I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury – a bearded prig who is the defender of an ancient fairytale in this country – has launched an attack on freedom of speech. Because of all those nasty-wasty people being all mean and pooey to him and his fellow god botherers. Awww, the poor baby. Give the poor baby a big, fat hug.

Anyhoo, I’m not going to attack Williams too much – both DK and Harry Haddock do this with considerable aplomb. But there is an interesting implication to Williams’ gripe.

See, I thought if you had faith in Christianity, then you had faith in it. It would take a lot more than the evil, nasty atheists dissing your religion to get you to change your mind. Take Mike Huckabee over in the US. His faith isn’t shaken or altered by anything – be it common sense, scientific fact, actual events or political expediency. It doesn’t say a great deal for the religious convictions of Williams that he feels his religion should be placed on a pedestal over every other belief in the country, religious or otherwise.

Yeah, there is also the argument that if there are a whole host of people in the country dissing Christianity then it might be difficult for Williams et al to indoctrinate – sorry, convert – new recruits to the cult of the "sky fairy", to borrow Harry’s wonderful phrase. But again I say this – if Christianity is good enough, if Christianity is still relevant to the modern age, then they should have no problem winning new people to their cause. The godbotherers in the US seem to have no problem with this. But if the Christians in the UK cannot do that in this modern day and age, then maybe it is time to let Christianity go. Let it fade into the history books, like the belief the world is flat, or that the heavens are ruled by some dude called Jupiter.

The joy of having freedom of speech is that you can test your views, and see if they can stand up to the arguments of your fiercest detractors. All Williams stance says to me is that he doesn’t feel his arguments can stand up to debate.

However, he does say one thing that I can agree with:

"And behind this is the nagging problem of what happens to a culture in which, systematically, nothing is sacred."

Yep, it is a problem if nothing is sacred in society. But instead of making a deeply unconvincing story based on a third hand ancient text sacred in society, why not make something else sacred? Something more useful?

Why not make freedom of speech sacred?

Election 2008: All change!

Well, what a day for the US Election. After months of sniping between candidates but very little change, suddenly everything has happened over the course of about 24 hours. Let's take a look at what.

McCain wins the Florida Primary

And in doing so becomes the front runner in the Republican race. It is difficult to get too excited about this, as McCain is like 180 or something, but at least he isn't, to use the wonderful phrase of the Moai, a "godbothering nutjob".

Giuliani quits the Republican Race

He had a bold strategy to win the nomination - to not contest the first few primaries, and then win in Florida. Had it worked we would be claiming he is a political genius of the first order. But as it stands, his plan looks beyond stupid. It is, to misquote Edmund Blackadder, a great plan with one key flaw. It was bollocks.

Edwards quits the Democratic Race

For me the most interesting part of the day. Because on so many levels, Edwards should have been the presumptive Democrat nominee. Photogenic, good family, background as a successful lawyer and Senator, previous experience of a national election - he appeared to have everything. So why didn't it happen for the ex Senator from North Carolina?

The Telegraph points to a reason from the Edwards himself:

"The former North Carolina senator... frequently complained of media bias towards the unprecedented combination of a potential first black president and first female president."

Sour grapes?

Yup, sounds like it.

About right?

Yup, sounds like it.

Let's look at how the story plays out in the media. On the one hand, you have a photogenic, articulate, experienced politician running for the highest office in his land. Not unlike Bill Clinton. Or Ronald Reagan. Or John Kennedy. On the flipside you have the first female contender for the Presidency. And the first serious black contender for the Presidency. What makes the best story for the media? The politician who looks like every other white, articulate politician running for the Presidency, or the first serious female candidate, or the first serious black candidate?

Edwards never stood a chance. Even if he had run a better campaign, he never stood a chance.

Because there was a time when an Edwards candidacy would not only have won the Democrat nomination for President, but also would have won the Presidency. Sadly for Edwards, that time was 48 years ago.

As bad as each other

Tory MP arrested on assault charges.

Tory Whip withdrawn from corrupt MP.

Clearly this is the week for the Tories to be arseholes. Labour had their turn last week. No doubt the Lib Dems will have their chance next week.

It is difficult to describe just how much I hate this shower of shit who run this country. Sorry, scratch that - who are running this country into the ground. They don't work for us. They don't work for anyone other than themselves, and their bulging wallets. Labour, Tory, doesn't make a blind bit of fucking difference. They are all as bad as each other, and worthy of nothing other than disgust and contempt. They are little more than confidence tricksters, defrauding the public of their money because, fundamentally, they believe themselves to be better than you and more deserving of your money than you are.

I don't know what we do to rid ourselves of these malingering theives. But part of me hopes that the House of Commons is razed to the ground with each and every one of the greedy, money grabbing bastards inside, frantically but vainly clawing at the locked doors to get out.

Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight

I haven’t commented on the death of Heath Ledger here at the Strangeness, partly because I have very little to say about his tragic, premature death, but mainly because there is enough unmitigated guff spewing forth about his demise all over the internet. spEak You’re bRanes has some great examples, if you want to see the thoughts of morons.

