Friday, February 29, 2008

The Evil Of The Plastic Carrier Bags

Government is, to a large extent, a question or priorities. A good politician will be able to decide what needs to be done and when. In the UK, today, with everything that is going in this country and elsewhere, the priority, according to our Prime Minister, is carrier bags.

And damn right. What could be more pressing than plastic carrier bags? What the ruddy fuck could be more important? I defy you to come up with even one area that requires government intervention more urgently that those evil, mother fucking plastic carrier bags. Jesus, how have we managed to survive for so long with the ever-present threat of plastic carrier bags hanging over our heads? I confidently predict that this country might - no, scratch that, will - collapse if we don't deal with the blight of carrier bags. Thank fucking Jesus fucking Christ for Gordon Brown. His bold strategy, his visionary approach, his eloquent idle threat of "I want to make clear that if Government compulsion is needed to make the change, we will take the necessary steps" - what a man, what a fucking hero. He is the prince of policy, the very kingpin of cool. We should make 29th February Gordon Brown day*.

Anyone who can listen this sort of half hearted environmental guff or anyone who can even see a picture of Gordon Brown these days without feeling waves of devastating nausea and shame is either a cretin or Hazel Blears. Or both.

*Not least so we only have to celebrate it once every four years. Mind you, the sort of celebration I'm thinking of is not that complimentary to the one-eyed arse wipe who resides in Number 10. It involves putting up effigies of Gordon Brown throughout the land. And instead of burning them, we piss on them. And then chop the gurning effigies into little pieces. Then stuff them into plastic carrier bags. And throw them in the sea.

Labels: ,

Tit.

Labels:

Good Money After Bad

The Tories are going to outspend Labour on the NHS. That's right. The Tories. Outspending Labour. On the NHS.

No doubt there will be those who praise Cameron's vision, and mark this as a turning point in the electoral fortunes of the Tories. Just as Nu Labour appeared to show they were committed to economic stability* by matching Tory spending plans in 1997, so Cameron's Tories are showing themselves to be committed to the public services by throwing money at the NHS.

Just a shame that it is a bullshit policy then, isn't it?

This comment in the Telegraph article is eye-opening:

"Since 2002, Gordon Brown has pumped huge amounts of money into the National Health Service, increasing spending by more than £40 billion in all. Yet critics including many Tories say the increases in spending have not been matched by improvements in care."
Quite. The "many Tories" are right. Nu Labour has poured a fortune into the NHS, and have got no return on investment. The NHS was shafted when they came to power. A decade and billions of pounds later, and it is still shafted. If the Tories are elected, then they could spend a decade and even more billions of pounds, and the NHS would still be shafted. The problem is not the amount of money spent on the health service. It is more the nature of the health service itself.

The NHS is an embarrassing anachronism. It was created to deal with British society in the latter half of the 1940's - over sixty years ago. Even before the end of the Attlee years in Downing Street, the "free at the point of service"** NHS was already having to charge (causing splits in the Labour party even back then.) Now, decades after the health service came into being, we have a bloated, out dated monoply trying to come to terms with medical technologies and levels of population growth that seemed impossible in the 1940's. You can throw as much money as you like at the NHS: it will simply swallow it, and ask for more.

A truly radical policy would be to attack the NHS - to question why we need this (man made) institution at all. Why not at least consider a future where the health concerns of this nation are not tied up with the money pit that is the NHS?

But the Tories would never dream of risking that level of controversy, so we will see exactly the same policies towards the NHS as we did under Nu Labour. Which is to the detriment of both health in this country and the efficiency of the state. And ultimately, whatever the Tories say, the latter will lead to the taxpayer shelling out more.

The very defintion of madness is to do exactly the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. The health policies of both Nu Labour and Cameron's Tories are, therefore, the very definition of madness.

*Cue hollow laughter.
**Just remember, the NHS is not free. It is free at the (generally shitty) point of service. That wodge of cash that the government took from your last pay slip, that is paying for your right to die on a makeshift bed in a corridor in a NHS hospital.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 28, 2008

I Hate the Royal Family....

...but fair play to Prince Harry.

Labels: , ,

Another day, another binge drinking tragedy

Gavin Britton, 18, downed a cocktail known as a Jackson Five - containing up to 12 shots of alcohol - during an evening of pub golf, where drinks are sunk in a 'par' number of swigs.
As sad as I feel from Britton and his family, a Jackson Five sounds less like cocktail and more like a stomach pump in a glass. You can’t drink that sort of thing and hope to be OK afterwards. Britton’s reaction just seems to be more extreme than what you might normally expect from an idiot drinking game.

But, of course, as with any death in this country, there is an immediate clamour to ban something. This time from Professor Roger Williams. Who, you might well ask , is Prof Williams? Well, he’s the fella…

…who oversaw the George Best's liver transplant during his long-running battle with alcoholism
Fantastic, then. He’s the Doctor who saw Best lose his battle with alcohol. His advice must be sage and mind-opening, because Best certainly paid attention to it.

I know I’m being harsh on Professor Williams, and you could argue that he did his very best to help Best. But then he opens his mouth and comes out with moronic crap like this:

"They (the students) can't possibly understand the risks they are taking, and therefore these initiation ceremonies should be banned because of the danger to young people.”
What, students at Exeter University aren’t going to be capable of understanding the risks of heavy drinking? Really? Why not? If you explained why people shouldn’t binge drink, why wouldn’t they understand it? I think what Williams means is that these people don’t entirely agree with him, rather than they don’t understand him.

And Williams has no idea how the world of university works if he thinks you can ban initiation ceremonies. How on earth is that going to be enforceable? Even if you find a way of effectively banning them from uni bars, they will simply move to the corridors of colleges and halls of residence. And how are you going to stop that? Have lecturers stood in every room, in every hallway of student accommodation? Even if the resources were available to do that, it wouldn’t work. Can you imagine any university official volunteering for such a *joyous* job?

You often hear of people talking about politicians living in ivory towers, detached from reality. Well, Professor Williams is in exactly the same boat if he thinks that students just *don’t understand* that booze can be bad, or that initiation ceremonies could actually be banned.

There may be a problem with the binge-drinking culture in this country. It may be worth having a debate about it. However Williams’s comment shows he has nothing to add to that debate.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Great TV No-one Ever Mentions

The BBC has a list of great TV putdowns. It is all fairly predictable; Basil Fawlty, Edmund Blackadder and so on. But what about those programmes that never get mentioned despite being fucking good. They aren't all comedies, some really aren't well known, but are well worth looking up if you've never seen them:

How Do You Want Me? A surreal British sitcom about a city dweller living in the countryside. It has surrealist elements to it, but is actually remarkably downbeat. There are no easy resolutions to most of the episodes, and it does not romanticise life as so many sitcoms do. It also has people being nasty to each other: not in the exaggerated, Blackadder style way. Just pointlessly petty and shitty.

Oz If you think The Shield is a challenging series, then you'll be shocked by Oz. A prison drama from the US - it pulls no punches and is captivating, if often deeply troubling, viewing. Anyone who thinks that prison is a cushy option should have a look at this drama. Hell, the "relationship" between Beecher and Schillinger in the first season is the stuff that nightmares are made of.

Afterlife A series about a medium and a sceptic, written (largely) by Stephen Volk (who also wrote the terrifying Ghostwatch). It goes off the boil slightly in series two, but it manages to have some very unsettling moments and challenges the viewer to question whether ghosts are bad, good, or a bit of both. It also, for a series that (given the subject matter) is about death, manages occasionally to be both sad and affecting. And some of the episodes, such as lower than bones, sleeping with the dead, lullaby and a name written in water, do linger with you for a long time after the end credits have rolled.

Children of the Stones Ignore the terrible fashion, the often poor special effects and the shrieking instrumental music, and instead drink in the atmosphere. A surprisingly intelligent children's series, it does not feel the need to answer every single question posed by the script, and also hints that (whilst the two protagonists manage to escape at the end of the series) the unsettling events of the series are going to be played out again. Over and over again.

