So, that's it. That's the end of the decade where all sorts of historical things happened. Including the start of this blog. I've not much more to say, really, other than to wish the readers of this blog a very Happy New Year.

Have a good 'un, and I will see you in 2010.

The Best Films of 2000-2009

So, just as my list of the best songs of the past decade revealed my musical preferences, so this list will indicate what films I prefer to watch. Basically, if it has zombies or a superhero in it, I'll watch it...

10: 28 Days Later

Ok, it is a massive rip off of The Day of the Triffids, but it is a well-written, well-acted and brilliantly directed zombie movie that manages to combine scares and horror with interesting, sympathetic characters. The sequel is almost as good. And it introduced the concept of the running zombie, that has changed the genre forever.

9: Garden State

I'm not a big fan of the romantic comedy. However this is a romantic comedy. But it is a romantic comedy involving fucked up people. No, wait, scratch that. It is a romantic comedy involving very human people. And it involves people being dumb in a very human way. As part of a genre that seems to represent the very definition of crap, Garden State tries to do something a bit different. And succeeds.

8: Dawn of the Dead

Obviously the remake. The original was released over 30 years ago. It manages to equal the brilliance of the original by adhering to the basic pattern but not slavishly following it. It also is one of those films where Anyone Can Die - even with the implication at the end that everyone is going to die. It also has one of the best introductions to a movie I have seen in ages. When the apparently lead couple go to sleep in the evening, everything appears to be Ok. When they wake up in the morning, there is hell on earth.

7: Shaun of the Dead

Proof positive that a British comedy doesn't have to be written by Richard Curtis, star Hugh Grant and be total crap. Sure, it is Spaced of the Dead, but so what? That's part of the reason why it is so great.

6: Anchorman

It is a moronic, idiotic comedy. Yet it is a moronic, idiotic comedy that absolutely works. It has become a genuinely iconic movie that has become more than just a film. If you have seen it, I can almost bet that you have a favourite quote from it. Or at least a scene that brings a smile to your face.

5: The Darjeeling Limited

On paper, this might not sound like the best material for a great film. A group of dysfunctional, wealthy brothers go on a train trip in India. But what materialises is a wonderfully funny and poignant film. The lead characters are flawed without being arseholes, the locations are wonderful and the soundtrack is awesome. Comes heartily recommended from me.

4: Rec

A Spanish zombie movie with a very short run time. Again, might not sound that promising. But this movie truly is like being hit in the face with a brick - when the nightmare starts, it does not let up. And the final scenes in the top apartment, when the rug is swept from under the viewers and there is am implication that there is a great evil at work, is staggering. The best horror movie in a decade where there had been no shortage of great horror movies.

The US remake is shit, mind.

3: Spiderman

X-Men launched the new superhero wave in cinema, and it was a great film in its own rights. However, Spiderman was a far more affecting and human film. Everything about it is, on some levels, genius. Tobey Macguire, with his wide-eyed innocence, was an exceptional Peter Parker. Willem Dafoe, as the Green Goblin, was compellingly unhinged. And Kirsten Dunst managed, in this film anyway, not to be completely annoying as Mary-Jane. The direction is outstanding, and the plot is the very definition of what a superhero movie should contain. There is a certain brilliance to Spiderman that has not been found in any of the sequels, or any of the superhero movies that have followed. Not even the one at Number One.

2: The Wrestler

When I first heard about Mickey Rourke playing a washed-up wrestler, I'll be honest with you: it sounded awful. It sounded like the sort of film that I would pay money not to watch. But I was not so much surprised by this movie as staggered by it. It is one of the most affecting movies I have ever seen, and Rourke's performance is sensitive, well observed and utterly convincing. This film should have swept the board at the Oscars. However, it isn't number one since it lacks the ambition of the film that is at the top...

1: The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight is far from flawless. Yet it is my movie of the decade for three reasons. Firstly, it gives us the definitive version of the Joker and one of the greatest screen villains in history. Also, it shows that a superhero movie can be more than its comic book origins might suggest. Which leads neatly onto the third reason - with its relentless paranoia, constant escalation and displays of meaningless, brutal violence, it sums up this decade perfectly. That's what I mean by the ambition of The Dark Knight. It is about a man who dresses as a bat, but so, so much more.

The Best Songs of 2000-2009

The first of two "best of..." lists that will be published on here today. The second one, in the highly unlikely event that the anticipation is killing you, will be on films.

Of course, all best of lists are inherently idiosyncratic and reflect the personal preferences of the compiler. That seems obvious, but really comes across when you consider that every track in my Top 20 is from an indie band. And several bands get multiple placings even though we are dealing with over ten years worth of music. But seriously, I think - if nothing else - these 20 tracks make an awesome playlist for anyone's MP3 player:

20: Hey Man (Now You're Really Living), Eels.

The Eels are a pretty depressing band. And the lyric here - about how life-affirming both unhappy and happy experiences can be - is pretty typical of the Eels. But the tube is positively upbeat, and this is a great song for those who realise that life cannot be perfect all the time.

19: Smokers Outside the Hospital Door, The Editors

This is what Coldplay would sound like if they had the decency not to be shit.

18: You Have Killed Me, Morrissey

Morrissey doing what he does best - a moping lyric, replete with obscure references and the sort of chorus that will strike a chord with lovelorn teenagers everywhere. Plus, the backing track is rocking.

17: Bride of Theme From Blinking Lights, Eels

Not a song as such, but a poignant, gentle tune that for some reason really makes me happy.

16: There There (The Boney King of Nowhere), Radiohead

Now, I thought that this decade would be the decade for two bands - Manic Street Preachers and Radiohead. In the event, both bands have proved to have had a disappointing ten years. However, they've still managed to produce some good work, and this track captures for me what once made Radiohead such a great band - namely, good songs.

15: Eleanor Put Your Boots On, Franz Ferdinand

A love song to the lead singer of The Fiery Furnaces by the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand. It is poignant, sweet and tender without ever becoming sickly or over-the-top. It's a shame that Franz Ferdinand didn't go in this direction with their third album. It is one hell of a lot better than the lumpen, sub disco direction they eventually headed in.

14: Decent Days And Nights, The Futureheads

Spikey post-punk from a band who are far from essential, yet still manage to produce great songs. The Futureheads are not one of the best or most essential bands in the world, but their music is well worth listening to and there is at least one potential anthem on each of their albums. This is the one from their debut (and best) album.

13: Open The Door, British Sea Power

A great little song by one of the two best bands of the decade. Yep, I seriously believe that British Sea Power are one of the best bands to emerge since 2000, alongside...

12: Intervention, Arcade Fire

...the Arcade Fire, who have produced two of the most striking albums I have ever heard. This is from their second album, which is grander and angrier than their first record - something that is clear in this track. Which also manages to use an organ effectively; a feat few other bands have ever managed.

11: First of the Gang to Die, Morrissey

By rights, Morrissey should have faded away in this decade. Yet, with You Are The Quarry, he managed to produce perhaps his best work since the Smiths and an absolute return to form. Something that is best demonstrated with this song. It has the lyrical word play and the curious juxtaposition of images that is pure Morrissey, backed by a deft and catchy tune that sticks in your head without irritating you for far longer than you ever thought possible.

10: Mykonos, Fleet Foxes

It starts like every other Fleet Foxes song you have ever heard. Which is no bad thing. Yet halfway through it switches, and becomes impassioned, urgent, compelling and vital. It features one of the best voices in modern music giving it his all, and is worth hearing for that reason alone.

9: Fingers in the Factories, The Editors

Many bands have discovered the edgy post-punk made famous by Joy Division; no-one has ever done it as well as the Editors in this track. A breathless race through a song that offers ominous yet obscured warnings, whilst the singer constantly imploring the listener to "keep with me". You need to, as well - a song that moves this fast is in danger of sweeping you away.

8: Running the World, Jarvis Cocker

This lacks the subtle word-play of the best of Jarvis Cocker's work, and the basic sentiment is the sort of relentlessly cliched left-wing bile that went out of fashion with Neil Kinnock. Nonetheless, the tune is catchy and the chorus is simply wonderful. It is true, Jarvis, now as it ever as been. Cunts are still running the world.

7: Carrion, British Sea Power

If you want an encapsulation of what British Sea Power are like - and how brilliant they are - then listen to this track. It has all their trademarks; the breathless vocal delivery, a lyric packed with obscure references and faintly disturbing images and an anthemic feel to the song as a whole.

6: Hey Ma, James

This is perhaps the most potent and vitriolic protest song in a decade where protest has become fashionable again. James have always been a good band, capable of mope rock, romantic songs, and just great tunes. Yet with this track they commit to posterity a track that sums up this decade; a warning about unthinking revenge, about rage, about how deadly consequences can be. When you consider the fate of other "Madchester" bands, it is staggering to realise that James are still capable of writing songs this good after so long in the music business.

5: Grace Kelly Blues, Eels

A gentle song that deals with the pedestrian minutiae of everyone from hot dog vendors to queens, before the lyric becomes simple yet intensely personal and the singer - E - reveals after all the tragedy that informed his previous album, he is going to be OK.