However, given his last film work was on The Dark Knight – and being an unashamed Batman fan – some of the things being written about the sequel to Batman Begins are irritating me. Take this article in the Telegraph – it suggests that one option for the studio (if Ledger didn’t fully complete the film) is not releasing it.

I’m sorry, what? Not release it? Abandon a project that has a projected budget of $150 million? Abandon the last completed film of a talented young actor? That’s just fucking stupid, if you pardon my French.

But nothing compared to the assertion that playing the Joker may have killed Ledger. I don’t doubt that Ledger put his all into the role – he was a talented and committed actor. But a role pushing someone over the edge seems just crass. People have played challenging roles before – what about Hopkins playing the demented Hannibal Lector, or Sam Riley playing the suicidal Ian Curtis? Actors should be able to disassociate themselves from their roles – after all, the roles are not real. The shoot may have been tough on Ledger, but there’s no evidence it pushed him over the edge. In fact, the director suggests Ledger took a lot from the role, and seemed to enjoy it.

Which leads me to my final point. The Dark Knight has claimed a life. That of a stunt performer. Let’s hope that any on screen tributes to Ledger are matched by tributes to the stunt man who died whilst making the film.

Ultimately, Ledger’s death is a tragedy – for his fans, but much more so for his family. The Dark Knight will form part of his legacy – which is surprisingly rich for a 28 year old. Anything else is meaningless, pointless, tedious speculation.

Cyclists - Bastards?

Via DK, I’ve read an interesting post about cyclists. Which struck me as just great timing, as I was nearly run over by a cyclist walking into work today. The cyclist was, inevitably, cycling on the pavement. And gave me a mouthful of abuse for being in her way. And, inevitably, I gave her a mouthful of abuse back… The phrase I used rhymed with "you bucking punt."

I’d like to say that cyclists are a bunch of cunts, that they are all the same, and they are the ruddy scourge of the road. The truth is that they aren’t. Some of them are wankers, some of them are perfectly polite. The same is true of motorists, the same is true of pedestrians. There is no need for further rules about cycling in this country – all we really need to is enforce the rules we have (as is so often the case in this country!) But ultimately the problem isn’t cyclists being wankers. It is people being wankers. And no matter what you do, you are always going to have some people who want to behave like wankers.

Although these post do remind me of one my favourite entries at the Moai’s old blog… go have a read.

McDiploma?

McFuck-off!

A diploma from McDonalds will be worth about as much as a burger from McDonalds - about a pound, with the same downside that it will make you feel nauseous and worthless for hours after consumption.

Another snout in the parliamentary trough

Another day, another probable case of corruption. This time a Tory. Is anyone honestly surprised anymore?

Corruption and law breaking is increasingly the norm amongst our elected law makers. The litmus test for being a candidate in the Labour Deputy Leadership race, for example, now seems to have been a willingness to take illegal donations rather than harbouring any desire for the role. We no longer look at the members of our government and asking "are they corrupt?" - the question in our modern age is more "when are they going to be caught out?"

The system is rotten to the deeply putrid core of the worthless edifice squatting on the banks of the Thames, and this putrid core is self perpetuating. Because only the terminally greedy or the staggeringly vain would seek elected office in this country, given the massive amounts of media coverage and the soul destroying hoops anyone has to jump through to get elected. We are not attracting the best of the best into our government - at a time when we need the best more than ever. Those who seek power are amongst the least worthy of wielding that power. The system is weighted towards attracting the dregs to the very top - so why would we end up with anything other than the worst at the top?

We need radical change - we need to rip the heart out of this bloated cadaver of a parliamentary system and start again. We point to examples in the developing world and in the former Soviet bloc and decry their corruption, at the same time as tutting then turning a blind eye to examples in our own country. We should be demanding the resignation of Johnson, Harman, Conway, and any other person who would dare to use their time as a servant of the people for their own gain. We should be marching on Downing Street, demanding Brown calls the election and seeks a mandate for his elevation to Number 10 from someone, rather than taking his position in a bloodless coup. We should be sending people into the Commons who want to make it accountable, and to give back all the powers and freedoms to the people that have been taken from them by the government for no acceptable reason.

Because the system isn't going to change by itself. Those in power are happy with the influence, perks and loopholes that they have. I believe the majority of people in the Commons were elected for purely selfish reasons: be it for financial gains, be it for the perks, or be it as a massage to their colossal egos. To limit their powers and influence is alien to their very nature - they won't do it. Unless we make them.

How do we do this? Well, a start might be ruthlessly voting out those who break the law and show themselves to be corrupt. If all these people fear is a loss of their privileged and elevated positions, then let's do it. Let's boot them out of the corridors of power, and into a life of infamy and impotence.

Obama Enters Camelot

With a sort of nausea inducing predictability, Clan Kennedy is endorsing/set to endorse Obama for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, and as a result, they are endorsing him for President as well. According to Caroline Kennedy* the reason is:

"OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama."