Happiness Written by and starring Paul Whitehouse, it tells the story of a comedian who voices a plasticine bear and who is going through (not least because of his career) a mid life crisis. Like How Do You Want Me? it has people being realistically petty and awful to each other, at the same time as having some laugh out loud moments of slapstick. It was cancelled by the BBC for reasons that defy understanding, but the two seasons that exist are still highly entertaining.

All of the above are not likely to be on the TV anytime soon, but it you ever find yourself in HMV or surfing Amazon and fancy a DVD as an impulse buy, you could do far worse than selecting one of the above.

Labels: , ,

Election 2008: Turban-gate

The Democrat race has been thrown into confusion and anger by this shocking photo:


I mean, seriously, Jesus, wow. Can I be the first to say... who fucking cares?

This is the very definition of a non-story, or a storm in a tea cup. The only people who are going to change their votes based on the above photo are the sort of inbred morons who, even if they can get their thick, webbed fingers around a pencil to vote, wouldn't put their shaky "x" in the Democrat's box anyway. This shouldn't matter.

And yet, it does.

Only yesterday I noted that the Democrats would have to work really hard to fuck up this election. But with the two Democrat candidates sniping at each other over this photo, I can't help but think that John McCain* is laughing himself silly over this story. The Democrats have their best chance of winning the White House since Bob Dole ran a campaign back in 1996 that consisted largely of resigning from the Senate and falling off a stage, and they are responding by tearing themselves apart.

If I was Democrat, I would be despairing. The Democratic contenders for the nomination have lost themselves in a trivial civil war, whilst the real enemy sleepwalks his way to his own party's nomination.

*Whose only real opponent is not taken seriously by anyone any more. Not even by Huckabee himself, I reckon.

Labels: , , , ,

The Drugs Don't Work

Or at least, the anti-depressant drugs. Apparently they might have about as much impact on those with depression as placebos.

Now, this is the sort of news story that makes me want to say "yeah, and?" Of course anti-depressants are going to have an effect on those with severe depression, and are going to have a limited impact on those with milder depression, Depression is a mental, not physical, illness. It is not an illness that can be cured by pumping drugs into someone - the very best that will do is temporarily allay some of the symptoms without dealing with the root cause of the illness. As much as it pains me to say it, the new government policy of training therapists rather than advocating the prescription of drugs may be correct.

I'm an advocate (in as much as I can advocate anything, as a layman cynical of any scheme to perfect the self) of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. So instead of prescribing endless courses of prozac, how about a trained therapist challenging those with depression on the fundamental reasons why they have depression? Instead of popping pills and hoping for the best, the medical profession should be advocating a proactive approach to understanding the illness and causes of the illness, thus enabling the sufferer to deal with their own illness in their own way.

Of course, if someone is in severe depression, then anti-depressants may help. But only as part of a wider course of psychological treatment. The answer to psychological disorders is not pills and pills alone. I concur with the conclusions of Professor Irving Kirsch, who was one of the leading researchers on the project (as quoted here):
"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescrive anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed to provide a benefit."
Ultimately, these results are a victory for the anti-psychitary movement, and offer some hpe that in the future mental illness might be treated as something more complex than just a headache or stomach upset that can be effectively countered with pills.

Labels:

The Libertarian Party

I used to be an active member of the Tory party, even campaigning for them in the 2005 election when the party was under Michael Howard. I left (flounced out might be a better description) less than a year after Cameron became leader. The party had ceased to stand for anything other than the naked pursuit of power, in my humble opinion, and I could see no part of being little more than a post Blair political marketing exercise.

Since then I watched politics from the sidelines, and have rather enjoyed not being politically aligned. There is a lot of fun to be had in sniping at all sides, without having to kowtow to party loyalties. And whilst joining UKIP was suggested by a number of different people, I never took the plunge. Whilst there are some capable, reasonable people in UKIP I cannot shake the feeling that the party is suffocated by middle Englanders - those who fear Europe because of some sort of feeling of jingoism. The Libertarians in UKIP seemed to be drowned out by the disaffected Tories. There was no party that matched my views, and rather than compromise, I elected to stand on the sidelines.

The Libertarian Party is a bit different. The policies are still very much under construction, and like all small parties, it runs the risk of being sidelined by the main parties, of being ignored by the media, of being hi-jacked by strange, off the wall minority opinions - of ultimately disappearing without a trace. But at least this party is trying to be a bit different - to challenge the post-Blairite consensus, to actually question whether the state has any right to be as large and as intrusive as it currently is.

Therefore, I've taken the plunge and become a member. I'm not expecting this party to sweep into power at the next election or anytime soon. I'm not expecting to become a leading light in the party - in fact I have no interest in political power for myself whatsoever. However, I do think that if you have political beliefs then you should stand up for them, and hopefully the Libertarian party will more accurately represent my views than any of the other parties. And I also hope that, even if the party never wins an election, that it at least challenges the overwhelming assumption of the political classes in this nation that state intervention is both good and the answer to almost every question.

So if you believe the state needs to be controlled in this country, and you think that personal freedom needs to be more passionately advocated in this country, then have a look at the party website. Sure, you might come away thinking "nope, don't agree with any of that." Or even if you do like the party, they might come to nothing. But ultimately, what have you got to lose?

Labels:

Monday, February 25, 2008

String 'em all up...

...Or so say 99% of you, according to The Sun. Of course, they don't quite reveal exactly who they are talking about. They don't spell out who you is.

There is an online vote; it doesn't show you the results. Judging by the comments on their debate, more than the tiny figure of 1% oppose the death penalty, despite the awful killers convicted over the past few days. And some of The Sun writers (over 50% of those quoted!) oppose the death penalty as well, at least for this type of killer. The closest we get to actually defining who the "you" is that The Sun refers to is in the phrase "Sun readers".

And I can believe that. I can believe that 99% of The Sun readers want to see hanging brought back. And no, this is not just a typical "diss The Sun readers" rant. Because I can understand where The Sun readers are coming from. The crimes of Wright, Dixie and now Bellfield are utterly awful, and part of me wants to shout "hang the fuckers!" from the very top of my voice. But the other reason why I am not surprised that the vote came out at 99% is the media itself.

The response to the convictions of Wright, Dixie and Bellfield has been little short of hysterical. It is time for a reality check. First of all, all of these people are now in prison and, although Bellfield has yet to be sentenced at the time of writing, very unlikely to be freed any time soon. They were a threat, they aren't any longer. I'd be surprised if any of these people was ever released from prison - I certainly hope they won't be.

Also, each of these terrible individuals seems to have acted on some sort of demented psychological impulse. They were all cunning, clever, psychopaths. The death penalty would not have stopped them. I'd be surprised if anything actually stopped these sexual predators.

And let's get some perspective on these murders. Only one of these killers can technically be described as a serial killer - Wright. Only he has been convicted of killing three or more people. Bellfield killed two, Dixie just one. And whilst each and everyone of these evil fuckers may end up in court charged with more murders, at the moment, their combined death toll is just eight. Which (as awful as their crimes may be) is next to nothing in a population of over 60 million.

Which leads me to my final point; yes, this trio might have killed more people. But they have yet to be convicted of anything other than those eight murders - five of which you can attribute to the same person. Killers they may be, but they are still innocent until proven guilty. And the last thing we want is a Lucas Report style approach in this country. "Oh, yeah, he killed someone. Let's see what else we can pin on the fucker."

Ultimately, if you take these crimes individually, then they are terrible, heinous crimes, but rare acts here in the UK. The reason why they seem to be far more terrifying and concerning than they are - as well as the impact of the media coverage - is that the trials all ended at a similar point. Had these people been convicted at varying times, then the impact of the convictions would have been much diminished. Since they all seem to have been sent down at the same time, it all appears far worse and far more terrifying than it actually is. The end of the trials comes as a result of a quirk of the judicial calendar - and the last thing we want to be doing is making policy that will decide whether people live or die based on any such quirk.

NB: I'm against the death penalty, if you haven't already picked up on that. For a full explanation, see here.

Labels: ,

Sack the Pig!