4: Matinee, Franz Ferdinand

Clever wordplay and a great tune from one of the best debut albums in a long time. In fact, the whole of Franz Ferdinand's debut still stands as a classic to this day, whereas other albums of the same vintage sound pretty terrible now. Yes, Keane, I'm talking about you.

3: William's Last Words, Manic Street Preachers

A terribly sad and very poignant tune. Because, for all the world, this is one man singing what sounds and reads like a suicide note of one of his best friends. What is most striking of all is that there is none of the rage or strident anger that informed The Holy Bible here. Instead, there is a sense of restfulness and an understanding of the transient nature of life throughout the song, which is amplified and made deeply moving when you consider that what is about to end here is a man's life. To my ears, this song is heart-breaking without being gut-wrenching.

2: Please Stand Up, British Sea Power

I understand that this track is far from a fan favourite, and I have no idea why. To my mind, it is a wonderful song, and whilst it is more commercial than many other BSP songs, it is the perfect introduction to their music and a great track. Besides, how commercial can it really be given it was banned by some radio stations and video channels for the line "a little excitement makes us wetter, wetter"?

1: Rebellion, Arcade Fire

Simply awesome. A song that hints at some many different things, and zooms in on both the fear of and the love of sleeping. It is backed by a deceptively simple tune that makes the whole track simple yet utterly compulsive. On an album about death, bereavement and mourning, it is this song that seems to engage most with, at the risk of sounding deeply pretentious, the reality of being human - and being mortal. "Time to close your eyes..."

The Day of the Triffids

The past couple of nights saw the broadcast by the BBC of The Day of the Triffids. Well, they said it was The Day of the Triffids. And they had a caption at the start of both installments saying it was "based on the book" by John Wyndham. That caption lacked the words "extremely loosely" before the "based on". But more on that later.

The first problem with this "adaptation" was the length. The two episodes were an hour and half each - therefore, both the length of a normal feature film. Which whilst it does require a substantial commitment from the viewer is not asking too much. As long as there is a good reason why the two episodes are so long. Unfortunately, this adaptation actually appeared to be six half-hour episodes crudely stitched into two 90 minute installments. Seriously, watch the episodes again if you don't believe me. At every half hour mark, there is a mini cliffhanger, and more often that not a fade to black where the credits would have been. This shouldn't be a major problem - except that each deleted cliffhanger takes up a substantial amount of time to set up, only for it to lose most of its dramatic impact since the story just rolled on. Therefore, this adaption was created with one format in mind, only to be shoe-horned into another format. As a result, it reminded me of one of those endless Sunday morning compilations of Hollyoaks, where the episodes are all blurred into one and you end up wondering when the tedious farrago of photogenic Chester teens parading themselves and their limited acting abilities will ever stop.

Of course, that might not be the fault of the producers. It could be that they were told by the BBC that they would get six half-hour slots, only for that to change after the programme had been completed. However, it is equally possible that the BBC felt they had to broadcast the programme in the way they did - in two large chunks on consecutive evenings. Because had this been broadcast over six weeks, I doubt I would have made it to the end of the series - and I love the source material. And that is the fault of the producers.

See, this version of the novel was an attempt to do a spectacular end of the world story, complete with the sort of special effects normally associated with a Roland Emmerich picture (who obviously has the budget to do it far more effectively) and with a determination to tick off every disaster movie cliche. There was the evil sub-Bond villain in the terribly realised Eddie Izzard character, the troubled father-son relationship (completely missing from the original book) that ends in friendship just before tragedy strikes and so on. It all screamed "humans can be as bad as the Triffids, you know", but did so in a far more jarring and consequently far less effective way than the book.

Which is the biggest problem I had with this adaptation. It took the book and turned it into a checklist of settings to tell a very different story to the one told by Wyndham's novel. And as a result, it came across as far less credible than the already fantastical original work. Take the ending. In the book, the family escape by putting sugar in the engines of the military vehicles, and then driving away. In the recent TV version, we have a hysterical hostage situation, followed by a Triffid attack, followed by a nonsensical escape plan that seems to involve dripping blinding Triffid juice into people's eyes to make the Triffids like them, before the protagonists row away to end the story. The beginning of the novel deals with Bill waking up and realising that a Wednesday sounds like a Sunday, and slowly finding out from there that the world as he knows it has ended. In doing so, he takes the reader with him as he explores a mysterious and frightening new world. However, Monday night's episode had a bit of pointless scene-setting before showing the spectacle of the world ending. Which was not as dramatic as it could be, and certainly not as dramatic as the mystery at the start of the novel. The beginning of 28 Days Later is far closer in spirit to John Wyndham than anything from this adaptation of his classic work.

What Wyndham realised - and the producers of this adaptation totally failed to get - is that the basic scenario itself is dramatic. It is about the end of the world. You can get the drama you need to propel the story forward just from people trying to survive. In the book, for example, disease is one of the major problems faced by the characters and one of the things that makes the characters flee London. You don't need plane crashes, or trigger happy policeman, or ludicrous would-be dictators played by comedians not best known for their dramatic acting. Actually, you don't really need the Triffids - they are just a commercial gimmick. The apocalypse is dramatic enough without the relentless over-egging of the pudding that the BBC managed with this flawed attempt to reproduce the classic novel on the small screen.

Ultimately, what the BBC broadcast over the past couple of nights was Bill Masen and Joely Richardson in a mildly diverting adventure with some Triffids. It was not an adaptation of The Day of the Triffids. The closest we have had to a proper version of the novel is the 1981 version; however, if you really want to understand why Wyndham's story became so famous and has endured for so long, then I suggest you go read the book.

Mourning the Soviet Union

Via Mr Eugenides, I see some total dickhead is asking the sort of question that should be beyond satire:

Would the Bush-Blair partnership have invaded Iraq in 2003 with such brazen impunity if Uncle Stalin, or even Cousin Brezhnev, had been around?

I'd imagine we are supposed to respond with a resounding "no". Unfortunately I can't, for reasons too numerous to relay in detail. So, just a few points here, then:

1. This must be a new definition of impunity, since the Coalition of the Willing have been punished severally, through the loss of troops and international disgrace, whilst Blair's historical reputation has been utterly destroyed by the Iraq "adventure" and Bush left office with the sort of approval ratings that one might expect for Gary Glitter. Sure, no-one has been dragged to the Hague for the Iraq War; but I defy anyone to go to a family who have lost someone in the Iraq War and say that the invasion went ahead with "brazen impunity".

2. Secondly, there are little escapades called the Korean and Vietnam War, as well as a whole host of crazy shit done by the US in South America, that shows even during the Cold War - under Brezhnev as well - the US had no problem with messing with and even invading other nations. And the USSR itself did a little bit of invading... for example, in (wait for it, wait for it!) Afghanistan! The balance between the USA and the USSR did not stop superpowers from invading smaller powers. Their massive nuclear arsenals simply stopped them from having a Third World War against each other.

3. Putin is arguably the strongest leader the USSR has had since Stalin. Yet he couldn't stop the USA and the UK from invading Iraq.

I could go on, but it seems pointless. But just stop for a moment and try this statement out for size. Maybe it would have been best for the Nazi regime to still be in existence, dominating Europe, because they would have stopped the Iraq War. Pretty disgusting statement, eh? Absolutely. Agreed. And not that different from claiming that another brutal dictatorship should be lamented because it too might have stopped the invasion of Iraq.

Have Your Say on the Execution of Akmal Shaikh

Nothing like the tragic and inhuman execution of a mentally ill man over drugs offences to bring out the very worst of people. On the BBC Have Your Say website, of course.

First up is david garner:

It may seem harsh but I suspect that it will deter others from doing this. If we had this in the uk I expect that drug smuggling would decline at an interesting rate. Heroin brings nothing but misery to the families and those who are addicted - a thought for them!

Yes, this will deter other people from becoming drug dealers. Just as it deterred this poor fella. And just as the death penalty in the US for murder has stopped murders happening there. Oh, wait...

Stephen has some comments he, for reasons that defy understanding, felt he should share with the world:

Given the devastating consequences wreaked by drug dealing all over the globe, the ruination of individuals and families, the cause of an enormous amount of criminal activity, not least murder, the immeasureable damage to communities, and the cost to the public purse - the punishment should be of the severest kind: execution without a shadow of a doubt!

I think Stephen gets a little hard when he talks about executions.

Bernard is looking for the silver lining to the cloud of Chinese executions:

At least China have the decency to execute criminals quickly after conviction. Unlike the USA who let them rot for decades in jail and then execute them when an election is due.

God, yes, that does seem like the decent thing to do - if you're going to put someone to death, then for God's sake do it quickly. If nothing else, then it can prevent any thought or reflection that might result in a state not killing a mentally ill man. And we couldn't have that now, could we?

Rick from Hong Kong has a deeply tedious addition to the debate:

Think of how many lives that could/would have been ruined by this mans drugs. I know the death penalty is extreme but it is needed to stop other people from threatening the lives of the people. How many thousands of people die from (illegal) drug related illnesses?

I think that the UK government could learn a lesson here.