Yep, we're being asked to support Obama because he believes in hope. In fairness, though, I have never come across any politician who doesn't believe in hope. It is a pretty fucking bold politician who stands up and says "I stand for despair!"

But I digress. There are similarities between Kennedy and Obama. They both represent parts of America that had, at the start of their campaigns, never been in the White House before (Catholic and Black people respectively), they are both (relatively) young, photogenic and with families that play well for the media. But they are both all spin and no substance. The fuckwitted logic is they look good, therefore they must be good. Kennedy arguably ushered in the modern political era, where being photogenic and media savvy is more important than actually being a fucking capable politician. Obama has taken that legacy, and has run with it. He has been embraced by Camelot, and whilst the Kennedy clan ceased to have any real political power after Teddy's "unfortunate incident", they still have massive influence. Whatever way you look at this, the endorsement of a Kennedy is a boost to the Obama campaign.

Which is a massive shame, really, because when you consider what Kennedy actually achieved, it is remarkably little. He scraped a victory in a Presidential election, backed by his father's wealth and possibly by electoral fraud. He fucked around like there was no tomorrow both before he entered the White House and during his time there. He nearly pushed the world towards nuclear war through his cack-handed foreign policy, and failed in his attempt to win back Cuba for the anti-communist world. He escalated the Vietnam war, causing a cost to both America and South East Asia that was felt decades afterwards. The triumph that many people associate with Kennedy - Civil Rights - was actually achieved by his successor in the White House.

See, the Kennedy administration should be linked with failure, and as a result the endorsement of a member of the Kennedy clan should be the kiss of death on any Presidential campaign. However, owing to the years of shameless spin after Kennedy's untimely death, this will help Obama.

So what I hope is this. If Obama does get elected (which is possible, and is a position bolstered by the results of the South Carolina primary) he shouldn't aspire to be like Kennedy. He should aspire to be so much more.

*A woman who in no way trades off her family name, like that foul harpy Clinton...

Template Changes

I've changed my template back to the one I was using prior to Christmas. Couple of reasons for this:

1. You couldn't read the new template on some computers. Seriously, it looked fucking crap. And unreadable. And that was the template, as well as the content.

2. The colour scheme, whilst initially easy on the eye, quickly began to remind me of the kind of colours one might associate with a child's spew. If that child had been eating toxic crayons.

Rest assured, the changes to the template will not change the content of this blog. The posts will remain intermittent at best, and filled with half formed political rantings, bad puns and stupidly obvious observations. After all, what else is a blog for?

Hain Goes!

Good news. Just a shame that it didn't happen any earlier.

And for what it is worth, I hope the police do investigate and that the incompetent, perma-tanned dickhead is dragged through the courts, convicted, and utterly humiliated.

UPDATE:

And the Brown team are spinning this for all it is worth. Check this comment out from Gordo himself:

"I recognise that, given the circumstances and your desire to clear your name, this is the right and honourable thing to do."

See, this must be a new form of right and honourable that I haven't been informed about. It would have been right and honourable for Hain to go as soon as this ugly mess began. Resigning after the matter was referred to the police is far too late. There is no honour in this. It is an embarrasing mess for Hain's department, government, party and country. There is no dignity in his resignation, it was forced. The unedifying vision of Nu Labour's answer to the Tango Man clinging to power for the last few weeks has been a national disgrace.

Frankly, the right and honourable thing for Hain to do now would be to immolate himself publically in front of the Department for Work and Pensions. Anything else seems, at this point, a bit of a cop out.

And so, they start to fall.

Fred Thompson has withdrawn from the race for President. Who he, you might ask? Well, he's the Republican candidate who has made bugger all impact on the Republican primaries. No, no, not Giuliani - the other one. You know who I mean. At least you will if you have ever watched Law and Order.

Who'll be next? Will Giuliani drop out if the Republican voters continue to ignore him, even in the states where he has bothered to campaign? What about Huckabee? After all, his bandwagon has stalled somewhat since Iowa. On the other side of the political divide, what about Edwards? Is he ready yet to give up on his second bid to become President? Or is accepting that he is terminally bland to much for him to take at the moment, at least until other states reject him?

This is the joy of watching a US primary season - watching the candidates fall, one by one. It is only when the field is reduced to two that things slow down and become truly dull. So relish the election whilst the field of candidates is broad. Because, as Thompson's drop out has shown, it won't last for ever.

All change? No change.

It has just occurred to me, whilst reading yet again about how this is the first US election in decades where no incumbent President or Vice-President is contesting it, that the next election here in the UK (whenever the one eyed git deigns to allow it) will also be something of a first, at least for a good few years. Because not one of those people heading up the three main parties has fought an election as party leader before. You have to go right back to 1979 to find a similar scenario.

And it is tempting to look back to 1979 and hope that we will see a similar, radical change to British politics. After all, in 1979 we had an incompetent former Labour Chancellor who had become Prime Minister in the wake of the resignation of a much more popular, electable and eloquent Labour leader. That former Chancellor had postponed an election, thus sealing the fate of his government. In 2008, we have the same scenario - it is just the name of the PM has changed.