The Times has published details of how much the Speaker of the House of Commons costs us:

The Speaker’s bill
£137,000 Salary; he also gets a grace-and-favour apartment
£17,346 Expenses he claimed for a second home last year
£7,595 Expenses he claimed last year for running costs for using his Scottish home as an office, a practice from which MPs are discouraged
£50,000 Amount of public money he spent on air travel for his wife, Mary. She also spent more than £4,000 on taxis
£21,500 Amount of public money spent on legal challenges by Mr Martin’s office to newspapers, including The Times
£3,000 Value of Air Miles used by Mr Martin to fund flights between Scotland and London for his family. Guidelines stipulate that Air Miles should be used to reduce the cost of travel paid for by the taxpayer
£15,201 He also claimed £3,138 in car allowances, £10,587 in flights and £1,476 on stationery and postage
So, from what we know, the Speaker of the House of Commons cost us £251,642. £50,000 was spent on travel for the corpulent cunt’s wife. It gets even worse when you put these figures into perspective – I earn above the average salary for the UK, and I cost my employer just 14% of what the Speaker has cost the taxpayer. The main difference between the speaker and my good self is I’ve actually achieved something for someone, somewhere to justify my cost this year. I don’t think the speaker has.

Of course, with such alarming figures buzzing around, the House of Commons has acted with speed and with dignity:

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has now been asked to investigate whether more than £4,000 spent on taxis for Mrs Martin’s shopping trips amounted to an inappropriate use of public money.
You what, now? The House is investigating just £4,000 of the above? And they actually need an investigation to decide whether the fucking wife of an MP’s shopping trips are an appropriate use of public money? Let me save you the hassle, guys: no it fucking isn’t!

As Guido notes, it is time for Martin to go. If he won’t resign, he should be pushed out. He is a corrupt, incompetent shaved gorilla of a man. A bloated pig, standing at the front of the Commons, milking his position for everything it is worth. In any decent democracy the Speaker would be stripped off office, and thrown out into the street to the baying condemnation of the masses. However, in the decadent, fetid atmosphere of the modern House of Commons, the Speaker can rely on the support of his colleagues. Even in the face of such obvious, naked, corrupt use of public funds.

If the House wants to regain the respect of the electorate and fight corruption in the ranks, it could do far worse than striking out at the Speaker. Because this pink faced bloater is pissing not only on the dignity of the House, but all over the British electorate as well.

Labels: , , , ,

Nader for President! (Not Really)

Ralph Nader is running for President again. If you can call winning a few nods from seriously disaffected lefties in the US "running for President." I mean, let’s face it, Nader has exactly the same chance of becoming President as me – the square root of fuck all.

No doubt there will be considerable bleating from Democrats in the US that Nader is a spoiler – someone who is going to take votes from the Democrats and help to create another four years of Republican rule in the White House. And Nader probably will take some votes from the Democrats on the left this time out. He arguably did cost Al Gore the White House in 2000. But is that his fault?

Is it shite. The 2000 Presidential election should never have been close enough for the few votes that Nader generates to have any impact on the overall result. Gore – an articulate, experienced Vice-President should have kicked the bony, idiotic, fundamentalist arse of George W right across the US. Especially when stories about drink driving came out. Likewise, in 2004, Kerry should have smashed the living crap out of an unpopular President fighting an unpopular war. It was not Nader who cost the Democrats victory in both ’00 and ’04. It was the stunning incompetence of the Democratic candidates.

The same applies to this contest. After 8 years of Bush misrule, the Democrats should cruise to victory. As Nader himself notes (as quoted in the Telegraph):

Making his announcement on NBC's Meet the Press, he said if the Democrats could not win this year by a "landslide", despite his involvement, then "they should just close down".
Quite.

Of course, that does rather beg the question of why Nader is running for the presidency. But honestly, who will notice another wanker in this campaign chock full of wankers?

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Spokesman for the Speaker of the Commons resigns!

See here for details.

Nice story. Could only be improved if the corrupt, odious fat fuck who actually is the Speaker of the House resigns.

Labels: , , ,

Minor, Yet Horrifically Anger Inducing, Irritants #2

I don't buy pirate DVDs. I know people who do, I know pubs where you can pick up pretty much any film you want for a couple of quid. But as square and as lame as it makes me sound, I tend to obey the laws surrounding piracy. Primarily because the quality of illegal DVDs is so shite*.

So it really pisses me off to have to sit through those endless fucking anti-piracy adverts that start most DVDs these days. I don't care if pirated DVDs fund terrorism or damage future movie production - it ain't gonna stop me buying pirated DVDs because I don't already!

The worst one is the ad that runs on a load of US produced DVDs, such as the boxed sets of The Shield. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it is a good couple of minutes of would be funky music, whilst shaky images of people committing thefts (of cars, handbags and DVDs) are inter cut with a girl downloading a movie off the interweb. At the end of the ad the girl decides not to illegally download the movie after all and goes out. The message is simple - don't pirate movies or TV shows! Just a shame that the message is delivered in a way that only an obese, fuckwitted, middle aged marketing executive would think is relevant and funky.

And the worst thing is you can't skip it. For the love of God, you cannot skip it. You can jump from menu to menu on the actual DVD, you can skip through the whole DVD if you so wish. What you cannot do is skip this patronising, big old bag of shite advert. You go out, buy a DVD legally, and the only bit you cannot skip is a fucking insulting ad asking you not to steal this DVD!

Because if there is one thing that is going to get me to buy a pirated DVD or download a movie illegally is these fucking adverts. If the movie or TV show has been obtained illegally, at least I won't have to waste my time with these godawful adverts.

*I said I didn't buy them; I didn't say I'd never watched them.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 22, 2008

Smoking Ban Bollocks

Hennessey on the smoking ban in the Telegraph:

"Missing altogether, however, is what is to my mind the shining triumph of Labour's decade in power: the banning of smoking in pubs and restaurants. This superb and visionary piece of legislation, meaning no more evenings of being slowly poisoned and having your clothes reek of other people's stale tobacco for days on end afterwards, became law on 1 July last year, less than a week after Tony Blair's departure from Number 10. Forget power-sharing in Northern Ireland, banning smoking is something which will place future generations greatly in the former PM's debt. I intend no irony here - I am deadly serious."
Then you are a fucking tit, Mr Hennessey.

The smoking ban sums up precisely what is wrong with the Nu Labour government. They believe they know best about every aspect of life. They believe you should have no choice, just in case you make a choice that might not be 100% ideal healthwise. They do not believe in educating or trying to discuss lifestyle choices. They are totalitarian fucks. They simply remove freedom. They remove the right for adults to chose what they do and how they lead their lives.

The Nu Labour tits who compiled the list are right to leave it off. In fact, this ban shouldn't be in the law books at all. It is the very definition of what is wrong with Nu Labour. It sums them up right to their rancid, arrogant hearts.

Labels: , ,

Filled To The Brim

The prison system in this country seems to be fucked. It is operating at above maximum capacity. How are they coping?

Some 358 inmates are in police or court cells in an attempt to ease pressures.
Good, good, nice long term solution there then. Just so long as no-one in the country needs to be taken custody. Ever again. And no-one is sentenced to prison. Ever again.

But there is at least one prisoner who has just been sentenced who desperately needs a secure cell. Not just now, but every day for the rest of his life.

UPDATE

Actually, make that two prisoners who desperately need secure cells.

Labels: ,

Now You're Really Living

Culturally, we seem to like a story about someone who is doomed. People endlessly bang on about Diana, because she died before her time. The whole myth of Camelot around JFK in the US is partly based on the fact that he died young.

This tendency becomes even more pronounced when the victim in some way paves the way for their own tragedy. Be it through the abuse of drink and drugs, with the likes of Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Dylan Thomas et al, or be it through deliberate, intentional suicide, like Ian Cutris, Kurt Cobain, Sylvia Plath and so on.

I think it leads to the media obsession with the likes of Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty – after all, these people seem to be disintegrating in front of the flash bulbs of the paparazzi. And this morbid tendency is nothing new – after all, one of the most famous love stories in history is famous for the suicide of the two protagonists.