Yes, but given the teaching here is "it is ok to murder mentally ill people" I kind of don't want the British government to learn the lesson here.

Mick Waite has a list of people he wants to kill:

It all boils down to the first thing you're taught in primary school when someone retaliates. "Two wrongs don't make a right." Even if he knew what he was doing was wrong, he, like everyone else on death row in the world does not deserve to die.

Will, England

Will,
There are MANY people in this world who DO deserve to die.
Terrorists, Child rapists, serial killers, Drug and People trafficers,are just a few that deserve to loose their lives.
I hope your never a victim of these people.

Personally, I would execute people who can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're". No-one listens to me, fortunately. Just as - mercifully, and hopefully in perpetuity - no-one listens to Mick Waite.

Besides, Mick Waite just can't quite match the vitriol of one Michael Lloyd:

Yet another so-called "British" citizen dragging the name of this country through the international mud. I fully agree with China on this one, and the sooner we in this country do the same the better. Either we want to eliminate drug dealing, or we don't. These peddlers in death deserve death themselves. Let's hear a lot less from the bleeding heart brigade.

Here's a thought, we could eliminate drug dealing by legalising drugs. But I guess that would make me part of the "bleeding heart brigade" that Lloyd wishes to silence. See, that's the distinction between Lloyd and other, lesser Have Your Say ravers - Lloyd not only wants drug dealers to be executed, but he also wants everyone who might disagree with him to shut the hell up. That is proper, unthinking fascist rage here. Magic.

Finally - mainly because I can't cope with much more - we have Kaz, who has insights into mental illness that are ground-breaking in their stultifying ignorance:

Whether he was took drugs to China deliberately or not is now a moot point. If the law is death for drug smuggling, then so be it. If, as the family claim, this man was bi-polar and had mental issues, do they not have some responsibility for his care? What on earth possessed them to let him travel the world on his own if he was in such a vulnerable state.

Rest assured, members of Kaz's family, if you ever suffer from mental illness, she will be there for you. Probably by having you locked up in hospital or sealing you in the attic. But rest assured, she'll do it because she is responsible. And she cares.

It dents my faith in humanity that the Chinese would execute someone with mental illness. What really kills my faith in humanity - what bashes it in the head and then pisses on it as it lies broken in the gutter - is this sort of pig ignorance from people who see drugs as evil, executions as good and mental illness as something to be deeply suspicious of.

Avatar

So, a brief review of the new James Cameron film. You'll have seen the basic plot before in films. Many, many times. It is not innovative and it is not clever in terms of the script. But then again, who really thought it would be? This isn't a great piece of storytelling - it never was going to be. Instead, this film is all about how the film is told.

And in fairness, if you go see this film in 3-D, it is spectacular. Visually, anyway. It is extremely impressive and probably does represent a leap forward in visual FX. Of course, you have to turn both your ears and your brain off in order to enjoy this film. And I can't shake the feeling that this is basically a commercial for 3-D film-making. Which is the biggest problem with this picture. See, your standard commercial is a couple of minutes long. Whereas this film is just under three long, bum-numbing hours. Avatar's biggest failing is falling into the trap that so many modern films make - namely, that a long run time automatically makes a film Important and Worthy. Of course, it doesn't. It just makes it long. And in the case of Avatar, it makes it far longer than it should be or needs to be.

So if you like sci-fi, then I'd say go see this film. However, see it at the cinema, in 3-D. If you wait for the DVD release you will miss all of the visual FX, and end up with an over-long film with a plot that you have seen somewhere before. And probably isn't worth sitting through to the end credits.

Where The Wild Things Are

The review:

It is an Ok film. Visually, it is remarkable, and the creatures are extremely well realised. The soundtrack is fitting, although just a little bit too desperate to sound like the Arcade Fire for its own good. And, mercifully for this type of film, the kid in the lead role isn't immensely irritating. However, it is neither as amusing or as dark as some people would have you believe. Despite being presented in the manner of a very well realised music video, this is a film for children. Adults won't be bored by it, but they are not going to be stunned by it either.

What I would like people to take from it (spoilers ahead):

Ok, so, the kid - whose name I can't remember - turns up on the island where the wild things are. There, he stops himself from being eaten by telling the wild things that he can make them happy, using powers he clearly does not possess. Overwhelmed by the idea that someone can actually do this, the wild things make the kid their king. He briefly distracts them, but ultimately they end up still unhappy and the kid's powers turn out to be nothing but hot air. The kid stops being their king, and pisses off somewhere else to have some cake that he really hasn't earned.

Now, regardless of authorial intention, this film can be read as a perfect allegory for the fatal flaws of modern democracy. Substitute "Tony Blair" for the kid and "electorate" for the wild things in the passage above and you have the perfect potted history of what happened under Blair in this country. And what is currently happening across the pond under one Barack Obama. The film can be interpreted as a wonderful indictment of any egotistical figure who is pumped up by others to make rash promises about future happiness, and of those who would blindly follow such a person in pursuit of a spurious and constantly elusive better tomorrow. The message of the film is that you can't make other people be happy through simply saying you want to, and you need to work at making yourself and your loved ones happy. The political message to take from this movie is that you shouldn't look to a leader with grand promises to make everything better for you; you have the ultimate responsibility to make things better for yourself.

Idiot In A Dog Collar

A witless moron speaks:

"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

"I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices."

Now, unlike Father Tim Jones, I am not a professional God-botherer but from my limited knowledge of the scriptures I'm pretty sure that they are adamant that stealing is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is called a sin. And as such, the Invisible Sky Fairy himself is pretty much against stealing. In fact, this here priest fella is offering the sort of advice that, within the fictional world of Christianity, would lead people to the gates of Hell. Which I'm fairly sure is the exact opposite of what a priest is supposed to do.

But I'm not that bothered by this priest ignoring minor bits of the Bible like one of the Ten Commandments. After all, Christians acting in direct contravention to the teachings of the Bible is the rule rather than the exception in much of history. No, what bothers me is the total naivete of this cretin. He is talking like a first year undergraduate who believes that having a social conscience means that stealing is ok. As long as you steal from the big, nasty capitalists. Contrary to what this priest states, there are consequences to stealing from big chains - and it is more than just prices going up. The stores will employ more security guards, who will watch more people, and as such make shopping less comfortable for anyone who looks a little scruffy. The more shoplifters there are, the more confrontation there is. There will be more conflict between store workers thieves. There will be more violence. And what happens to those who are caught shoplifting? The fact that their priest told them it was ok thankfully doesn't make a big difference within the justice system. These thieves will be banned from stores when caught; they will be prosecuted. They may even be imprisoned. And having a criminal record is going to make it even more difficult for these people to get any sort of a income that gets them away from needing to steal and hopefully well away from the likes of Father Jones.

Jones has simply highlighted how divorced he is from the real world, and why the opinions of priests like should be ignored.

Doctor Who: The End of Time Part One

Last night saw the beginning of the end for the Tenth Doctor. In the beginning of The End of Time. Clearly, this is the sort of story that the production team want to get right. Did they manage it?

I don't think it would be particularly controversial to say that this episode was quite light on plot. It fell into the trap of many of the two-part adventures since the series came back - it felt like padding out an episode designed purely for the (admittedly awesome) cliffhanger. The plot can be summed up in just a few words. The Master was resurrected, the Doctor hunts him for a bit - and in doing so finds Wilf. The two confront the Master, who uses a machine to make the whole world like him. And in the background, the Time Lords are waiting...

The lack of a complicated plot, however, was not a major problem. After all, this was meant to be post-Christmas dinner family entertainment for millions of people. And what the special lacked in plot it more than made up for in atmosphere. There was a sense of impending doom throughout the episode, and John Simm showed what a talented actor he is with a chilling performance as an utterly insane Master. With the cannibalistic attack on the homeless people on the wasteland, the show entered really very dark territory for Christmas evening. But, for me, the most extraordinary moment was when the Doctor confessed that he had done something wrong on Mars - with Tennant marvelously capturing a sense of guilt and remorse from the Doctor for the events that led to the suicide of one of his heros.

Basically, this was a set-up for what is to come on New Year's Day. As such, this probably won't be remembered in the long-term for much more than the bold strokes that happened at the end of the episode - the Master-race and the return of the Time Lords. What will keep fans like me intrigued for the next week is what was left unanswered by the episode - namely, what the Time Lords will be like, how Donna will be saved, and (in what I think may yet prove to be the crucial question to be answered in Part Two) who Wilfred ends up having to kill... It will also be interesting to see whether RTD is actually resetting the whole series to where it was when he found it, not least by bringing back the Time Lords as a permanent part of Doctor Who.

And all this speculation makes this episode a success - because it means that viewing the second installment in 2010 is absolutely essential...

A very Merry Christmas to each and very reader of The Appalling Strangeness!

Now, stop reading this blog and do something a little more festive with your day because, I can assure you, nothing else is going to happen here until tomorrow. When I'd imagine a review of The End of Time (Part One) will appear...

