Nadine Dorries and Self Pity

Witness Nadine Dorries blathering on in The Daily Hate about how hard life is as an anti-abortion pro-life campaigner:

Pro-abortion activists deluge me with hate mail, or call on the police and public authorities to investigate me over some time-wasting, invented grievances — like whether I have a permit to hold a press conference on the green outside Parliament, or whether a certain salary payment to my staff is justified.

We only have Dorries' word (for what it is worth) that she is deluged with hate mail by pro-choice (not pro-abortion) activists. As for the grievances - Dorries is an elected politician proposing policies that will have a national impact. Therefore, she is and should be subject to rigourous scrutiny. Especially in the aftermath of the Expenses Scandal - a scandal in which Dorries herself was involved at the very least in a peripheral way.

Indeed, one member of my office recently left my employment because she was so fed up with this endless oppression from campaigners.

Oppression? Please, get a grip. Pressure is the very best you can argue your people are under - and they work for an elected representative, so they should expect to have to deal with public pressure.

Because I am an MP, the police and other bodies have no choice but to investigate, no matter how frivolous the complaint: then the campaigners run off to their supportive friends in the Left-wing press to say that ‘Nadine Dorries is under investigation’, always declining to report a few days later that I have been cleared.

The police and other bodies should investigate all complaints regardless of whether Dorries (hardly the most impartial of sources) finds them to be frivolous. And there is something rather amusing in someone criticising others for using the left-wing press using the medium of the right-wing press. Pot and kettle, Nadine. And I doubt whether you or The Daily Hate will be retracting the unsubtle and inaccurate dig at one of your most eloquent and persistent critics when it is pointed out to you and the terrible rag voicing your self-pitying and unconvincing opinions.

Even my own family is in the firing line. One of my daughters works in my Parliamentary office, so she sees all the cruel messages, while my other daughter, during her last year at school, had to put up with snide comments from teachers whose dogmatic feminism had been offended by my stand.

Well, I don't doubt that you can complain about those snide teachers if you so wish, Nadine. Assuming, of course, there is something meaningful for you to complain about other than your seemingly self-perpetuating persecution complex operating in overdrive. As for the daughter who works in your parliamentary office - it is her choice to take a nepotistic job with her mother, and if she doesn't want to be exposed to the "cruel" messages (which could just be those messages that do not agree with Dorries' positions) she should get a real job in the real world.

Yet what are all these campaigners so scared of? Why should they be anxious about women being offered independent advice?

I think people who are pro-choice would favour independent, neutral advice. Dorries wants to reduce the number of abortions; I think there is nothing wrong with those of us who are genuinely pro-choice questioning the extent to which Dorries' independent advisors would be neutral.

If they are really as pro-choice as they pretend, they would support my proposal. That is what women in this country deserve.

Except the reason why people who are pro-choice do not support Dorries is because, by attempting to reduce the periods in which women can have abortions, Dorries is reducing choice. She is attempting to reduce the control women have over their own bodies. And I can only speak for myself, but I really doubt that is what the women in this country deserve.

On the troubles of Chris Huhne

I've been following the Chris Huhne story with a certain amount of weariness and disinterest. I mean, I don't know whether he got his estranged wife to to accept speeding points on his behalf. I don't know he or his wife and (judging by this nasty little spat) I don't ever want to know either of them. But there is something intuitively plausible about this story. Because Chris Huhne comes across as utterly ghastly. He seems to be the sort of person who would fuck you over not just to get ahead, but also to assert a curiously misplaced sense of superiority over you. And this comes across in his desperation to lead the Liberal Democrats. Quite why anyone would want to lead Britain's second-rate third party - especially at the moment, when leading it is effectively taking a deep swip from a not just poisoned but also utterly toxic chalice? I guess because it would make Huhne important; it would make him a leader. Which would make him better than you, my non-leader reader.

There is an air of undeserved smugness around Chris Huhne - that unpleasant air of arrogant mediocrity. He comes across as someone who believes he should be in Parliament - and therefore have some sort of control over you - for no other reason than he just plain thinks he knows better than you. And if other people have to fall by the wayside in order for him to get ahead - if he has to abdicate personal responsibility to others for his own mistakes to get ahead - then that's absolutely fine with it.

Which leads me to the point of this post, and my question - what is about being a politician that turns most people into being the sort of self-serving shit you would cross the street to avoid?

Self-regarding, self-pitying shite.