Which is fair enough, I suppose. This sort of tragedy is a part of life, and such tragedies can make beautiful, if distressing, stories. But it is also good to see/read the stories of those who deal with the tragedies that befall them, and who go away and try to make the most of life. And I’ve come across two such stories recently.

Firstly, there is the film of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. For those not in the know, it tells the story of a playboy editor who is, quite suddenly, hit by a massive stroke and becomes a sufferer of “locked in syndrome”. The only way he can communicate is through blinking – and only using one of his eyes, as the other (in a very distressing scene) is sewn shut. The film has all the hallmarks of a depressing and gut wrenching story. But actually it manages to be uplifting and amusing. The protagonist, Jean-Do, manages to maintain his sense of humour through internal monologues despite his terrible illness. He also manages to author a book despite not being able to speak or move anything other than his eye-lid. Sure, the story ends with his death, and at times Jean-Do seems to despair of his situation, but he managed to live on when so many other people would have given up living long before he did.

There is also the autobiography of indie rock star, Mark Oliver Everett, sometimes know as E. Things The Grandchildren Should Know tells the story of his life, and it is a dramatic story. At one stage E sees a photo showing four generations of his family in the same room. However, today, he is the last surviving member of his family. His book recounts how he found his father’s stiff body on the bed one morning, and how he pulled his father to the ground, tried to perform CPR based on instructions from the 911 operator. The operator clearly gave up when they heard the body was stiff – they knew his father had died. Years later, when he was first becoming an international star, his sister – a drug addicted, suicidal drunk – took her own life. And shortly after that, his mother was told she had terminal cancer. She died too, and after her funeral E found that the nurse who cared for – who kissed his dying mother goodnight in her final weeks and months – had run up huge international phone bills and had disappeared into thin air without paying. Other members of his family also died young – his cousin was on American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11th, when that plane crashed into the Pentagon.

You’d be forgiven for, having read the above summary, that this would be one depressing book. And you can’t get away from the fact that some parts of the book are heartbreakingly sad. But the overriding theme (and not just in this book but in a lot of E’s music as well) is that you can get through these tragedies. He feels like a stronger person because of what he has been through, and he has surprised himself with just how much he has been able to deal with. He acknowledges that he still feels desperately sad sometimes, but like Jean-Do, he has not let tragedy destroy his life.

Neither The Diving Bell and the Butterfly or Things The Grandchildren Should Know are perfect, and both stories show their authors to be as human as the rest of us, and therefore open to petty thoughts, selfish actions and self-pity. But it is great to see that, for all the romance of the doomed youth or the life cut short, the stories of those who are afflicted by tragedy or the stories of those left behind can be just as compelling, and even uplifting.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Election 2008: Why Clinton's losing

In what is fast becoming the norm, Barack Obama has kicked Hillary Clinton’s ass in yet another primary. He’s still not the nominee, but increasingly it looks like this political campaign is Obama’s to lose.

If he does manage to overcome Clinton, then it can only be a matter of time before someone cries "misogyny" . After all, the first serious female contender for the White House will have been rejected for someone much less experienced, arguably much less capable, and much more male, than her. And, no doubt, some people will have voted against Clinton because of her gender. It would be staggeringly naïve to think that no-one would be sexist in their voting choices.

However I don’t think that sexism is the key reason why Clinton is struggling to overcome Obama, and may yet lose the nomination. The problem, as the Daily Mash noted, is not so much that America doesn’t want to vote for a woman, but rather they don’t want to vote for that woman.

Clinton is less the victim of misogyny – it is the modern politics of personality that is causing her problems. Obama comes across as simply more likeable than Clinton. He is a great speechmaker, he is young(ish), good looking, charismatic and appears genuine. On the flip-side, Clinton appears calculating, difficult and never quite comfortable in front of a crowd. Her husband was the consummate, natural politician – Hillary very much isn’t. I think people aren’t voting for her (at least not in the numbers she needs) because, quite, simply, they don’t like her.

You can rail against this personality driven politics, and argue passionately that ability rather than media savvy should be the key driver for political success. God, I would far rather have a capable person with the personality of an angry puff adder as a political leader rather than someone who is photogenic but a total fucking incompetent. But this is the reality of modern politics. It isn’t about who will be best at foreign relations, or who can manage the health service most efficiently. It is about who looks best on the front cover of Time magazine.

Clinton isn’t the victim of sexism. She’s the victim of personality based politics. She isn’t the first victim, and she won’t be the last.

Labels: , ,

Clegg and Freedom

Nick Clegg is nailing his colours to the mast on the subject of the EU Treaty/Constitution. He is very much for the treaty, and expects his MPs to back him up on this position:

"Mr Clegg will order his MPs to vote against having a referendum on the treaty or to abstain - depending on the wording of a Conservative amendment."
On some levels, regardless of what you think of the EU Treaty, you could argue that Clegg’s position is intellectually honest. He has consistently supported the EU, and his piece in The Orange Book spells out that he thinks the EU (albeit in a much reformed state) is the solution to a lot of the current problems of the world. It would be naked opportunism for his to adopt a different stand point.

However… it is one thing for Clegg to hold particular views on a potential referendum, it is something else to force those views on his MPs - both through forcing them to vote against the referendum, and by preventing them from joining certain pressure groups. Sure, you could argue that Clegg is just trying to maintain party discipline. But the EU Treaty is such a fundamental and crucial piece of legislation that it should demand MPs to vote both with their intellect and with their conscience. And Clegg is denying his own MPs that opportunity.

I’ve never understood the mentality of those who passionately advocate the EU Treaty at the same time as denying the right to vote on said Treaty. If their case is strong enough, why not go to the people? Why doesn’t Clegg try to persuade his MPs of the validity of his position, rather than banning them from certain courses of action? Why not give people the freedom to decide for themselves, after the cases both for and against the Treaty have been put to the public?

Because this decision shows Clegg’s Liberal Democrats to be just the same as all other incarnations of the Liberal Democrats – neither liberal, nor democratic.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 18, 2008

The Cost of the Rock

Our Chancellor has finally got around to nationalising the country's biggest liability - Northern Rock. It has been about as popular as a paedophile in the News of the World Headquarters, but I am not going to lambast Darling for this latest act of incompetence. After all, he is only obeying the orders of his evil overlord.

But a few things are worth commenting on. First of all, there were bids from the private sector to run Northern Rock. Now, far be it from me to suggest that those who run successful businesses are more capable of dealing with the Northern Rock fiasco that the badger faced cunt and the man who makes Droopy the Dog look like the Joker, but really... the government offers the best "value for money"? This government? The government that has taken pissing money away and turned it into an artform? That is just crass.

And this is just reverting to the policies of the post war Labour governments - if there is a problem, nationalise it! If there is a chance, nationalise it! And as it turns out, this was a sure fire way of getting Labour voted out of power and into opposition for the next 18 years. So maybe this wasn't such a bad government decision... Although the extent to which this is a government decision is open to question. After all, hasn't Vince Cable been calling for this course of action for ages? It really comes to something when the Labour PM is following not even the Lib Dem leader, but rather a former Acting Lib Dem leader*.

Finally, just how much has this cost us? And how much is it going to cost us before we, as a nation, get to sell this failed business back to the shareholders? I've no idea of either figure, but I would like to know. In fact, I would like to know on a daily basis. So how about this. How about someone with some technological ability creates a blog button or similar facility that counts, each and every day, how much we, as taxpayers, are expected to cunt away on Northern Rock? Like a less hysterical, and more fiscal, version of the hyperlinks to the Religion of Peace.

Because, rest assured, this is not nationalisation. This is you, the taxpayer, subsidising a failed business even more. And given Darling's announcement, we ain't going to stop paying for the Rock for a good long while now.

*And there is every chance that, when the history books are written, that Cable will be seen to have had more impact on national politics not just that both his predecessor and successor as Lib Dem leaders, but also than most of the empty suits who populate Brown's Cabinet. Darling included.

Labels: , , , ,

Diana - Al Fayed speaks!*

Mohamed Al-Fayed's input to the Diana big fat waste of time is a startling mix of the accurate and the totally fucking barmy. He claims that the Duke of Edinburgh is a racist, which must be obvious to everyone bar the more extreme members of the BNP. He also claims that Diana was murdered by a combination of strobe lights, a drunken MI6 agent driver and a frigging fiat - a murder plot that would be too moronic and mental even for a Roger Moore Bond movie.