The Commercialisation of Christmas

Every year - every single year - people whine and bellyache about the increasing commercialisation of Christmas. The immediate question is what is modern Christmas being compared to? When was Christmas less commercial? During the Blitz, when Britain was struggling to survive? During the Dark Ages, where Christmas was spent foraging for food and living in one's own feculence? Yes, modern Christmas maybe commercialised, but that is not a bad thing.

See, as someone who isn't a big fan of Christmas starting in October or the avalanche of Christmas related advertising that appears everywhere at this time of year, I can understand why people complain about the current state of Christmas. But that is the nature of a capitalist economy. Companies will vie for your attention because they want you to buy their products. Yeah, it is kind of irritating, but it also gives you choice. You can choose between products to give and receive for Christmas. You can choose what you want to eat over the Christmas period. All the advertising, all the tacky spots and endless, shameless promotion is people trying to sell stuff to you that might help to make your Christmas better. Look at it this way - the commercialisation is a means to an end. The end being a more enjoyable Christmas for you, your friends and your family.

At the end of the day, a commercialised Christmas may well see you gorging yourself on food after receiving a gift that you don't really need but kind of wanted anyway. Or you can have a "purer" sort of Christmas, where you worship the supposed virgin birth of a long-dead dude who claimed to be the son of a non-existent God. I know which option I prefer.

Just in case anyone was wondering, this surely stands as the definite list of the worst songs of the year. Enjoy!

On Christmas Shopping

As the big day draws ever closer and people move into what could best be described as an unseemly retail frenzy, I thought that I, as former retailer*, would offer some thoughts on the subject of Christmas shopping.

1. Last Minute Christmas Shopping.

So, it is nearly Christmas, and so far you have managed to buy basically nothing for anyone other than yourself. However, you've noticed that other people have bought presents for you and have taken the time to send them to you. You feel a little bit guilty, and dread the sort of abuse and barely concealed disdain that you are going to get from your friends and family unless you pull your finger out and get some presents. Which means going out shopping during the last days (or day) before Christmas.

Yes, it is going to be unpleasant. In fact, it is going to look a lot like the Hobbesian state of nature out there in the retail world just before Christmas. And there is nothing you can do about that. Sorry, but you're basically fucked. You're going to have to endure the sort of trial that is worthy of the malign imagination of the Old Testament God. The best thing you can do is not whine about how awful it is. That way, you can save valuable energy that can be channelled into more important tasks, like aggressively barging into total strangers and knocking over toddlers in your desperate attempt to get some presents and then get the hell back to civilisation, ASAP.

Of course, there is something you can do to avoid this endurance test in future years. See, here's the trick. Christmas is on the same date every year. This means that you can plan for it. Seriously, plan ahead! Give it a go! You might find it works very well for you. And as part of that planning ahead, you might try shopping online. This is perhaps the best innovation of modern times. You can everything you need without having to get off your fat ass and leaving the comfort of your home. Sure, it won't stop the crowds at Christmas, but it will help to make sure that you are not part of those crowds.

2. Food Shopping.

I was always incredulous about how much people buy for Christmas. Sure, you want to have a nice meal and not run out of stuff, but seriously, people, the shops are only closed for a couple of days! In fact, a lot of stores now open on Boxing Day. You could, if you were so inclined, find some sort of Costcutter that was even open on Christmas Day. The message is simple - buy what you need. Don't buy as if Christmas is actually the End of Days, since all that is happening is a brief holiday for retailers. Not the collapse of civilisation as we know it.

And again, with pre-Christmas food shopping, a little forward planning is not a bad thing. There is no point in turning up on Christmas Eve at 4:30pm at your local supermarket, and demanding both a turkey and a loaf of bread. The supermarket is unlikely to have any - come the 27th, no-one is going to give the first fuck about turkey, so that would simply be dead space on the shelves. And any bread left over - or produce for that matter - is going to be only fit for the bin by the time the doors of the shop reopen. So yeah, the supermarket will be running down its stocks of fresh produce and Christmas related items. If you want a full supermarket and oodles of choice, go shopping now. Or at the very latest, first thing on Christmas Eve. Because come closing time, they're going to have the very definition of a limited choice...

*Albeit one who hated retail and resented customers.

Mr Eugenides has located this frankly superb review* of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. It sums up perfectly why this film killed the whole franchise (that I previously thought was quite diverting) for me. And also why Star Wars: The Phantom Menace remains the only film I have ever fallen asleep watching. In the cinema, anyway. Yep, Transformers was, without doubt, a shitter movie, but at least it was loud and bright. Which, if nothing else, kept me awake (and made me want to drink a lot of whisky after the end credits rolled). Star Wars: The Phantom Menace just reminded me that when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you.

*The fact that it is done in the manner of some sort of violent serial killer doesn't negate the validity of the points raised. That much...

Why's Gordo Agreed to Televised Debates?

So, it appears we will be having TV debates between the party leaders at the next General Election. Although there is potentially a lot of time between now and then, and therefore don't be too surprised if Browns bottles the TV debates. After all, he has a lot of history of ducking any sort of a contest that might make him look bad.

But this announcement does beg the question of what Brown is thinking by agreeing to the debates. I reckon it could be one of two things - either he is desperate, or he is going to play the expectations game like a madman.

The latter option would the logical one. After all, Bush Junior played the expectation game superbly in the lead up to his first debate with Al Gore. Team Bush played down expectations so much that all Bush Junior had to do in order not to lose was avoid defecating on his podium. Brown could do the same. He could send out his evil flying monkeys to spread the word amongst the media that Brown is terrified of debating Cameron and almost certain to lose the debates. Given Brown has showed himself to be utterly incapable week after week at Prime Minister's Questions, this idea could gain some traction. And then all Brown would have to in the debate would be not to burst into tears and start sucking his thumb in order to be perceived to have done well.

Of course, downplaying expectations involves telling people in the media, and therefore in the country, that Gordon Brown isn't great at something. And that would dent the stupid man's ego. So whilst playing the expectation game is the logical thing for Brown and his posse to do, I suspect that the brittle arrogance of the Prime Minister will prevent them from actually doing it.

So it is the former. I suspect what Team Brown are doing is surrendering to desperation. Quite simply, the logic behind their agreement is that they now have nothing to lose. Labour seems to have bottomed out in the polls. They've reached their current base level of support. If Brown does badly, it isn't going to dent the limited support they have left. If he does well, he might gain a few points in the opinion polls and minimise the electoral defeat facing the Labour party at the General Election. Blair didn't agree to debate because he was in a position of strength - and there was always the risk that if he did debate, then he could lose popularity. However, Brown has been such a colossal failure as Prime Minister that he has reached a point where he cannot get any more unpopular, realistically. He's doing the debate because it can't make things any worse for him. He literally has nothing to lose, even if he attends the debates and does nothing other than mutter and look sulky.

Oh, if the SNP are going to get all pissy about not been included in the debates, then I think it is an outrage that the leader of the Libertarian Party hasn't been invited to participate either. Not just because all parties deserve a say, but also because I think it would be hilarious to have the Devil himself in a room with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and that fella what runs the Lib Dems...

Decent Music Getting to No. 1

So, Rage Against The Machine did make it to the Christmas No. 1 slot after all. I'm pleasantly surprised. Although I would argue that perhaps this isn't the great musical revolution that some are trying to make it into.

Sure, the news will have pissed off Simon Cowell. Even if, as a Sony shareholder, he does make money from RATM unexpected elevation to festive No. 1, I still think he'd rather have his protege as the festive chart-topper. Last night's results shows that the self-styled pop mogul can be over-turned by an amateur internet campaign promoting an old agit-rock anthem from the 1990's. It is hardly a ringing endorsement for him or his craptacular TV show.

Furthermore, this should create an interesting conundrum for the compilers of Christmas No. 1 albums. I'd imagine they'd struggle with making "Mad World" part of their festive collections, what with its lyrical depiction of a deep depression. Quite what they are going to make of a song with that refrain is beyond me; but I suspect that there aren't going to be very many complete collections of Christmas No. 1's moving forward because of RATM's success.

Yet, as others have pointed out, this does make money for Cowell and his record company. Even if it was an actually a genuine grassroots campaign, it has that unpleasant whiff of astroturfing to it. It seems ironic that a campaign that was in part a protest about cynical consumerism at Christmas is so easily made to appear cynical itself.

And the notion that this is in some way a groundbreaking thing is just plain nonsense. The charts are, to a large extent, a democracy. You can get the music you want to the top of the charts by buying it and getting your friends to buy it. You only have to look back across the history of popular music to see some great bands and artists hitting the No. 1 spot. David Bowie, The Jam, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Stones, Manic Street Preachers - all great groups, and all groups that have hit that coveted No. 1 spot. For the very simple reason that their fans went out and bought their records. Sure, you've always had shit hitting No. 1 in the charts - yes, Sir Cliff of Richard, I am directly talking about you - but it has been interspersed with worthwhile acts also sitting at the top of the charts. The difference these days is that a decent band hitting the top of the charts is the exception, rather than the rule. Because decent artists don't sell as many records as the pop pap relentlessly and ruthlessly promoted by the likes of the odious Simon Cowell.