However, that (sadly) is where the similarity ends. Because whilst the fall of Ming Campbell does bring a smile to my jaundiced, cynical lips, it is nowhere near as dramatic as the fall of Jeremy Thorpe. But even more strikingly you have the difference in Tory leaders. In 1979, the Tory leader was a woman of conviction, who had radical ideas on how to improve the UK. In 2008 the Tories are being led by a man who seems to be happy to be called the "heir to Blair", when we all know that such a tag should be sending any self respecting Tory to the car with a length of hosepipe and some gaffer tape.

Would it be too much to hope for that with such a massive change in the leadership of the main parties in the UK that there would be a similar massive change in the policies of those parties? Sadly, in the Britain of 2008, the answer is "yes."

Heathrow, 17-01-08 and a fear of flying

From early on yesterday afternoon some of my work colleagues (particularly those in management and who require me, on occasion, to do a spot of international travel) were advising me not to look at any news websites. Of course, any such comment meant I was immediately logging on to see what was going on.

And I saw that a plane had crash landed at Heathrow just a few feet short of a runway. Aside from a few minor injuries, everyone was A-OK.

So I challenged a couple of people – what on earth was wrong with me seeing that a plane had crash landed at Heathrow? I kind of knew the reply, and was not disappointed – “well, it is not going to help with you fear of flying, is it?”

See, this story is precisely what is going to help me with my fear of flying. Because, truth be told, I not afraid of flying. In fact, I am not afraid of crashing. What I am afraid of is dying in a plane crash. Or more particularly, being devoured by a ravenous fire ball in mid flight or plummeting from the skies at a rate of knots only to become a fine human pate when the plane hits the ground/sea. That’s what I’m afraid of. It is not the flying, or the crashing. It is the relative certainty of death in the event of a crash that does my head in.

So actually the Heathrow story is good. Some reports say that the plane lost all power, came in far too low, but was directed to relative safety by the pilot. The crew then evacuated the plane quickly and speedily, whilst the emergency services were on the scene in seconds. This is a text book example of what you want to happen if something goes wrong on a flight.

Everyone walks away. Yeah, for some reason, I’m ok with that outcome.

President Bush - What Went Wrong?

On Sunday, it will be one year to the day until George W Bush steps down as US President. But truth be known, he may as well do it now, because he won’t be able to achieve anything radical in his final year. His brand is damaged beyond repair abroad, and he is neutered at home – he has become the very definition of a lame-duck president.

His critics will be very satisfied that his tenure as President will be ending on a whimper. And given the numerous blunders of the Bush Presidency, I can’t help but think it is deserved. When the history books are written, Bush Junior will languish with the other failed Presidents. His historical peers will be James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and Ulysses S. Grant. 2001-2009 will be seen as a bleak time for the US presidency.

But it didn’t have to be that way. For a long time, Bush was a popular President (at least in the US). He won re-election in 2004 – and this time the result was beyond dispute. He could have been a successful and popular President. After all, Reagan was dismissed as a lightweight prior to being in office, and had peaks and troughs in the polls whilst resident in the White House. Yet now he is venerated as one of the greatest Presidents since FDR. The same could have been true of Dubya.

So what happened? Or, more pertinently, what went wrong?

Yep, the Iraq War hasn’t gone to plan – although given the US lacked an exit strategy that is hardly surprising. But the Iraq War – and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan – had the approval of the US public at the start. And Bush Jnr won in 2004 against the backdrop of the War. It may be an ongoing headache for the Bush administration, but Iraq was not the knockout blow.

Likewise, the 2006 elections didn’t go Bush’s way. It was, at least partly, a referendum on how the president was doing. But it was also a reaction to the way congressional Republican were behaving – particularly after the Mark Foley scandal. Yes, those elections damaged Bush, but he (and the Republicans) were already tainted before a ballot was cast.

So what was it? What made Bush a lame duck?

Bush set himself up as a capable decision-maker – as a level headed, bold leader in a crisis. Yes, he might not be able to understand the finer points of macro-economic theory (or, indeed, be able to string a sentence together), but when the shit hit the fan, he could be relied on. Bush lived off his reputation after 9/11 – of standing at Ground Zero, with the bullhorn, giving America pride again.

With the benefit of hindsight, he was always setting himself up for a fall. And that fall came – not with another terror attack, but when the levees broke and when New Orleans flooded.

The Bush administration showed total incompetence in the face of what was both an avoidable and manageable disaster. Bush procrastinated whilst New Orleans drowned. Hurricane Katrina showed that it wasn’t just the terrorists that the US had to worry about – nature could be just as harsh. But when the latter struck, Bush was shown up. He wasn’t in control. The carefully constructed façade was washed away.

And those affected most by the disaster made it even worse for the President. Here, poor black people were dying. When it came to an attack on the financial districts of New York, Bush came running, bringing with his the awesome might of the US military. When New Orleans came calling, Bush seemed to look the other way. For what it is worth, I don’t think that Bush was racist in his response to Katrina. But from that point on, the unpleasant undertones of racism were next to impossible to overcome.