However, one question struck me as I skimmed over the latest bastard gibberish about this death that happened over a decade ago. Given Al-Fayed has sought his delusional vision of the truth for the past ten years, given he has kept these loopy conspiracy theories in the public glare, given he has spent millions of his own fortune to create an inquest into these deaths, and given the Royal Family were capable of creating a intricate and highly unlikely assassination of one of the most visible women in the world, given all that, why the fucking hell haven't they killed Al-Fayed?

Hell, bearing in mind that it would end the tedious, mind numbing and totally repetitive speculation around the Diana death at the same time as reducing the page count of the average issue of The Daily Express by a third, killing Al-Fayed would almost be a public service.

*Again.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Oh, the irony!

President George W Bush has called for free elections and for human rights in Zimbabwe.

I'm laughing so hard my sides hurt. After all, he would know what can go wrong with elections and how human rights might be abused.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

ABH: Hangdog

Mike Huckabee is continuing with his bid to win the Republican Presidential Nomination. However, as the Telegraph notes, his campaign is, well, fucked:

"Even if he were to win every remaining primary with more than 50 per cent of the vote he would still not catch up."
Of course, Huckabee won’t break the habit of a lifetime and let reality impact in his demented existence:

"Mr Huckabee, a Baptist minister and religious studies graduate, said at the weekend: "I didn't major in maths. I majored in miracles and I still believe in them.""
Twat.

The reasons why Huckabee is still in the race is that he is running for the vice-presidential slot. And, as I’ve noted before, Huckabee a heartbeat away from the presidency does not bear thinking about.

But it is not just his unshakeable believe in the invisible, ficticious sky fairy that bothers me. There is evidence that, beneath the ersatz charm, folksy faith and corny jokes, there lurks a darker, more corrupt side to Huckabee. Take this story, of what happened to a police chief who was asked to look at the accusation that Huckabee’s son hanged a dog:

"But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas's state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee's chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor's request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee's Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer's intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee's office and fired. "I've lost confidence in your ability to do your job," Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem," according to Bailey. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock, who worked closely with Bailey and called him a "courageous" and "very solid" professional."
Aside from noting that David Huckabee is not exactly blessed with the best looking face, there is something really unsavoury here. Not about the hanging of the dog – that is a pathetic, stupid act, but that was David Huckabee rather than Mike. No, the problem here lies with Huckabee approaching the police to effectively pervert the course of justice, and then sacking the police officer concerned, citing the non-compliance over the incident with his son.

Yes, this is small fry compared to the sort of things that a President would have to deal with. But that is precisely the point. This doesn’t really matter as it is a small, parochial incident. However, the bullying and disregard for the law would be far worse in someone who has to defend and protect the constitution of the US. It is not just his beliefs that could damage the USA, it is also his attitudes.

So I say again to McCain and to the thousands of people who are still voting Huckabee in the US – ABH. Anybody But Huckabee.

Labels: , , ,

Obama’s done well again. He’s still a long way off actually getting into the White House, but he is now probably the front runner for the Democratic Nomination.

Which means that he will be exposed to even more idiocy from random nutters. Today’s nutter is lefty writer, Doris Lessing. She thinks that Obama might be assassinated if he was elected President:

Doris Lessing, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, said a first black American president would not be tolerated by some.
That would be Doris Lessing, noted authority on Presidential Security and Safety, of course. It is a determined conspiracy theorist who starts using phrases like "They would murder a black president" not just before the assassination, but before the poor fucker actually wins the nomination to run for President.

But the point, whilst technically correct, is so mindless that it makes me want to punch the wall with frustration. Of course Obama might be targeted. Of course there will be racist yokels in the US who will want to take extreme action against a black president. But dontcha think that this might have occurred to someone in the US anyway? Like, say, errr, the Secret Service. You know, that specialist organisation that has been in existence since 1865. And has been learning (sometimes through mistakes) since 1865 how to protect the Commander in Chief.

Sure, Kennedy was assassinated whilst under Secret Service protection. Now the Secret Service thinks twice before letting the President be driven very slowly down the street in an open top limousine. Yes, Reagan was shot in the chest, but since then the Secret Service is wary of letting the President wander out of buildings and also encourages their agents not to take their eyes off the crowd*. Sure, the resourcefulness of potential assassins should not be under estimated. Likewise, the resourcefulness of the Secret Service shouldn’t be underestimated either.

The US President is probably the most protected person on this planet. So whilst there should be a number of concerns about Obama becoming President, like his lack of policies on everything bar attacking Pakistan, the risk of a potential assassination shouldn’t be one of them. Sure, there are a fuck load of nutters out there, waiting to shoot. But there is also a service designed and committed to stopping them.

*This happened in the Reagan assassination attempt – you can find the footage on you tube somewhere. I can’t be arsed to look it up. Sorry. But if you watch it, the Secret Service Agent walking towards the camera takes his eyes off the crowd for a moment. Which happens to be the same moment as Hinckley taking out his gun and starting to shoot.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Death Penalty

The widow of Garry Newlove, the man kicked to death by a group of teenagers, has spoken out about her loss. And about the need for the restitution of the death penalty.

Now, let’s be very clear on this. Gary’s murder was a horrific crime. Those who committed it are evil, inhuman little turds who have rightly been imprisoned. And let us hope that their sentences are long, and each and every day is painful, unpleasant, and undignified. Because those little fuckers absolutely deserve it. Every moment of it.

However, this crime – and any other heinous murder – does not make the case for the death penalty. Quite simply, the state does not have the right to take the life of anyone. I don’t doubt that this is a controversial statement, and there will be a multitude of people who disagree with me, but I cannot see any case where the state should be able to kill. And nothing in what Mrs Newlove says changes that opinion.

She says:

"We need to think about the death penalty because it's the only way these kids are going to wake up to the pain they are causing."
Will the death penalty actually do that? This is close to the argument that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to those that will kill. The problem is that is incorrect. People still kill. The US is a great example: it has had the death penalty for years, and still people murder. Either because they do not think they will be caught and sentenced to death, or they just plain don’t care.

And the death penalty won’t make kids wake up to the pain they are causing. It might make them afraid of the consequences of their actions, but as I’ve noted above, there is no guarantee of that. However these kids are still going to be ignorant, unfeeling, evil little shits on occasion – death penalty or no death penalty. Particularly if they are under the influence of alcohol. The Tory proposals about enforcing the drinking laws make more sense here.

"Make no mistake, if the liberals running our justice system ever let these three out, they will kill again. They are ticking time bombs."
Well, if they are a threat to others, they shouldn’t be released. Ever. To me, a life sentence should mean life if need be. That these kids serve the rest of their lives in prison, if need be, to make others safe. And in some respects a life in prison might be worse than the death penalty.

"If we had the electric chair like in America, I'd watch them fry without the slightest feeling of sympathy."
Oh, absolutely. I don’t doubt that Helen Newlove would watch the little bastards fry. And don’t deny it, you’d feel the same way too. If it was your loved one, your parents, your siblings, your family, your friends. You’d want to see their killers die. Hell, I’ll bet you’d want to throw the lever yourself. Don’t deny it – with all the grief, loss, and rage left by an unthinking, brutal murder of someone you love, wouldn’t you want (even for the briefest moment) them to die? There is nothing wrong in Helen Newlove’s reaction. In fact, it is perfectly natural.

Which is precisely why we shouldn’t let the opinions of those who have suffered such a horrific loss decide the policies of this country. Those who are dealing with a terrible bereavement are not in the right, rational and calm frame of mind to weigh up all the ins and outs of this issue. Grief, rage and revenge are poor guides when you are considering national policies. The fact that Mrs Newlove lost her husband in a horrific manner does not automatically make her views on the death penalty correct. Just as the murder of Sarah Payne does not make the views of her mother on the law correct.

The death penalty is wrong. It is not a deterrent, and you run the risk of the state murdering an innocent person. But above all, the very last thing we want to do is give the power hungry state even more power over the citizens. And particularly not the legal power of life and death.