Also, don't go thinking that the internet is the great salvation for the pop charts. It isn't. Firstly, bands have been using the internet for a while to get attention and to win success. If memory serves, both the Arctic Monkeys and the Editors were initially internet phenomena before having mainstream chart success. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Cowell and his terrible ilk will have noted the success of the RATM Facebook campaign, and will be factoring that into their next bid to be Christmas No. 1.

In short, there is nothing new in a good band using t'interweb to get to No 1. And if RATM's success shows anything, it is that the supposed monopoly of manufactured music on the charts is actually an ersatz domination. It just relies on the apathy and indolence of "real" music fans, endlessly intoning the facile and false idea that their sort of music just can't get to N0. 1 anymore. This campaign and RATM have shown that it can - as long as people are actually willing to buy, promote, and just plain enthuse about the music they like.

A Letter to myself at 16...

DK has tagged me - to write a letter to my 16 year old self. Which I will do, even though my past self will never get to read the letter. Bloody Royal Mail - they just don't seem able to send letter across time and space. Hell, they struggle with sending letter across space. It will be a long time before they can manage time travel.

Anyway, here's what I'd say to the younger me - someone who turned 16 in 1995, and was attending Rugby School:

Hello ****,

This is your future self speaking. Don't worry, you haven't gone mad. And, at the age of 30, you still remain sane. In a manner of speaking. Rest assured, I am not going to offer you any real advice. Mainly because I know you wouldn't take it. In fact, even at the age of 30 you will find that you still aren't great at taking advice. But at least, in 14 years time, you will find you have the self-awareness to realise that.

Instead of giving advice, I'll offer some observations of what life is like now based on what you/I wanted from life back in the mid-nineties.

Politics: you'll find you were right to choose to do an A-level in Comparative Politics. In fact, politics will be your undergraduate degree. And throughout your time in the "real world" you will be interested in it, and - on occasion - active in it. It should be no surprise that when you go back into academia, your chosen area of study is political theory. Of course, you don't end up as a politician, but seriously, given the hallmarks of that profession are compromise and toadying up to people you have no respect for, did you ever think you could have a career in politics? And don't worry too much if you flit from political allegiance to political allegiance. Go with your instincts - that government should be both cheap and small, and that people achieve their best without perpetual state intervention - and you will find the right ideology for yourself in due course.

Music: guess what? You don't become a rock star. I know, seems to crazy to you right now, but your inability to sing and your refusal to learn to play a musical instrument really do kill any chances of a musical career. You remain a music fan, though. The bands change a bit, but you remain an indie kid. You'll find that you start to like music that you couldn't stand at school. Including REM and Pink Floyd. You even learn not to hate all Blur songs. But don't worry, you were right about Oasis. They are oik rock. And you never, ever grow to like them.

Writing: you write at the moment. For fun. Which most people think it is weird. Well, that won't really change - both the fact that you write, and that (some) people think it is weird. After a while, you will work out how to do it reasonably well. You will also find a medium (which will be introduced to you by a loquacious Welshman whose secret identity is an Easter Island monument - no, really) where you can publish your thoughts on a daily basis. And, believe it or not, people will actually read those thoughts. If you ever manage to pull your finger out and edit some of the creative stuff you have written, then you might be onto something with the writing lark. But, in 2009, that remains something for the future.

Professional life: I can't stop you choosing two different careers that you are entirely unsuited for. And I probably wouldn't stop you, even if I could. Because you make some money from those careers, make some great friends and learn how the real world works outside of the rarified atmosphere of a public school followed by a red-brick university. As much as it pains me to write this, don't go straight into academia after you leave university. You need to live in the "real world" for a bit. It will teach you a lot of important things, and make you a better - and more effective - person when you decide that the "real world" is best left to other people and you run away from it. If you want to make your various jobs a little more bearable, then don't get so hung up on them. Don't make them the centre of your life, especially if you hate them. But you won't actually manage that until about... 2007.

Personal life: I won't lie to you, this ends up being all over the place for a number of years. Some of those experiences are fun, some of them most definitely are not. But it ends up just fine. No, I can't tell you who is the love of your life. I really can't - because of the wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey nature of reality. If you want a clue, that girl who joins in the Sixth Form and who you really fancy, well, it turns out she does like you too. But that's all I can say. Rest assured, when it happens, it will be awesome.

That's it from me, really. A couple of final points from the future: don't worry, Doctor Who does come back*. And it is tremendous. Although, to date, you have neither written for the series, nor been the star. You will also find you live in very different parts of the UK over the next 14 years, and also develop a fear of flying. But I won't tell you anything else. Lest I ruin the surprise.

Best of luck,

The Nameless Libertarian**

* Ignore Paul McGann. He proves to be the very definition of a false start.

**This will make sense in the future. Promise.

I'm not going to tag anyone. The 16 year old in me would hate myself if I did...

Pity the Poor Christian!

Iain Dale is frothing at the mouth at a Mail on Sunday story that falls under the category of "Pity the Poor Christian": the sort of piece that the amoral (at best) Mail occasionally run for reasons that defy understanding. Over to Dale for a brief summary:

The Mail on Sunday's lead story this morning concerns a teacher who has been sacked for offering comfort to the parent of a sick child by offering to pray for the her (sic). The teacher specialised in teaching children too ill to attend school. The parent made a complaint and the teacher was sacked by her managers.

Let's, for a moment, swap the religion of the teacher. Does anyone seriously imagine the teacher would have been sacked if she had been a muslim, and offered prayers for the child? Of course not. And rightly so.

Really? Wouldn't she? Where's the evidence for that? As far as I am aware this situation has not arisen with a Muslim, making it quite a bold claim to assert that this wouldn't happen to a Muslim teacher when there is no way of proving it one way or another. If you turn it on its head and look it at another way, then maybe a Muslim teacher wouldn't dare to make the offer to pray for a child because their religion in this country has been made far more taboo than Christianity. Of course, I have no evidence for that - just as there is no real evidence for the claim that this wouldn't happen to a Muslim.

Let's look at exactly what this teacher did:

What a warped society we have become when a parent makes a vexatious complaint like this, and when the teacher, who clearly meant no harm, is then told by her employer that sharing her faith could be interpreted as "bullying".

Except, that isn't quite what happened though, is it? According to The Mail, the teacher concerned did a *little* bit more than just offer to pray for the girl:

On the fourth visit the girl stayed in her bedroom because she did not feel well enough for lessons, so Mrs Jones chatted to her mother and raised the subject of her faith, saying she believed God had saved her life.

The teacher said when she was a teenager she had been driving a tractor on the family farm near Carmarthen in Wales when it slid down a slope but came to a halt just before tipping over.

‘I shut my eyes and thought I was going to die,’ said Mrs Jones. ‘Then there was a sound of a rushing wind, like that described in the Bible, and then total stillness.

‘I was convinced it was a miracle. I shared my testimony to encourage the mother to believe that there is a God who answers prayer. I believe I have a personal relationship with God, who is a constant source of strength.’

So, what this teacher actually did was talk about a spurious miracle (involving a runaway tractor, for fuck's sake) before talking about the power of prayer to save lives. This isn't an offer just to pray for the ill girl; this is the full on preaching experience, followed by the emotional guilt trip about the power of prayer. To say that all the teacher did was offer to pray for the girl is just plain wrong - even according to the no doubt biased Mail on Sunday.

And put yourself in the shoes of the mother. Your daughter is ill - too ill to go to school, and on the day in question, too ill to get out of bed. This teacher turns up and starts banging on about a supposed miracle before talking about the (absolutely useless) power of prayer. If you were the parent of a very ill child, you'd be forgiven for not believing in God, and not believing that the power of prayer is going to make your little one better. And to have this woman come into your home only to witter on about a merciful God probably would seriously piss you off. Particularly when she talks about a freak accident as "testimony" for a God you do not believe in. This complaint isn't vexatious. It is entirely understandable. If I was in that mother's shoes, I would have made a complaint too - and told the woman to fuck right off as soon as she stared preaching.

Of course, this woman has a right to her Christian beliefs. However, she doesn't have a right to bring them into the workplace. And she certainly doesn't have that right when her workplace is someone else's house - especially if it is a household with a sick child. She should have the common fucking sense not to preach at someone, and to treat the whole situation with a little more respect and using a little more empathy. If she wants to pray for this little girl, she should feel free to go and do it. Without broadcasting what she is planning to do. And she shouldn't patronise a mother with her facile, unsubstantiated beliefs. She should be a bit more professional in her dealings with people.

The bottom line is this. People believe different things. And either we have a situation where, in the workplace, everyone can bring their beliefs to the workplace and talk about them openly (and, my Christian friends, that involves me being able to use my increasingly militant atheism to critique your archaic beliefs) or we should leave beliefs - religious or otherwise - outside of the workplace. For the sake of professionalism, I favour the latter. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your beliefs. But out of respect for your colleagues/clients/customers/pupils etc you should not bring them into the workplace.