The deterioration on Bush’s standing can be traced back to Katrina. For the first time, people really started to question him. If Bush wasn’t capable of dealing with a natural disaster, was he really capable of dealing with the war in Iraq? Suddenly the news from Iraq was given a negative spin. As the economy started to hit the skids, and as the Republicans began to sink into scandal in Congress, it became inevitable that Bush’s influence would take a sound kicking in 2006. By the time he offered up Rumsfeld as a sacrifice, it was too late. His reputation was in tatters, and people were already looking to who would replace him.

Harold Macmillan was once asked what was most likely to blow a government off course – his alleged reply (“events, dear boy, events”) lives on in history. And the words stick when we consider the failed presidency of George W. Bush – he dropped the ball when it came to Katrina, and the cost was massive. It sent him down the path of becoming a lame duck president, and it will leave him with a terrible legacy for the history books.

Hospital Acquired Infections? Bring it on!

Via the BBC:

Actress Leslie Ash has won a record £5m compensation payout after contracting a hospital-acquired infection.

You what? £5m fricking million for getting a virus and having to walk with a stick? Frig me rigid, where can I get me one of those hospital acquired infections?

The payment… includes compensation for money she would have earned if she had carried on working.

Ah, maybe not then. I rather doubt that I would get £5m. In fact, I think £3.50 in compensation would be a push…

You know it is going to be a bad day at work...

...you stupidly arrange a phone call for 8:30am with a senior director in the business when you don't actually have to be in until 9am. And because you were running late, you rush from your flat with taking the normally essential last piss before walking in - after all, you can go when you get into the office.

But no. The toilets on our floor are fucked. The toilets on the floor above are fucked. The toilets on the floor below are working, but the people who work there hate us so they won't let us use their toilets. So now I'm gagging for a slash, and can't go (and where I work, the only businesses with loos are the pubs. Which aren't open for a good two hours). And to top it all off, the senior director has just e-mailed me to say he is running late and won't be in until 9am!

It is the little frustrations that so do my head in. And, in this case, my bladder as well.

Unindependent Schools

Lord, our would-be Stalinist government is looking for other independent bodies they can stick the knife into with that relish that comes only when those toads in government get the chance to be totalitarian. The economy may be in free fall, but forget that. The government has got the chance to shit all over Independent schools.

According to The Telegraph:

Independent schools are to be made to open their doors to more children from poor homes under guidelines announced to stop them being run as "exclusive clubs"… Schools failing to meet the regulations could have bank accounts frozen, trustees suspended, buildings seized or even be closed down under a range of sanctions.”

I went to an Independent school. I fucking hated it. But that doesn’t mean that I support the government’s attempts to fuck them up as much as possible.

See, Independent schools are elitist. In my experience, they are also racist, sexist and an unpleasant environment to be in. You could ask why on earth anyone would want to send their kids to them. The answer is simple – because the state system is even shittier.

And such is the class envy of Brown and the other shaved chimps who serve in his government that they can’t leave the Independent schools to be, well, independent. They have to intervene, they have to try to drag those institutions down to the same level as the schools that they (nominally) run. They don’t respect the choice of those who want to spend a small fucking fortune by sending their kids to a public school, because choice is irrelevant to them. They want the homogenised society where everyone is equal. In this case – equally mired in the unmitigated shite of the state school system.

This is the very definition of socialism: everyone is equal – equally miserable. Any school that does not conform to the government’s demands should be shut down.

I want public schools to become a thing of the past. But unlike this government, I want people to be able to chose not to send their kids to a public school because the state school system is of equivalent quality to the private school system. That’s the difference between my way of thinking and the Nu Labour way of thinking. I want people to have the choice between the very best of education in the country. They want people to have no choice but to accept the very worst of education in this country.

Michigan, 2008

Over in the US, Mitt Romney has managed to resurrect his campaign for the presidency. I could say the race is now open, but frankly you’ll have heard it all before. And if you haven’t, then there are plenty of news websites out there who will force feed you the necessary meaningless and inconclusive speculation that is floating around in this US election year.

However, look at the breakdown of the results in the Republican field. Something interesting is happening.

Iowa:

Huckabee: 34.3%
Romney: 25.3%
Thomson: 13.4%
McCain: 13.1%
Paul: 10%
Giuliani: 3.5%

New Hampshire:

Romney: 32%
Huckabee: 11%
Giuliani: 9%
Paul: 8%
Thompson: 1%
Hunter: 0%

Michigan:

Mitt Romney: 39%
John McCain: 30%
Mike Huckabee: 16%
Ron Paul: 6%
Fred Thompson: 4%
Rudy Giuliani: 3%

Yeah, there is no clear front runner. Yeah, Giuliani and Thompson haven’t scored squat yet, but they haven’t started to contest the races either. But what you may notice is that Ron Paul is consistently scoring between 5-10% in the primaries.

Why does this matter? I mean, he’s not going to win the nomination, is he?