Labels: ,

Ashes to Ashes

Mr Angry notes the complaints the BBC have received about their new (well, sequel) drama, Ashes to Ashes. People are complaining about Gene Hunt. Or, as Mr Angry points out:

Well, not so much him, as much as his car. You see, the model of Audi sports car that he is seen driving in 1981, was not actually available until 1984, and this appears to have infuriated the masses.

The wrong model of car. Which could not possibly have been in existence in 1981, except perhaps on a drawing board in West Germany.
Which seems fine. Complaining about an anachronism. Until you realise:

…that they are perfectly happy with the premise of a woman being shot in the face and traveling back in time 27 years and finding herself attending a boat party dressed as a prostitute. That is absolutely fine. No problems there whatsoever. It is just the car they take issue with.
Always good to keep a sense of perspective, isn’t it? But what sort of people would complain about this?

…silly fucking car-loving twats.
Quite.

Labels: ,

Showcasing the Talentless

Via Mr E (and it is well worth following that link, if only for the funniest picture of Adrian Mole, - sorry, David Miliband- that I think I have ever seen) I see that Gordon Brown is pushing the "bright young things" of his cabinet in an attempt to reinvigorate his beleaguered premiership.

Of course, if you have been in the job for less than a year and are already having to re-launch yourself, then things really aren’t going well. But understanding that is going to be a little complex for someone lacking in self awareness as much as that prig Brown.

However, one paragraph really springs out in this article:

Mr Purnell, 37, Ed Balls, 40, his wife Yvette Cooper, 37, Mr Burnham 38, David Miliband 42, his brother Ed, 37, Ruth Kelly 39, and Douglas Alexander, 40, will be encouraged by Mr Brown to make an impression with the public and to show that they have radical ideas. "Their talents will be showcased," an adviser said.
Two points. First of all, it is difficult to imagine that dour git encouraging anyone to do anything. I mean, what does he do when he encourages people? Bring them into his dank, dark office and sit there, bullying them into doing what he wants? Does he threaten to cut their faces if they don’t bend to his egregious, self-serving will, and carry out his evil deeds? And what on earth does Brown – a man afraid of his own shadow – mean by radical? Radical for his government would be not fucking up or accepting corrupt donations for five minutes.

And then, the wonderful, and no doubt ironic, statement of "their talents will be showcased". Seriously, what? Those terrible, odious little shits listed in that paragraph? Showcase their talents?

Well, that shouldn’t take long then.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2008

Election 2008: Some Policies, please, Senator Obama

Another bunch of contests in the US primary seasons, and another raft of stories about winners and losers without anyone actually sewing up these contests. This weekend, Clinton is the loser. Her campaign is in crisis. Obama is now being viewed as the front runner (despite not having as many delegates as Clinton.) And so it will be until the next time Clinton wins a primary again. Then she will be the comeback kid. And there will be endless articles about Obama losing momentum. Which will continue until he wins another primary. And soon on, ad nauseam, until one of them actually gets around to winning the nomination.

However, it is not just the media who seem to be treating Obama as the front runner. President Bush seems to be doing so as well:

"Underlining Mr Obama's effective status as front-runner, President George W Bush made his first detailed public comments about his would-be successor Sunday. "I certainly don't know what he believes in," Mr Bush said in a Fox News interview.

""The only thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad [Iran's president].""
Terrible, isn’t it, but I actually agree with Bush. Now Obama is emerging as the front runner, he really needs to come up with some policies other than those listed above. The Audacity of Hope is all very well, but he needs to overcome the paucity of policy pretty promptly.

Still, the Obama campaign has a nice line in rebutting such slurs (even if they are true):

"Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr Obama, said the Democratic candidate "doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation"."
Ooo, that’s gotta hurt.

Labels: , ,

Shut the Fuck up about... Amy Winehouse!

Bag lady in waiting Amy Winehouse wins Grammys but can’t attend the award ceremony. Why? Because she’s a fucking junkie. End of story. So let’s hear no more about this woman until there is actually something newsworthy.

I’m sorry, I'm being misnathropic and grumpy this morning, but I am sick to fucking death of hearing about Amy pissing Winehouse. And I can’t be the only one. Regardless of whether she is talented or not*, these endless bloody stories of her wandering around London, stoned off her saggy tits, are dull, tedious and utterly repetitive. It was bad enough when it was Pete "pasty faced cunt" Doherty wondering around like a gormless cretin, but at least he wasn’t milling around bleating about his "Blake, incarcerated." Fuck off, Amy, you dreadful, unwashed moron. Your Blake is in prison for perverting the course of justice in his GBH case. It is difficult to have too much - or, indeed, any - sympathy for him.

But I’m railing against Amy unfairly here. With all the attention she gets, it is no wonder that she plays up to the media. If you give someone lost in the self-absorption of drug addiction a microphone to the nation, then they are going to take it. So it is actually all those news outlets who bang on about the Winehouses and Dohertys of this world that are the problem. And they’re only playing up to the cult of celebrity in this country that the public seems to love so much.

Ultimately, the cult of celebrity in this country is bad enough, without us being absorbed in the petty dramas when one of these "celebrities" develops an addiction to a particularly nasty drug. The next story we should hear about Winehouse is when (and if) she beats her crack habit. In the meantime, leave the junkie without the oxygen of publicity inflating her car accident of a life out of all reasonable proportion.

*I don’t think she is, but that could just be musical taste. Although I quite liked her version of Valerie. In terms of junkie rock stars, I favour the music of Pete Doherty. Although I think they both deserve a sound kicking. Not volunteering to administer that kicking myself, though. That pungent aroma of sweaty performer mixed with stale crack cocaine would cause my stomach to curdle.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 08, 2008

Insomnia

Turns out that Heath Ledger died of an accidental drug overdose. He didn't die of heroin, he didn't commit suicide, he wasn't murdered by Prince Philip and the CIA*. He had an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. The very definition of a tragic accident.

The news of Ledger's death brought out the inappropriate side of me. Nothing on the scale of Mr E's recent attempt, but inapproriate nonetheless. I was in the office, discussing the death with a colleague and my manager, and I noticed that Ledger was the same age as me when he died. I decided to say that Ledger hadn't achieved as much as me in his life - a bold, and possibly incorrect, statement. And, indeed, my colleague queried me on exactly how I'd achieved more than Ledger. The bastard in me replied "well, I'm 28, and I'm still alive." Just as well I don't believe in Karma, otherwise comments like that would certainly be coming back to haunt me.

I was also listening to British Sea Power shortly after Ledger passed on, and the song "To Get To Sleep" came on. And the lyrics struck me as curiously relevant:

"Took a pill last night
Just to get to sleep
Put me on my back
Not on my feet
Propylene across your eyes
To take me to the land of sighs"

Followed by:

"Oh it left my heart broken
It took my breath away
A little lesson open
A little more each day
A little eyesore
A little Nytol
A little heartache
A little soothe-all"

If anything (other than the overdose of drugs) killed Ledger, then it was insomnia. And there I have a lot of sympathy for him. Whilst it hasn't been too bad recently, I've had insomnia as well. And if you've never had insomnia before, you have no idea how awful it can be. Going to bed at 11pm, and only managing to get to sleep at around 4am (when you have to get up at 6am) is masively depressing. And if you get up and do something, all you are doing is making it less likely that you will sleep at all. You end up haggard and exhausted in the morning, forcing yourself to get through the day, when all you want to do is sleep. I can see why people drink to sleep, why they take prescription drugs. And why it becomes "a little more each day".

Insomnia is one of those conditions - like depression - that isn't really discussed. Those who have never suffered from it tend to dismiss it, making it less likely that those who do suffer from it will be open about what is happening to them. And until that taboo is dealt with, you'll get more self-medication, more overdoses, and more tragedies - just like Ledger's death.

*In fairness, I haven't actually heard any accusations that Ledger was murdered. But the best way to deal with any potential conspiracy theories is to nip them in the bud before they even start.