I don't know whether this case warrants the sack. And I do understand that this woman thought that she was doing something good, although clearly she lacked the empathy to understand that she offending someone. But at the end of the day, whilst a Christian (or any other follower of a religion, mainstream or otherwise) is entitled to their views, others are entitled not to have to hear those views from professionals as they conduct their duties.

The Dwindling Influence of Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown on the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks:

"I am now going to lead a campaign around the world with other countries for the legally binding treaty that is the obvious next stage from this."

I think it is sweet that Gordon Brown is already planning what he is going to do with his (enforced, completely involuntary) retirement. The only problem he might find is that no-one is going to listen to him. I mean, I think most leaders struggle to care what Gordon Brown has to say even though he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. When he is an ex-Prime Minister, an ex-MP and an ex-politician, they aren't going to give the first fuck about anything he says or does.

It is true that some politicians do have careers after they step down from power. Blair would be a good example of this; he makes lots of money consulting with companies, and also has a job prancing around the world as some sort of envoy to the Middle East. Hell, he was nearly EU President, until wiser heads realised that he would be a fucking disaster in that role. Yet Blair has nowhere near the influence he had when he was Prime Minister, and Brown would be lucky to get even a tenth of the influence wielded by Blair. The reason is so simple it almost seems crass to point it out, but I will do anyway. Very simply, Brown is not Blair.

Blair, for all of his faults (and, by Christ, there are a lot of faults in that man), was a successful politician in that he could win elections and converse with people - from the man on the street through to the President of the United States - effectively. Brown can do neither - although, in fairness, his electoral ability has not really been tested since he runs away every time there is even a whiff of a contest. But whereas Blair could be considered a partial success both as a politician and a human being (as much as it pains me to write those words), Gordon Brown most certainly cannot. It is a bit like when a colleague you really hate resigns from the office. There are the platitudinous promises to stay in touch; but once the office door closes on them, you breathe a sigh of relief and thank your lucky stars that you never have to see them again. That is how I think world leaders will feel when Brown stomps out of Number 10 for the last time.

Of course, some failed world leaders have gone on to have successful careers. One example is Jimmy Carter. Of course, Carter was a colossal failure as President. Really just terrible. Yet, since his time in office, he has managed to salvage his reputation to some extent and do some good work. Likewise, Nixon managed to undo some of the damage that his resignation caused to his reputation. However, again the personalities of those leaders plays an important part in the resurrection of their post-presidential careers. Nixon's greatest strength was a political tenacity matched by few in the history books. He had the determination to fight back and work hard to salvage whatever he could for his place in the history books. Brown - a man who waited ten years to get the job of Prime Minister, and who has had to actually fight for remarkably little in his life - will lack the tenacity to do the same. Besides, Brown is probably deluded enough to not think he has to do any work on rescuing his reputation. Likewise, Carter has something Brown lacks - humility. One story about Carter has the former President working for Habitat for Humanity whilst his Vice-President campaigned for the White House in 1984. It is hard to imagine Brown working for a charity (and actually doing manual labour) whilst his successor as Labour leader campaigns in a General Election. Brown would probably be at the Labour rally, demanding to be made Labour leader again and also Prime Minister.

The sad truth is that the same personality flaws that have made Brown such an atrocious Prime Minister will still be present after he leaves Number 10. And those flaws will probably stop him from rescuing his tarnished reputation, let alone acting as an influencer on world leaders. Brown will probably be as much as failure as a former Prime Minister as he is as Prime Minister. His model won't be any of the leaders mentioned above; it is far more likely he will follow the example of Edward Heath, and be a misanthropic, malign millstone for his party as they try to move on.

If Brown wants to influence anyone on any issue, then he has - at best - 6 months to do it. After that, no-one is going to care.

On Socialism

Jackart has an excellent post up on the subject of socialism; safe to say, he is not a fan of it:

I DON'T want to kill you if you disagree with me. Socialists do. Don't believe me? Go and talk to a true believer.

Whatever comments a socialist might make about Jackart's post, he certainly can't be accused of being ambiguous.

His starting point is the idea that socialism hasn't been tried before - a predictable line trotted out with tedious regularity by those on the left. Of course, socialism has been tried before, but what a lot of these socialist types mean is that a socialist utopia has never been achieved. Which is true, but also not surprising when you consider why such a supposed heaven on earth has never been realised - quite simply, it can't be.

You could argue that this is down to human nature - that humans aren't capable of sharing, and so socialism is not possible. I'd dispute this. I'd argue that humans aren't capable of being consistently forced to share at the behest of others without considerable protest, but that is a very different proposition to the first negative view of human nature outlined above. However, there is something within human nature that does damage the chances of ever realising a socialist utopia - namely, the reluctance of humans to give up power once it has been achieved.

This is an especially big problem within Marxism. See, Marx built a dictatorship into his plans to realise a socialist/communist utopia. And, in different parts of the world, a dictatorship did happen, designed to facilitate the move towards socialism. The problem is that the dictatorship proves to be anything other than transient - the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat lasted for over eight decades. The longevity of such dictatorships has nothing to do with the failure to have a worldwide socialist revolution. There have been stable socialist countries in the past where the state has resolutely failed to "wither away". The reason is, in part, that once people have got some power, they become very reluctant to lose it. Furthermore, there are always those dissenters who wish to pervert the country from achieving its socialist dystopian nightmare dream.

The problem is simple - socialism has access to a supposed "truth". A "truth" that will make things better for everyone. Yet it is clear that truth is relative, and very much at the mercy of the individualistic tendencies of humanity - individualistic tendencies that show no sign of going away, and indeed seem to be becoming more pronounced. So a socialist movement can win power promising to implement changes to make life better for everyone. But once they are in power, the problems start. Because not everyone is going to agree with them on the methods of achieving utopia, and not everyone is going to agree on what that utopia should look like. So the government needs to stay in power, and needs to protect itself from the non-believer. And that is when those of use who have issues with the economics and politics of socialism start to be stigmatised by the very state promising a better future for all.

To a large extent, there is little difference between socialism and religion, barring where they decide to locate their paradises (earth and the afterlife, respectively). The fanaticism shown by both socialists and religious people is because they think they have answer to that great "truth"; the reality is, such a truth - if it exists - is never going to be accepted by everyone. Which leaves both socialists and the religious with a big problem - what they are going to do with those who don't conform. With those who refuse to fall in with what is supposed to be a better way for all humanity. And takes us full circle, to where we started, since socialism all too often falls into the trap of suppressing freedom of choice and speech at the very least, and far too often ends in the gulag and the death camp.

Against McCarthy, Against Dale

Dale's got a campaign going:

Over the next 12 weeks I will be highlighting Labour's Dirty Dozen - the twelve Labour MPs I'd most like to see kicked out of Parliament at the next election. Only 12, I hear you ask? Well, I'm going to concentrate on those who have majorities in excess of 5,000 and encourage my readers to help the Conservative candidates in that seat to win - either by making a small campaign donation or helping their campaigns in other ways.

Fair enough. Tory blogger launches a campaign to unseat Labour MPs - hardly a ground-breaking or particularly controversial proposal there, then. Until you consider who the first candidate for attack is:

I'm starting off the Dirty Dozen with Labour's self styled Twitter Czar, Kerry McCarthy.

See, I reckon I'm someone who knows quite a bit about UK politics, and here's what I know about Kerry McCarthy:

1. She's tedious
2. She's left-wing.

Which is hardly surprising, given her status as a Labour MP. She's not the person I would ever want to get to know in any way, but equally she's hardly the worst of the Labour MPs in the current parliament. Which does beg the question of why Dale has selected McCarthy for the first target in his Dirty Dozen campaign. His reasoning is there, but it is hardly convincing:

Kerry McCarthy has demonstrated that she isn't fit to be an MP. All you have to do is follow her online acitivites, especially on Twitter, to see why.

For those of us who couldn't give the first fuck about Twitter (which, mercifully, remains most of the population), complaining about activities on there is a lot like complaining about bad behaviour at some specialist internet club for geeks. Most people don't care about the club; of course they aren't going to care about people's conduct with in it. Yes, you can argue that how someone behaves on Twitter is a good indicator of how they behave in real life, but as soon as you mention Twitter to anyone who can't be arsed with it, they've stopped listening.

See, I think there is another reason as to why Dale has selected McCarthy as his first target. And I think it might have something to do with his recent online spat with her. Which is a perfectly understandable reason for targeting; however, we should be honest about the reasons behind the campaign. It isn't about getting the Dirty Dozen, it is about Dale pursuing a personal vendetta with the help of his readers. And I hope they have fun with it, but it leaves me cold.

As irritating as McCarthy appears to be, the truth is that there are no shortage of MPs to target in this Parliament - which does seem to have a bumper crop of bastards within it. And it isn't just Labour MPs who should be targeted; there are Tory MPs who are just as bad as those in the ruling party. Before targetting someone like McCarthy, I would want to see someone like the terrible Nadine Dorries lose her seat. But a Tory like Dale won't target someone like her; at heart, there is a (possibly understandable) party political bias to his selection criteria. Therefore, a genuinely independent campaign to cull the worst of the current ruling elite is something I could get behind; this campaign against McCarthy is something I most certainly cannot support.