Well, it matters for three reasons. Firstly, Paul isn’t a typical Republican. He is a Libertarian, and detached from the political mainstream. However this detachment has not stopped him scoring respectably in these primaries. Yeah, he ain’t going to be President come November, but the results show a desire – even with the relatively conservative Republican party – for an alternative to the political mainstream. And that desire – after a few decent results this year, could grow. This is music to the ears of anyone like me, who is sick of the political mainstream that is dominating Western politics.

Also, it shows the commitment of Paul’s supporters that he is still scoring higher than Thompson and Giulaini in some states. His supporters must know that the chances of him being nominated are the square root of bugger all. Yet they still cast their votes for him. Arguably he has a stronger bed rock of supporters than either Giuliani or Thompson, as Paul’s supporters stick with him.

And finally, Paul is starting to pick up delegates for the nominating convention. If he continues as he is doing at the moment, he will have some influence over who gets the nod at that convention, particularly if the race becomes deadlocked. Two big "ifs", but for a Libertarian candidate to be doing this well in the Republican primary season would have seemed next to impossible a year ago.

Big change starts with small beginnings. And if the Libertarians in the US can build on Paul’s unlikely success, then 2008 could be remembered as one of those small beginnings.

An Old Man Plays Hide and Seek

Sort of.

This story made me laugh at loud. Which says a lot about my malign sense of humour.

My Political Compass

Via DK I've done a test on my political compass:

Normally I'm sceptical about online tests but right of centre libertarian? Spot on.

Gordon Brown on Peter Hain:

"He took his eye off the ball and he has apologised. The matter must rest with the authorities, who will look at these matters," Mr Brown said.

In other words, Hain's fucked.

But there are two other striking things in the BBC article about the undignified fall from grace of Peter Hain. First of all, there's this:

But the Tories have themselves comes under fire after it was reported that shadow chancellor George Osborne did not declare £487,000 of donations to the Register of Members' Interests.

Cameron has said:

Mr Cameron said that was a "completely different" matter, as the money had been declared to, and published by, the Electoral Commission.

But he would say that, wouldn't he?

Finally, there is the comment from Lembit Opik:

On Sunday, Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik said politicians calling for Mr Hain to quit were "opportunists" and no party was blameless on party funding.

Quite. Whilst I am feeling utterly misanthropic this morning, and whilst my contempt for that perma tanned twat Hain is boundless, there are all as bad as each other. Snouts in the trough, gorging. How long until one of the money grabbing whores in the Commons cites these two examples to take more money from the electorate to pay for their shitty election campaigns?

An Open Letter to Peter Hain

Dear Peter,

I’ve noticed that you have run into a little trouble about your donations during your unsuccessful run for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I also understand that this has now been escalated via a complaint from a Tory MP. Apparently you are also massively in debt.

Frankly, this could not happen to a nicer person.

You are the uber cunt in a party filled with corrupt, two faced, mendacious bastards. You are the perma tanned proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely. You have not one ounce of dignity, otherwise you would have already resigned – not just from the cabinet, but also as an MP. You are the embodiment of why people in this country hate Nu Labour, and hate politicians as a whole. Your snout is so far in the trough of corruption that I am surprised you do not choke to death on your own greed. You sicken me – you look and behave not unlike the syphilitic flange of a dying prostitute, in my humble opinion.

I hope you are forced from power, dragged through the courts and utterly disgraced for your egregious corruption. And I hope that this also brings down the government of total shits who currently run this country.

Yours sincerely,

The Nameless One

New Hampshire, 2008

At the end of my last post on the US primary season I noted that "things could still change". I wish I had made more of this to accentuate my wisdom. Because things have changed.

Of course, things could change again. But I am relatively happy that the ludicrous Mike Huckabee and the Pakistan baiting Obama have been kicked, as Cartman would say, "square in the nuts." As a bonus, Mitt "Moron" Romney looks increasingly fucked. And not in the good way.
Sure, the alternative choices - a decrepit old man and a screaming harridan - are not exactly great, but at least they have some valuble experience and don't make policy decisions based exclusively on the supposed teachings of a fictional being.

No doubt people will get bored of me saying this, just as they will rapidly grow bored of the interminable US election, but this is not the election for the US to elect a Christian fundamentalist or an inexperienced senator, however great the narrative around that candidate is. As dull as it sounds, the US needs a safe pair of hands. Be it Clinton, be it McCain, be it Guiliani. None of those candidates are perfect, but they are one fuck of a lot better than the bottom of the barrel.

The Angriest Dog in the World

David Lynch is known for many things - a little known gem is his long running (but now defunct) comic strip, The Angriest Dog in the World. Click on the strip to enlarge it:

The pictures remain the same, but the words vary between cheap puns, obscure references and philosophical statements. It isn't (like so much Lynch has produced over the years) to the taste of everyone, but I think the strips are an entertaining way to while away a slow Friday afternoon in the office...

Gordon Brown's Signature

One of the more interesting things about the biographies of politicians on Wikipedia is you can take a look at their signature. And if you are so inclined, you can then examine that signature in line with basic graphology.