Labels:

ABH: Anyone But Huckabee

Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign for the White House. Interesting language, that – "suspended". Almost as if he is giving it all a short break, and will resume fighting for the nomination sometime next week. Anyway, he’s out of it. What did for Mitt? Probably his strangely egregious campaign (nicely spoofed here) which consisted of funding adverts from his own fortune that attacked his opponents without really advocating himself.

We are now in the curious, and worrying, position where there are only two people in the Republican primary season who have won states – John McCain, and Mike Huckabee. It is the latter name that is so worrying. Now, I’ve banged on enough about the problems of Huckabee, and why he appears to me to be utterly demented. But the terrifying thing is he still has a shot at the presidency, and (failing that) the vice-presidency.

So I’m starting a campaign: ABH*. Anybody But Huckabee.

The objectives are simple – to send two key messages across the Atlantic:

1. To the Republicans – stop voting for Huckabee. Seriously, just stop it! It is not big, it is not clever, and if Huckabee ever got into the White House, then the US will have no friends.

2. To John McCain – It may be politically expedient to offer a space on your ticket to Huckabee, but the fact that it is politically expedient doesn't make it right. Stand by your principles (I'm assuming he has some, I know) and consign this daft, ignorant man to the dustbin of history.

Join me, friends, enemies, Americans - join me in trying to stop this man who makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looks like a sensible moderate getting anywhere near the White House.

*Which can also stand for Actual Bodily Harm, natch.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Christian Calls For Sharia Law. Eh?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has opened his mouth again - this time to argue for the partial introduction of Sharia law here in the UK. Inevitably, the rubbish that spews forth when he opens his gob is not unlike the vomit from the mouth of a cretin who has consumed too much pizza: useless, unpleasant and with a nasty aroma of cheese.

I don't really know what his latest speech is meant to achieve, other than alienate the flock he is meant to be leading and most of the other people in this country, but it does show a staggering ignorance when it comes to the law. Ultimately, the law is catch-all - it does apply to everyone who lives in this country, regardless of what community they live in. You can live in different ways, according to your beliefs, if you so wish and if it is in line with the law. Ultimately, any other way leads to anarchy, and the breakdown of the rule of law.

I can't muster the same levels of rage that DK has over Williams - Williams is a stupid man, clearly unsuited to his position, and with an apparent inability to talk sense. And as such, he is not unlike many other people who hold senior positions organisations in this country. And like all stupid people who open their mouths and babble incoherent rubbish, he should be ignored.

The staggering stupidity of what Williams has said is put into sharp focus by the fact that he has made a Liberal Democrat appear to be the voice of reason. So, Calamity Clegg, over to you:
"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. There is a huge difference between respecting peoples' right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."
Quite.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

This is a new defence

From the trial of the suspected killer of Sally Anne Bowman:

"The defendant confesses that he had sex with Sally Anne and that he had sex with her after her death, but he denies he is the killer."
Riiiggghhtt. So his defence is that he had sex with her corpse. That's his defence.

Well, that's a ground breaking way to get the jury onside. You can just picture the defence lawyer, sitting listening to this defence, his head in his hands, wondering whether his case for this defendant could be any weaker.

There are very few occasions when you can say that, innocent or guilty, you want a defendant to rot in hell. In view of this confession, this would be one such case.

Labels: , ,

Cleaning up Corruption, the Parliament Way

Two news stories that would suggest that our elected oligarchy - sorry, leaders - are starting to take the blight of corruption amongst their members seriously. Until you look at the facts.

First up, we have the news that the corpulent cunt who acts as Speaker of the Commons has chosen three MPs to look into the question of, erm, MP's expenses. Of course, being MPs, they are bound to be neutral - they couldn't have any vested interests, surely? And when you examine who the MPs chosen actually are, as Guido does so well here, you can't help but think that this trio examining corruption in the House is a bit like allowing Peter Sutcliffe to investigate murders - ie, a total fucking farce. The fact that they think this will fool us again shows the deep contempt that they hold the electorate in.

Then you have young "Hug A Husky" Cameron pledging transparency on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet. Which would be very noble if it hadn't have taken the political obliteration of a Tory arsehole to achieve this. And besides, shouldn't we expect transparency over the the expenses of MPs anyway? Shouldn't we be able to take that as read? After all, it is our fucking money the greedy whores are cunting away.

To look at British Politics in 2008 is to fill oneself with a certain sick despair. We now seem to be in a situation where not only do the parties not argue over policy anymore, nor who is best placed to implement this broad consensus, but rather who is the least corrupt. Yep, the choice you have at election time is to choose the party that is less fraudulent and deceitful than the others. Note that we aren't able to choose a party that isn't corrupt. That would be asking for too much.

And suddenly the words of Oliver Cromwell* seem exceptionally relevant to this day and age:

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!

"So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
*The Moai sent me that link. In relation to hypocrisy in the EU. But I rather think the words are suitable for the UK parliament as well. And, indeed, to corrupt fucks everywhere. I also think another blogger has used Cromwell's words recently - apologies, stealing your idea a bit, but the speech just seems so relevant to the UK in 2008.

Labels: , , , , ,

Clinton: Crying for Victory!

Hillary's at it again - she goes behind in the opinion polls, so the tears start again. In New Hampshire, it came across as emotive and human. Now, it comes across as cycnical and manipulative.

So here we have modern US electioneering. They've had years of dirty campaigning, now they're going to have blubbing campaigning. A new low? Perhaps. But only if it works this time.

But let's hope that this campaign tactic isn't adopted over here in the UK. It gives me a vision of the jowly face of Gordon Brown crumpling on the campaign trail; of the warm tears running down his grey, craggy visage; of his perpetually sweaty upper lip becoming encrusted with snot.

Which, I think you'll agree, is a stomach churning image.

Labels: , ,

Monday, February 04, 2008

Running Mates

Tomorrow, the primary season in the US Presidential Election goes into overdrive. We have Super Tuesday, and we could see the nominations sewn up by Wednesday morning. The Democrat race is closer than the Republican one, but nonetheless we could know who the two candidates are for the White House within the next few days.

Which means that the race for the White House will calm down for a while, as the candidates disappear into a thousand fund raising dinners, to ready themselves for the main campaign after the nominating conventions in the summer. However, there will be one big news story between knowing who the nominee is and the campaign for the White House starting in earnest. That’ll be the announcement of the vice-presidential candidates for both parties.

Regardless of who ends up with the Democratic nomination, I rather think that their rival candidate will end up with the winner on the ticket. Obama/Clinton (or vice versa) remains a potent combination – and a good mix of experience and "hope" (which Americans seem to think it crucial, even if the candidate concerned feels no need to qualify it in any meaningful way). And choosing one of these should be no problem as the other Democrat contender for President, John Edwards, appears to have no interest in running for veep again.*

The Republican contest is more interesting. McCain, barring a massive electoral upset tomorrow, will be the Republican nominee for President. The endorsements are behind him, and he seems to have the momentum. But when it comes to choosing the second place on his ballot, he has a lot of options. Giuliani could be rewarded for his loyalty in the face of defeat. Huckabee would help deliver the Bible Belt. And Romney (if things haven’t got too bitter over the course of the primaries) might help unite the party. However choosing one over another is always going to be controversial, and could cause further rupture in the party.

But there is another reason why this choice will be crucial to McCain and his bid for the White House. Normally, the job of Vice-President is, as one holder of the office stated, not worth a pitcher of warm piss.** However, if McCain becomes President, the Vice-President could conceivably become President during the next administration. The simple fact is that McCain is an old man. And he is an old man who has been seriously ill. It is not inconceivable that McCain might die in office simply from old age. And it is even more likely that at some point he will have to undergo some sort of incapacitating medical procedure, which may mean invoking the 25th Amendment. After all, this has happened under Bush, who is younger and comparatively more healthy. And if that amendment is invoked, whoever is Vice-President steps up to the highest office in the land.

It is a cliché to say that the Vice-President is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, but like many a cliché it happens to be true. Which means McCain should devote a lot of thought to who he makes his vice-presidential candidate. The selection above is not great, but there is one name that stands out as a definite no.

The demented Mike Huckabee being a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Doesn’t bear thinking about.