No surprises here then; a radio station apologising for Rage Against The Machine swearing:

"We had spoken to the band repeatedly beforehand and they had agreed not to swear."

Uh-huh. And the refrain of their song bidding to be Christmas No. 1? "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me." Imagine them not... well, doing what you tell them to. Crazy, eh?

Quote of the Day

On the future of one George W. Bush:

As for retirement, Sherzer says Bush is "done with politics but not with policy. He's a young man and feels like he has a lot of energy left. He and Mrs Bush are excited about using the Institute as a force for peace, to promote human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth."

Ignoring the fact that politics and policy and largely synonymous in this day and age, I'd just like to praise Baby Bush for pursuing peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth in his retirement - whilst lamenting the fact that his eight years in office saw him pursuing policies that lead to the exact opposite of peace, human freedom, global health, accountability in education and economic growth.

Forgetting Your Identity (well, the card that *gives* you your identity, anyway)

A great example of a minister performing at the very height of their powers*:

Identity minister Meg Hillier arrived at a photocall to promote identity cards, but then realised she left her own at home.

First of all, it just goes to show what an dystopian nightmare this country has become that we have an Identity Minister. It would make George Orwell shudder, and I am incredulous that is a supposedly free society we have something that sounds so authoritarian.

But the actions of this Minister show that, despite all the rhetoric of how ID cards will fight terror and make us all safer, deep down the government doesn't really see a need for ID cards to be carried all the time. Which does rather beg the question what the hell they are for. If the Identity Minister cannot remember to take her ID card to a photo shoot designed to promote ID cards, then you'll have to forgive me if I question just what the point of these cards is actually meant to be.

*Take a moment to think of the Malcolm Tucker style bollocking this chinless wonder would have got for this fuck-up. Go on, take a moment to imagine it. It certainly warmed my heart on this cold winter's morning.

Quentin, Jokes and Expenses

Quentin Davies on his expenses:

"It has resulted in a number of jokes in the House of Commons, which is fine."

It is a pretty bold move for any of the self-serving, greedy wankers in the Commons to reduce their egregious expenses claims to the level of a joke. Not least because the joke isn't funny. In fact, millions of people across this country would find jokes made by MPs about their expenses anything other than funny. However, in order to avoid some tedious would-be MP blathering on in the comments section about how the expenses scandal isn't a scandal at all and that MPs are, for reasons that defy both understanding and common sense, owed the massive amounts of cash they have fleeced from the British population, I won't dwell in this concept of expenses as a joke. Instead, I'll tell you a story that is far funnier.

It is the story of an MP who had such a ruddy complexion that he resembled an obese Beetroot with high blood pressure. Now, this MP was a Tory through the fag end of the Thatcher years, the failed Major years, and the years of catastrophic opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard. But just as Cameron took over and started to make the party popular again, this MP decided he would join the Labour party - just as the leader of that party began his ruthless campaign to make his government the most hated in living memory. And so our MP lived out the final days of his "career" floundering around like a beached whale trying to find the tide - trapped in a party he opportunistically joined at the worst possible moment.

Ok, it is not that funny - it is more about the tragic and the pathetic. But the miserable career of Quentin Davis is at least easier to laugh at than his ridiculous expenses claims.

John Bercow's Rotten Borough

Via The Tap Blog, I see the reforming Speaker of the House of Commons is proposing the sort of reform that would suit him and him alone:

Speaker John Bercow wants to switch to a new seat with only MPs as his ‘constituents’ so he can avoid a humiliating defeat by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage at the nextGeneral Election.

It would mean abandoning his Buckingham seat for the newly created one called St Stephen’s – the name of the old House of Commons chapel – where, effectively, it would be impossible to challenge him.

Excellent stuff. Really tremendous. After one of the most devastating scandals ever to hit the Commons, the Speaker charged with clearing it all up wants to give himself a safe seat where none of us bloody proles can ever hope to unseat him. This is British democracy as we enter 2010; the resurrection of the rotten borough.

Quote of the Day...

...if only for being monstrously moronic:

We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term.

Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, showing the sort of intellect and realism the world associates with the Presidency of George W Bush.

Gingerism

Some woman is bellyaching because Tesco stocked a card saying that Santa does love ginger kids, despite the colour of their hair:

"I thought maybe it was just me because I am a mother of kids with red hair, but a lot of my friends and other people I know, we are absolutely disgusted"

Look, I'm going to try to be nice here. Nice and tolerant. I'm going to try to use my skills of empathy (limited though they are) and not tell this woman to shut her cakehole and get a grip. No, I'm going to say that maybe people could take this as an insult, particularly if their kids are ginger. No parent likes someone else dissing their kids; that is pretty much a given.

"Society comes down hard on how people look and there are so many children these days who are bullied because of how they look."

Again, very true. People are bullied because of how they look. Of course, that bullying seems to be a constant of human interaction - it occurs whether or not Tesco sells a fucking card with a shite joke on it, but again, I'm trying to give Whiney McWhine this lady the benefit of the doubt here because maybe the card could encourage bullying.

I tell you what, being empathetic to the pathetic really does elevate the blood pressure somewhat. But my empathy dissolves at this point:

"If the card had been about an overweight child then the shop would have been shut down, and so would the people who made the card."

Oh, for fuck's sake, stop talking total bollocks. That is just absolute nonsense. If the joke had been about an overweight child, nothing would have happened. Unless some highly strung busy body with a child nick-named "Chunks" because of its ample girth happened upon it, at which point we would see the same tedious farago of said busy-body enjoying fifteen minutes of completely underserved fame, followed by a disinterested apology from Tesco. The sort of things that would close as store down are poisoning people with their products or a massive fire. Dissing the gingers or the fatties because of a joke on a Christmas card is the sort of thing that Tesco don't give a fuck about, in the grand scheme of things. You know what? They've probably already forgotten about it.

Your kids' red hair doesn't make them special; nor does it make them a particular target for bullies. Even if they had a completely different colour in their hair, their peers would find something to mock them about. Because here's the truth, fact fans; teasing and bullying is going to happen; it is just a question of what is going to be the reason given for that teasing/bullying. It could be hair colour, it could be weight. It could be having a mother who drags her kids into the national news based on a cheap joke in a Christmas card. It is an unpleasant part of life, but something that has to be dealt with. Using the simple method of "getting over it."

I'll leave you with the thoughts of the ever great Daily Mash:

But Davinia Phillips, a mother of three gingers from York, has complained to Tesco insisting the card contravenes her right to have everything exactly the way she wants it all the time and to never be annoyed by anything.

Quite.

Reading between the lines:

X Factor judge Simon Cowell has said he wants to run a series of "prime time" TV debates on key political issues ahead of the next general election.

The music impresario told the BBC he wanted to create a "bear pit" atmosphere, with a live studio audience and viewers voting via telephone.

Which means: "I'm not getting enough attention! No-one takes X Factor seriously! I want to become a champion of democracy!" As long as we want to cheapen democracy even further than it has been by over 12 years of Nu Labour rule.

Gordon Brown's spokesman said he welcomed attempts to promote democracy.

He added that Mr Cowell and others would be encouraged to offer ideas.

Which means: "ha ha ha ha ha. Very funny, Simon. But I've seen the X Factor. And if you think I'm going to be involved in anything like that, you must be fucking stupid. So you can take your idea, and shove it right up your arsehole."

And for once, I'd side with Gordon Brown - that is, as long as he makes it clear that Simon Cowell is a shameless, self-promoting wanker who has about as much interest in democracy in this country as Rupert Murdoch or some other profit obsessed businessman.

A New Campaign for the Christmas No. 1 Slot

For those of you who are cynical about the (increasingly dubious) attempts to make Rage Against The Machine Christmas No. 1, I give you an alternative. Yes, Half Man Half Biscuit are making a bid for the Christmas No. 1 slot (or, at least, the No. 2 slot) with their song "It's Clichéd to be Cynical at Christmas."

Of course, it one were to be a little bit cynical as we move into the festive season, then one would probably dismiss this as one of the most shameless examples of bandwagon jumping seen in a long while. But that's not really getting in the spirit of things. No, in order to show that I am fully bought into this latest craze for making anything other than The X Factor single Christmas No. 1, I'm going to launch my own campaign. Yes, pop pickers, I want to see The Ramones' festive toe-tapper "Merry Christmas (I Don't Want To Fight Tonight)" as our Christmas No. 1. Join my campaign, buy the track*, set up the Facebook Group** and help us make an obscure track by an under-rated band Christmas No. 1!

*It is on i-Tunes.

**Because I lack both the time and the inclination to do so.

Battering Berlusconi

Of course, I wouldn't want to condone any act of violence, but sometimes the implements used to commit acts of violence are eye-opening to say the least:

The PM, 73, suffered a broken nose, two broken teeth and a cut lip after being hit with a model of Milan cathedral following a rally in the city.

The emphasis is mine, because I cannot figure out why a model of Milan cathedral was used. I mean, you could argue that it was the first thing that came to hand, but it is a model of Milan cathedral. Presumably, even in Milan, these aren't lying around in the street on the off-chance that someone wants to lob one at Berlusconi. Which implies a level or premeditation - that the attacker thought about what he wanted to use to batter Berlusconi, and settled on a model cathedral. Rather than more traditional implements, such as a brick. It does beg the question of "why?"