It has already been commented on to death, but I can't let this piece of self-pitying, utterly delusional piece of written onanism pass without comment. In particular, this bit had me simultaneously aghast and outraged:

These days, I am lucky if I earn £500 a week as a writer.

£500? £500? You're fucking lucky that you earn £5 a month given your writing reads like the nasal whining of a spoilt materialistic teenager whose grip on reality is practically non-existent.

Self-Justification and Political Memoirs

There are many reasons why a politician would write their memoirs - to record a genuinely historical moment in history (like, say, Churchill), to set the record straight (like Nixon tried, and spectacularly failed, to do), to gossip to a much wider audience (Mandelson) and to make a shit load of cash (hello, Bill Clinton). However, with the publication of Bush's book (a tome apparently not written on chew-proof paper with waterproof crayons, much to the astonishment of most) a new form of political memoir has been truly been enshrined - the whiny pile of self-justificatory tripe.

Bush has been defending waterboarding - how he fought for freedom by getting others to torture suspects. It is, of course, entirely justifiable in Bush's worldview - but then again, Bush only sees the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. He misses the shades of grey that define existence for most. Yet the very fact that he is having to justify and explain his actions shows how he and his idiotic War on Terror have been tainted since the days when he had a genuine chance to unite pretty much the whole world behind him in an assault on globalised terror.

Bush seems to be claiming that lives were saved by waterboarding. Aside from the fact that this doesn't make it right (torture often works - many nations choose not to do it anyway because they are aspiring to be civilised), waterboarding may have prevented certain terrorist attacks. The operative word there being "may". But how many others have become radicalised because of the stories of US waterboarding of terror suspects? Actions as controversial as water-boarding have consequences, both good and bad. Bush says water-boarding saves lives - I say it will also cost lives in the future - if it hasn't already.

Bush is not alone in publishing this sort of memoir, though. Blair's own book seems to have a large theme running throughout it that basically seems to be saying "Don't judge me because of the Iraq War!" Like Bush, he seems to be fighting for a place in history that doesn't come with the tag of "warmonger" - something that, for neither man, is going to be very easy.

Brown's forthcoming book won't be about the Iraq War - he's not fighting the tag of "warmonger". Rather, he's trying to avoid the caption next to his picture in any history book reading "incompetent cunt". He's going to be banging on about how the recession wasn't his fault, but any signs of recovery (however slim) were entirely down to him. His book gives every indication of being a wretched last gasp of a desperate man who has not quite come to terms with the fact that he utterly fucked up in the job he fought for across his adult life. It is Brown's last-ditch attempt to avoid being tagged as a failure for the rest of time (or at least until his abortion of an administration is forgotten - which, given the levels of the debt he left us with, will be quite some time). Like Bush and Blair, he's seemingly destined to fail.

Of course, the books of all three men will make lots of money (even if some of it will be grudgingly given to charity by some of the authors) and keep the authors in the public eye. But the tone of these books seems to be about the last ditch attempt to carve out a place in the history books. None of these men deserve anything more than consignment to the dustbin of history as incompetent, immoral failures. So if you do waste your time and money by buying and then reading their books, just keep in mind that these tomes are nothing more than the final, desperate ramblings of compromised men.

Tony Blair admits mistakes

In amongst all the self-serving detritus that one might expect from an interview with Tony Blair, there are a couple of examples of what I never thought would come from the mouth of that arrogant arse - he actually admits his mistakes. But before we get too excited, let's consider what he actually has to say.

First up, fox-hunting. The Guardian challenges him on whether it was a mistake:

"I think yes on balance it was in the end. Its not that I particularly like hunting or have ever engaged in it or would. I didn't quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life." Blair accepts that the ban was "not one of my finest policy moments".

I'm prepared to agree with Blair on everything he says here; I don't like fox-hunting either (in fact I find it pretty sickening) but for others, it is an important part of their lives and while I struggle to understand why, I don't think it should be banned. To do so is draconian; it represents a tyranny of the majority (assuming, of course, that a majority actually support a ban on fox-hunting). It should never have been passed as a law.

But given Blair himself now accepts this, will we see him campaigning to have his mistake rectified and the ban rescinded? I'm not going to be holding by breath on that one.

The second mistake is far more revealing of Blair and his attitude to politics. On the Freedom of Information Act:

"It's not practical for government," he says. "If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations. Everybody knows this in their walk of life. Whether you are in business – or running a newspaper – there are conversations you want to have preliminary to taking a decision that are frank .

"And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."