You can probably see where this is going, but here is Gordon Brown's signature:

His signature leans to the left: "A left slant indicates introspection."

His signature goes downwards: "A downward slant or lines with trail off the page indicate depression or physical exhaustion."

His signature is uneven and irregular: "Squiggles and irregular strokes indicate an artistic and non standard approach."

There we have it: Gordon Brown is an introspective, depressed and exhausted person who follows a non standard approach. Which, in fairness, should be news to precisely no-one at this point.

Iowa 2008: A Scary Result

Democracy in action over in the US, as a small number of voters from a tiny state decide who they would like to fight an election (a lot) later in the year. And they came up with Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama.

That's the Mike Huckabee who could best be defined as a Christian fundamentalist. Actually, scratch that, the Christian fundamentalist fuckwit who once took a phone call from God at a political fundraiser (h/t Mr E). But such gimmickry extends far beyond tedious fundraisers. when asked about science and creationism Huckabee replied:

"Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Another gem:

"At one appearance, Huckabee — who's been known to make fart jokes in front of the state legislature — said he would oppose gay marriage "until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules.""

Or how about:

"And he recently scored a rare offend trifecta, simultaneously pissing off immigrants, Jews and the pro-choice crowd when he ludicrously claimed that a "holocaust" of abortions had ­artificially created a demand for Mexican labor."

Yeah, Huckabee may be charming but he is a religious nut and general ignoramus. As a potential leader of the US, he's fucking scary. He strikes me as the Christian equivalent of Ahmadinejad: whilst being inexplicably popular in their home countries, they actually have the beliefs and scientific knowledge of a religious bigot from the Middle Ages.

But Huckabee has achieved one thing: he has made Obama - a man who would consider invading Pakistan, for fuck's sake - look like the credible, sane option in a general election between the two.

Of course, this is the first caucus of a loooonnnngg primary season and an even longer presidential election campaign. Things could change. And whilst I don't get a vote in the US elections (for the obvious reason that I am not a US citizen) I can't help but hope that those who do vote get a better choice than between a man who makes George W. look like a moderate and a man who would put troops into Pakistan.

Haven't they suffered enough?

Imagine you have cancer. You are taken to hospital, potentially to undergo some life saving surgery. Whilst you are in the operating theatre, the hospital catches fire. Your operation has to be curtailed, or perhaps even abandoned, because the roof of your sanctuary is on fire. Fortunately, the dedicated staff remove you from harm's way safely. Nevertheless, you are still ill and may have to undergo another operation.

What is one of the last possible things you would want to see? The dour, grey, grimacing visage of the theiving git who gained the keys to Number 10 without an election, by any chance? I know it would be for me, but that doesn't stop Gordon...

There were demands to ban Gordo from England matches. Let's hope something similar happens for disaster areas.

Frankly, they will have suffered enough.

Joking aside, you can donate here.

Glorifying terrorism

A thought that hit me as I browsed over the Christmas TV guide:

We were raised with a story that glorifies terrorists. Every year as children all of us sat down to watch a film that showed a bunch of self-appointed anarchists kill, maim and destroy government property. The state they railed against had its bad apples and certainly committed murder, but it was legitimate, enforced peace and the rule of law, and its leader came to power democratically, whereas the terrorist group was entirely self-appointed, monarchist and, when it did come to power, had no intentions whatsoever of seeking a democratic mandate.

Star Wars. The Rebel Alliance are terrorists. It's just hit me. When they blew up the Death Star they must have killed thousands of civilians. What an odd thought. Luke Skywalker was a galactic mujahideen.

Iowa, 2008

There will be an election in a few days time. Not in Pakistan, it seems, but rather the Iowa caucus in, well, Iowa. For anyone who doesn’t understand the way the US election system works, it must be faintly bemusing to see a small number of US voters going to the polls 11 months before the Presidential Election actually happens. But the Iowa caucus is crucial. And more for the Republicans than for the Democrats.

Those vying for the Democratic nomination this time out are quite middle of the road for their party. On the one hand, you have the experienced but also the charisma vacuum that is Hilary Clinton. And then on the other side you have the audacity of hope but paucity of policy, experience and maturity that comes with Barack Obama. Actually, if you combined the two together, you would probably have a very interesting ticket. Any road, you certainly don’t have anyone as extreme and unelectable as Howard Dean running for the Democrats this time.

The Republicans don’t quite have the same strengths when you review the front runners for their nomination. On the one hand you have the charming but terrifyingly loopy Mike Huckabee. On the other hand you have the charmless and moronic Mitt Romney. Both could be classed as religious fundamentalists, both are shit choices if the US wants to recover from the disaster of the Bush years. Between them, though, they have 32.3% of the Republican votes. Sure, Guiliani is ahead – but is beating Huckabee by just 1 point in some polls. McCain – once the presumptive nominee and the most experienced of all those candidates running – is behind Huckabee and is struggling to better Romney – in some cases he is ahead by just 0.7%, in others he is behind. You could take some comfort in the fact that Guiliani is ahead, but it is worrying that he is not much, much further ahead. And there is always the danger in a caucus or primary of an upset victory – hell, even a victory can be considered not strong enough for a sitting President to continue. Neither Guiliani nor McCain are likely to win an upset victory, and the danger of a loss of momentum (and with it the election) is palpable.