Still, The Daily Mash has a far more pertinent question - namely, what are we going to throw at Brown?

Gordon's Afghan Sleepover

And we're supposed to be impressed, right?

It is one thing to visit. It is another to stay over.

But this is exactly what Gordon Brown has done in Afghanistan, the first prime minister since World War II to spend a night in a combat zone.

He bunked down in a basic hut with limited heating and shared latrine in Kandahar airbase, which comes under rocket fire at least once a week. "No frills," was how one officer described it. "One star at most," said another.

Really, so what if Gordon Brown* chose to have a sleepover in Afghanistan? Does that make up for all the other shitty things he has ever done? I mean, do the troops gain anything by having Gordo there for an overnight stay? Or is just additional hassle with all the extra security that they have to have to protect him? On top of the problem of having to put up with the malign fucker for an extended period of time.

Now, there may well be reasons why every British Prime Minister since World War II has chosen not spend the night in a combat zone. Comfort may well be one of the reasons. But security might be another crucial reason. The additional burden of having the Prime Minister staying might have been judged as not being a worthwhile use of resources. Now, I don't know this for sure, but it has the ring of truth to it.

And finally, stressing the "one star" nature of the accommodation doesn't make Gordon Brown look like some sort of hero who is willing to slum it with his troops, but rather stresses the fact that the troops are expected to slum it 24/7 when in combat zones. It merely highlights the ongoing problem that this government seems to have with equipping their troops to even a basic standard. This ends up being another example of the patented Gordon Brown approach to photo opportunities; instead of showing how great he is, instead they merely highlight his ongoing failings.

*Who, dressed up in protective gear in the photo, looks a lot like an Action Man who has melted.

Did this serious of The Thick of It end satisfactorily? Yes, I think it did. But it did stretch the boundaries of credibility somewhat.

Firstly, Malcolm's return from the political wilderness did happen very quickly. In a matter of days, if not hours. Now, obviously resigning in disgrace is not a big problem for the Labour party; it is a minor hiccough in your career that ejects you from the corridors of power for a few months. However, no-one in the Labour party has quite managed the dramatic recovery in political fortunes enjoyed by Malcolm Tucker. It felt just a little bit too quick.

Also - and this is a criticism of the last two episodes - the character of Steve Fleming felt a little jarring. The idea of having an antithesis to Malcolm Tucker is a good one, but Fleming failed to be that. Instead, his grinning, upbeat persona with occasional lurches into profanity never quite worked. He looked and acted like he had wandered in from I'm Alan Partridge. Which was a shame, because the other characters in the show have always been very human (in terms of having deep personality flaws) and therefore very realistic.

Finally, it was a little bit too much to introduce the Fucker into the programme. Whilst Tom Hollander did a great job in making this character instantly memorable with very little screen time, it stretches the bounds of credibility that the Opposition would have a mini-me version of Malcolm waiting in the wings ready for any election. It creates the sort of symmetry that seldom occurs in real-life. As (relative to Malcolm) restrained as Stewart appears, he was completely believable for the new look, touchy-feely Tories. The Fucker may be a bit OTT.

Yet the moment I found most unbelievable at first - the idea that a Prime Minister would call a General Election they are likely to lose in order to avoid a leadership contest - actually is, in retrospect, very believable. It is entirely the sort of thing I could see Gordon Brown doing. In fact, when Nu Labour finally falls and the memoirs are committed to paper and then remainder bins across the country, I fully expect to read (secondhand, via Private Eye) that one of the reasons why Brown was never challenged by senior people in his party was because he always threatened to call a General Election if they did so. It is precisely the sort of vindictive cowardice that has become the hallmark of our incumbent Prime Minister...

The pathetic sight of a man scrabbling for a better place in history

Yep, sick bags on standby - we have the frankly odious sight of Tony Blair desperately trying to justify what will probably be the biggest stain on his already deeply checkered historical repuation - the invasion of Iraq.

There's lot of shit in the article, unsurprisingly. He talks about how difficult regime change can be difficult, but ignores the fact that, as the leader of one of the coalition powers, it was his job to make it as easy as possible. For example, by not stripping the country of the whole political infrastructure. Or by making sure the troops are properly equipped. Or by having some sort of exit strategy that isn't just blind panic in the face of a deeply predictable insurgency. Yet, in amongst all the rest of the horseshit, this bit particularly stands out to me as the very pinnacle of empty rhetoric:

But he went on: "I think people sometimes think my religious faith played a direct part in some of those decisions, it really didn't."

No. No, I don't think Blair's religion played a part in his decision. In fact, had he followed the path set by the central Messianic figure in his religion he might have been less willing to commit his country to war. But that's irrelevant, since - as Blair notes - he wasn't motivated by religion. No, we know why he went to war with Iraq. He was afraid of losing favour with the US administration. He was afraid of appearing soft on security. His decision to commit troops to conflict was based on cowardice and cynical political action. There was nothing moral or Christian about his decision. And that is how he will be remembered. A spineless political charlatan, ready to fight a war for no other end than to further his political career.

Fuck You, I Won't Do What You Tell Me

Simon Cowell is having a bit of a paddy. See, apparently this small group (well, half a million and counting) of people want to deny the latest pop pap crap the chance to be Christmas No. 1. What a bunch of bastards they we are. Imagine trying to prevent the latest over-promoted, over-hyped and shitty pile of musical turds from Cowell's fuck awful TV programme from reaching the top of the charts. How dare anyone challenge the musical hegemony of Cowell's manufactured mush?

Certainly, Simon seems a little shrill:

"If there's a campaign, and I think the campaign's aimed directly at me, it's stupid. Me having a No 1 record at Christmas is not going to change my life particularly."

A campaign against Simon Cowell is not so much stupid as, well, a work for genius that is long overdue. And whilst a Number 1 record for Cowell might not be life-changing, it is still important to him, his bank balance and his reputation as a music mogul. I mean, what would it say about him if he had actually wound up enough people to make the effort to spend money on a record just to piss him off?

"It does however change these guys' lives and we put this opportunity there so that the winner of the X Factor gets the chance of having a big hit record."

Right, now, I don't doubt that having a big hit record would change someone's life. But that doesn't mean they are owed a big hit record. Being Christmas No. 1 would change my life. That doesn't mean everyone should meekly buy whatever shite I choose to foist on them, just because I want to be Christmas No. 1. And there is something vaguely sickening about Cowell championing the winners of his terrible, terrible show. His care and attention for them doesn't seem to last that long, and the vast majority of contestants and winners end up flipping burgers less than 6 months after he has championed them.

"I think it's quite a cynical campaign geared at me which is actually going to spoil the party for these three.

So the fuck what? Why does it matter if the party is spoiled for whatever space cadets manage to win The X Factor? Again, are they automatically entitled to a party just because Cowell says so? And maybe - just maybe - it is this sort of arrogant, high-handed attitude from Cowell that makes people want to buy an aged Rage Against The Machine record just to piss him right off.*

And, honest to God, the concept of Cowell accusing someone else of conducting a "cynical campaign" is staggering. My good golly gosh, how hypocritical is that? The man has built his career on cynical campaigns. In fact, the current bid to make his latest products proteges Christmas No.1 is a great example of a cynical campaign.

"I also think it's incredibly dismissive of the people who watch and enjoy the show... to treat our audiences as if they're stupid and I don't like that."

No, it isn't dismissive of the people who watch the show. For what it is worth, I know the audience for the show is massive, and know both intelligent and dense people who watch it for a variety of reasons. However, just because lots of people watch the show doesn't mean everyone has to like it or, at the very least, refrain from criticising it. There are millions of us who don't know what a Jedward is, and don't really care - why the hell shouldn't we be able to voice our thoughts about a TV programme that at best we don't watch, and at worst see it as the latest sign that this nation is heading to hell in a handcart?

Cowell seems to have missed the point of the charts - they are supposed to be about the most popular records in the country, not about the promotion of his pop pap over the top of everything else. He has no automatic right to the No. 1 slot, no matter how hard he sulks and stamps his feet.

So, if like me you believe The X Factor is a sure sign of the death of British culture, or even if you are just sick of the likes of Cowell deciding who will be Christmas No. 1, join the Facebook group and buy the record from 13th December. It isn't the best record in the world**, but it is worth it just to show that we don't have to endure the endless cycle of the banal music endorsed by the likes of Simon Cowell. Having the Christmas No. 1 as a angry, profane rant may not be to everyone's taste, but surely to God it is better than having another X Factor Christmas No. 1...

*In fairness, the Facebook group is quite adamant that it is not anti-Cowell. Which is fair enough. I am anti-Cowell, though. I can't stand the twat.

**The song sounded great when I was 14. The sweary chant was ground-breaking and startling back then. Now, it just sounds a little pedestrian. Not least because the refrain has become not just familiar, but a mantra that pops into my head every time I hear Gordon Brown speak...