Brilliant. So the people politicians represent should be denied the freedom to scrutinise them and understand the way in which they came to various decisions because it might be a bit embarrassing for those politicians. What absolute, arrogant wank. The point of government is not to operate in such a way that it avoids potential future embarrassment for politicians; good government involves operating in such a way that it is always doing the best for its people, and as such it should always be able to stand up to even the closest of scrutiny.

Blair shows that for him, government was not about working in the interests of the people, but rather in winning cheap, crowd-pleasing victories (such as through banning fox-hunting) and in making the process of government more convenient for those in power rather than those being governed. His ideas are fundamentally arrogant, and it is this arrogance that has ensured that his legacy is one of failure. He could never succeed in governing others as he was always governing in his own interest.

Perfect Timing!

In terms of scheduling, you can’t fault the legal proceedings against those three MPs and one peer:

The four will make their first appearance at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 2pm on March 11, only three weeks before the official start of the general election campaign. This means that the issue could well dominate the start of the campaign, which is likely to infuriate both Labour and Tories, since it could push disillusioned voters into the arms of smaller parties — or none.

I wonder how long until someone argues that it is damaging to democracy that these court dates are so close to the General Election. If it happens, safe money says it will be one of the odious four who first asserts this idea.

But this is perfect timing, it really, really is. Just as the main parties start spouting their meaningless platitudes to get them through the election, the electorate will be reminded of just how atrociously some MPs have behaved. And hopefully that will factor into the way people vote. As I’ve said before, voters have to take into account how politicians will act once in office rather than just agreeing with any ideological stance they have or liking the way they look. The court appearances of these four should remind us that public servants are there to serve the public, not help themselves – and we can affect what type of person gets returned to Parliament through our votes.

Mind you, it is probably too much to hope that they are found guilty on the day before the election...

Don't Forget the Expenses Scandal When You Come to Vote

For anyone who has followed the scandal around MPs expenses, the news that millions of pounds have to be paid back and that criminal charges are coming to a select few will come as no surprise.

The time for rage and ranting is over – at least for me. My anger on this issue is spent. I’ve moved towards acceptance: acceptance that we have been rinsed by a bunch of troughing fucks who…

Wait, hold up, I’m drifting back to anger. Enough.

But this scandal shouldn’t end with the repayments and the charges. We have an election this year, and we should remember the frauds committed by our elected representatives when we go to the ballot box. A fundamental question that needs to be applied to each candidate is whether we feel they will act as a public servant, rather than just serving themselves from the public purse. As the actions of many of those in this parliament have shown, that is almost as important as agreeing with their ideologies.

Electoral Reform: Saving Politicians from Democracy?

With all the dignity of a condemned man calling for an end to the death penalty, Gordon Brown is calling for a referendum on electoral reform.

I remain unconvinced about the case for electoral reform. Our current system is far from perfect, but it does have the wonderful attribute of being simple enough even for the dumbest voter to understand. Contrary to the way it is being promoted, AV isn’t like voting in The X Factor.

Personally, if electoral reform has to happen, then I would prefer a system that produces coalition governments, if only because – as a Libertarian – I would like government to be hobbled as much as possible. But electoral reform is hardly the most pressing concern facing this country.

And when you have a Prime Minister facing electoral defeat, then do not doubt their intentions when they talk about electoral reform. This isn’t about what doing what is best for the electorate, it is about making things better for the politician. In this case, it is about trying to reduce the amount of time that the Labour party spend in opposition. One party, and one party alone, makes the case for electoral reform consistently, albeit for typically self-serving reasons – the Liberal Democrats. The Labour party don’t care about electoral reform; they care about the Labour party. They didn’t care one jot about electoral reform when the system gave them landslides on a minority of the vote. Now it is going to condemn them to opposition on a minority of the vote, their leader starts bleating about changing the system. The fact that this is so blatantly self-serving condemns electoral reform as a concept to a large extent – it has nothing to do with democracy, but rather saving failing politicians from democracy.

Blair: Liar or Moron?

Tony Blair, on Iraq:

Mr Blair said British policy towards Saddam was transformed by the terror attacks on America in September 2001.

He said: "I would fairly describe our policy up to September 11 as doing our best, hoping for the best but with a different calculus of risk assessment."

He added: "The point about those acts in New York is that, had they been able to kill more people than the 3,000, they would have.