As I’ve mentioned before, this is a crucial election for the US. The electorate will need to decide which moderate candidate is best placed to repair the damage done by the eight terrible years of the Bush administration. And that choice will be far more worthwhile if the electorate can choose between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat rather than between a Democrat and a Christian fundamentalist. I’ll be watching the Iowa caucus with a lot of interest and more than a little concern, because those few voters who decide the Republican caucus could be contributing to who will become the most powerful person in the world.

13.8 Million People...

...were watching Voyage of the Damned at the episode's peak on Christmas day - around 55% of the potential viewers). On average, 12.2 million people watched the episode (50% of the potential viewers). That is more than the total number of people who voted for Nu Labour in the last election to give them their landslide. Some eye-opening stats for a show that, at the beginning of 2005, wasn't even on TV.

But stats are meaningless to some extent. After all, the utterly terrible Transformers movie made over $700m. Popularity is no guarantee of quality. 12.2 million people could have been wrong. Were they?

Well, no, they really weren't. Voyage of the Damned was pretty fucking spectacular. It was big, it was bold, it was breathless. It was consistently entertaining, and was the clear highpoint of the Christmas TV (although I will acknowledge, given the general standard of the Christmas TV, that is almost damning with faint praise). Tennant, although he is by no means the best Doctor Who, was convincing in the role and has clearly made it his own. The budget was in place to make the special effects worthy not just of prime time TV, but also of a Hollywood movie. And there was a nice balance between action and adventure alongside the more poignant - and Christmassy - moments.

However there will be some fans who will criticise the production - and I can immediately identify some of the potential criticisms. The villian of the piece was poor - a half-baked Davros, camping it up with a gold tooth in an unconvincing wheelchair. The Doctor fell for Astrid far too easily and for no real reason. And the moment where the Queen fled from Buckingham Palace in her slippers with the corgis was worth a passing smile on the night after a lot of wine. It certainly won't stand up to repeat viewings, and will quickly become wince inducing.

But here's the rub - the above criticisms helped to make the show entertaining. It wasn't designed to be for the fans who take the show far too seriously. It was designed for a well fed and well oiled general public on the evening of Christmas Day. And with that audience in mind, it pitched itself perfectly.

The message to all Doctor Who fans is simple. If you want the show to be shown in a prime time slot on BBC One on Christmas Day with the production values of a Hollywood movie, then it will be a rip-roaring adventure story for all the family with the trappings of Doctor Who. If you want Doctor Who to be a wordy story about a Quark attack on the Zygon fleet against the backdrop of the ongoing Sontaran/Rutan conflict then it will be a radio play, broadcast on BBC Four, at about midnight on 27th July. The fan boy in me be damned, I want to see the show in Christmas day, watch by millions. And Voyage of the Damned did that extraordinarily well.

Political Saviours and Pakistan

Some politicians achieve legendary status - and indeed, immortality, at least in the mind of the public - through dying. It is also helpful if they die before they can achieve true political power. RFK is a good example, and the fact that Martin Luther King never had to compromise his principles in political office has helped his posthumous reputation to flourish.

Benazir Bhutto is another good example of this phenomenon. Assassinated by a gunman/suicide bomber before she could achieve real political power, she can now live on after her death, never having to disappoint the potential that many felt she had. Yes, she had been Prime Minister, but few could have doubted before Christmas that this was her time, and this was her struggle to fight and maybe even win. Now she is dead she cannot succeed. But equally she cannot fail. Her supporters will hail the fallen Bhutto, and forever wonder what could have been achieved had she lived.

It may be a harsh thing to say so soon after her untimely demise, but such an idealised view of Bhutto is naive at the very least. Bhutto was not the answer to the deep and worrying problems facing Pakistan. It sounds facetious but the very fact someone assassinated her (and tried to on her return to Pakistan as well) shows the depths of hatred some in the country felt for her. Even if she had achieved political power (in the face of strong resistance from the increasingly dictatorial Musharraf) she would have struggled to unite the country. In fact a Bhutto presidency may have been the tipping point into a civil war that still hangs over Pakistan like the sword of Damocles.

The simple truth is that the deep rooted problems of Pakistan can't be solved by one person. The rifts in Pakistani society that are now boiling over have been around since that country gained independence, and arguably before. It is tempting to look at Bhutto and add to the layers of tragedy that surround any untimely death by seeing the assassination as a calamity for Pakistan as well as the Bhutto family. But the sad fact is that Bhutto could not have saved Pakistan.

And the even sadder fact is that it is now difficult to see who will.

Happy New Year Everyone!

A whole host of posts on Pakistan, the USA primaries and on Doctor Who to come... at some point.