*Probably because of the overwhelming sense of déjà vu that it would give him.
** Sometimes quoted as spit. Unsurprisingly, I go for the more profane version.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wendy Alexander: The Best They've Got.

Guido has a round-up of (some) of the corruption stories involving our beloved leaders. Lots to choose from, but the one that stands out for me is the story that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Wendy Alexander, is facing prosecution for illegal donations. However, unlike Hain, she doesn’t have the decency to stand down.*

Still, according to The Times, she is being supported:

"She was buoyed by robust declarations of support from her Labour group of MSPs at Holyrood and from other key figures in the Scottish party, some of whom hinted that they believe the standards watchdog who has referred her case to prosecutors is guilty of a "stitch-up"."
Evidently I have misunderstood the definition of stitch-up. I thought that it was where someone innocent was framed for something they didn’t do. Whereas clearly it means "politician being prosecuted for accepting an illegal donation." That’s me corrected!

But there is perhaps a more pragmatic, and more depressing, reason why Alexander is being supported whereas Hain was (eventually) hung out to dry.

"However, some of her backbench MSPs also admitted that she had to stay in post because there is no obvious candidate to succeed her."
Nice, there we have it. The calibre of candidates with the Scottish Labour Party is so poor that even if you are facing prosecution for corrupt funding, you are still a viable candidate for the leadership. It is a bit like Derek Conway being elected Tory leader. The excuse that there is no obvious candidate to succeed her is not only not good enough, but also a staggering indictment of the state of the Scottish Labour Party.

*"Hain" and "decency" in the same sentence is something I never thought I’d see on this blog. Unless separated by the words "has absolutely no".

Labels: , ,

Bugging Your Own

Just when you thought that our leaders had reached rock bottom, we see them hitting a new low. Because now we have the Labour government bugging Labour MPs, in contravention of a Labour doctrine set up by a Labour PM. There is some validity in asking why MPs should be saved from bugging when no-one else is, but that’s not my point here. What strikes me is the crippling, jaw-dropping paranoia behind this incident. Not only do they not trust the electorate, they don’t trust their own MPs. It is that murky X-Files mentality: Trust No-One.

It was a bugging scandal that brought down Richard Nixon. Let’s hope that Nu Labour is finally brought down by this scandal – or any of the other numerous scandals surrounding this tattered, tired mess of an administration – sooner rather than later. Britain deserves a much more capable and a much less paranoid government.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 01, 2008

Turns Out McCain *is* a Moron

Thus far, amongst the utter rubbish running for President, I’ve been reasonably impressed with John McCain. Sure, he makes Ming The Merciful look like a spring chicken, but at least he has avoided the temptation to talk total crap.

Oh so I thought until I read this article.

Two things stand out. Firstly he:

"…had to apologise after saying of the Clintons' daughter: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno (Bill Clinton's lesbian attorney-general, who was said to have been having an affair with Hillary)."
Nice. Manages to be neither clever nor funny.

And:

"Questioned last year about possible military action against Iran, McCain responded by singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann. Asked later if he had been insensitive, he said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?""
Like Obama before him, we have a US Presidential candidate who makes Bush Junior look positively moderate on foreign policy. Which is utterly terrifying.

Apparently:

"McCain is aware of his problem, admitting he has the personality trait of being a "wiseass"."
Yeah. FYI, Senator McCain, judging by these comments you aren’t a wiseass. You’re an ignorant cunt.

*Sighs*

Why the fucking hell can’t have a US Presidential candidate who doesn’t come across like a power hungry, vindictive, ignorant, thoughtless moron?

Labels: , ,

ID Cards - A Bad Week For Freedom

A couple of posts have stood out to me this week, high-lighting not just why ID cards are bad policy but also why they are the enemy of freedom and an absolute evil in this country. The first one comes, via the eagle eyes of the Moai, from Boing Boing. It details a leaked government document that includes the startling and frightening phrase "Various forms of coercion... are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way." That's right, the government is looking at ways in which to coerce you into having an ID card. Fuck any rhetoric about you being able to chose whether you have a card or not, you're going to be coerced into it.

And guess what? A lot of people in this country are going to have to pay a fucking fortune for the privilege. I'm not just talking about paying through your taxes and the £89 or whatever the government wants to charge you for having your identity robbed. As Mr Eugenides shows, it is actually going to cost some people thousands of pounds to be treated like a pet; to be fingerprinted, to have their DNA coerced from them, to be herded like cattle into the database state.

This has no place in a liberal democracy in the 21st Century. Fuck Godwin's Law, coercing people to surrender their fucking identity to the state and them charging them for the privilege is the politics of Stalin, of Pol Pot, and, yes, of Hitler. This ID card scheme represents the slide towards totalitarianism, to the day where we all have microchips, and are the property of the state. We have to fight ID cards, because it is the fight for our identities, and because it is the decisive battle as to whether the state is the servant of the people, or whether we are the servants of the state. The astounding arrogance of our *leaders* cannot and must not be tolerated. We need to stop this now, before people in this country are called for "interrogation". Take the pledge, join the groups, stop ID cards. Stop the scheme now, before it is too late.

NO2ID - Stop ID cards and the database state

Labels: , ,

Backing Bands

Last night I went to see British Sea Power at Koko in Camden. As you might expect from a band voted Time Out Live Band of the Year in 2004, they were good. In fact, they were very good. And the bear costume was very good. Much better than you might expect from a bear costume. Quite why British Sea Power have a bear coming on stage for the finale I have no idea. But it works.

However, the backing bands weren't great. In fact, they were pretty shit. The first band on stage was the best of the backing bands - a French combo where the lead vocals were shared between a guitar playing bloke and a bass playing girl. I'm not sure whether they were shagging, but if they weren't then they should be. The levels of sexual tension and frustration on the stage were sky high.

Then we had a strange fella taking to the stage with an acoustic guitar. Just him, and his guitar. And his collection of really shit songs. I haven't seen such a weird and shit set since I was in a lesbian bar in Amsterdam, watching another solo acoustic guitarist go through his collection of demented songs (one was called "Jihad", another was a love song that included the lyric "I'm going to poke her in her love hole"...) Songs that include lyrics like "Porcupine Pineapple" should be retained for an individual's private world, and only really performed to the singer's mother during the brief breaks the singer takes between bouts of frenzied masturbation. Not sung on a large stage at a busy venue.

And finally we had a band of what looked like students. Despite desperately trying to be cool, their music was quite good and they had at least tried to present themselves in an slightly original way. What a shame, then, that their lyrics were complete crap. One song seemed to be about "what is your favourite number?" and "what is the reason for that?" My replies: "I don't have a favourite number" because "I am not autistic."

Which brings us to the burning question - not so much why do headliners have backing bands, but rather why do headliners have such shit backing bands? Other big bands I've seen have had equally shite backing bands, so it isn't just British Sea Power. Part of me thinks that the headliners deliberately choose the worst possible bands to back them, in the hope that even if they have a really bad night, at least their backing bands will have been worse, making them look good in comparison. Sounds cynical, but I really can't think of any other reason why British Sea Power would have a tit with an acoustic guitar gurning his way through a set of sub-Radiohead/REM songs on stage before they come on.

Labels: , , ,

Cameron Praises Thatcher... at last.

It really says something when the current Tory leader meeting the greatest Tory Prime Minister is headline news.

It really says something else when you realise that meeting is taking place after a highly publicised meeting between the incumbent Labour Prime Minister and that great Tory PM.

I've heard all the justifications for Cameron's attempts to distance himself from the legacies of the previous Tory administrations - I understand them, I know what he is trying to achieve, and if he thinks it will work, good luck to the foppish cunt. But all Cameron is doing is pandering to the simplistic narratives of the media. He has to make a "decisive break with the past", all the time ignoring that there was actually a fuck of a lot of great stuff that happened under Thatcher and under Major. The Tory legacy should be acknowledged, not least by the current leadership. You can feel ambivalent about it, but the triumphs of the 18 years of government between 1979 and 1997 should not be treated like a dirty secret. And certainly not by the Tory Leader.

Labels: , ,