"My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

Which, when you think about it, is abject nonsense. Literally. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would the policy towards Saddam change after 9/11? He had nothing to do with that attack. In fact, Osama bin Laden (who probably did have a lot to do with 9/11) famously had very little time for Saddam, and even offered to use his resources to fight Saddam in the first Gulf War. So Saddam had fuck all to do with the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. To state that British policy changed towards Iraq changed because of 9/11 is just stupid; it's like saying British policy towards Northern Ireland changed because of 9/11.

And, bearing in mind there is no link whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11, the fact that the 9/11 attackers would have killed more people if they could is utterly irrelevant. Likewise, to talk of being unable to take risks with this "issue" is freeform nonsense, since there is not just one issue. Iraq is a separate issue to 9/11, in exactly the same way that the government's (cack-handed) response to the foot and mouth crisis was a separate issue to 9/11.

One wonders whether Blair actually believes the bullshit he spouts. If he does, then he is a deluded moron. If he doesn't, then he is a malignant little turd still happy to carry out self-serving deception on a massive scale. Neither alternative provides a particularly edifying picture of the man who used to run this country.

Sir John stressed that Mr Blair was not "on trial".

Shame.

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.

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.

MPs' Expenses: A Witch Hunt?

I caught Newsnight* (ironically enough this morning) and was staggered by the reporting. Now, it seems, we are supposed to feel some sympathy for the poor MPs losing their livelihoods and lively expense accounts. Apparently some of those who are stepping down felt intolerable pressure. Awww, diddums. I'm guessing all rumbled fraudulent fucks and benefit cheats feel some sort of pressure when their ugly little schemes are made public. I feel about as much sympathy for them as I do for these sodding MPs who are being forced out. The word witch hunt is used a lot. Well, big fat hairy bollocks to that. Take the Salem witch hunts - those accused in that were innocent. You can tell because witches don't actually exist. Those accused in this sorry farago of a scandal are guilty of exploiting the taxpayer. It isn't a witch hunt; it is dragging the guilty into the public eye. 

The only charge that Newsnight really made stick was that it wasn't fair that some, mainly unknown backbench MPs, were being forced from power whilst the likes of Burnham, Blears and Darling can still gorge their rampant egos in the corridors of power. Which is true. Don't get me wrong, I think those that have said they are going to go at the next election should go. But there are worse offenders out there, and they seem to be sitting pretty. 

So I'm going to make a suggestion in the interests of "fairness". Rather than scapegoating minor MPs for the sins of most MPs, how about putting all MPs in the firing line? How about making it so all MPs could lose their cushy little jobs and their cushy little lifestyles? And how about making it so the party leaders and the press aren't the ones deciding which MPs should be turfed? Newsnight talks a lot about mob justice, but the mob - or electorate, if you will, the very people these out and out cunts should be serving - hasn't had their say. Give us a General Election, and then the mob, the electorate, the fucking people will actually be able to have their say on this scandal. 

Turns out an immediate General Election is actually the only way to be fair to our MPs. Who'd have thought it?

*At around 13.54, Kelvin McKenzie mentioned MP Stephen Hammond and his little expenses escapade. It isn't one of the worst ones, but it is one that got me incensed. Mainly because, in my wayward and misspent Tory youth, I campaigned for Hammond. He was going up against a dubious Nu Labour type, and was painting himself as the honourable alternative. That didn't last long, did it? Hammond - a wealthy man - has rushed straight to the taxpayer for a quick handout. His hypocrisy, sadly, is typical of that party - and of our ruling class.  *CORRECTION* as a comment at the Kitchen points out, they actually refer to Philip Hammond MP, not Stephen. My bad, my apologies. Need to have my ears syringed. 

Cross-posted at Devil's Kitchen

Saying Sorry and Political Expediency.

Hazel Blears on apologising:

"You can't win as a politician," she said. "If you say you are sorry somehow you are responsible for every single thing. If you don't say you are sorry you are arrogant and out of touch. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't."

As always, Blears manages to completely miss the point: this time of apologising. The reason for saying sorry is because you are actually sorry about something. It is very telling that Blears simply sees apologising as a matter of expediency, and seems to almost conclude that it is not worth doing as it might not make things easier for the politician concerned.

I almost want to tut at her, like an peeved primary school teacher, and point out that you should only apologise if you actually mean it. But such concepts are never going to work for our esteemed leaders. All Blears is actually doing is (albeit unintentionally) again illustrating the central mindset of Nu Labour (and, I'd argue, all the other parties in Parliament) - that they work for themselves, and everything is about making their lives easier regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the people and regardless of whether it leaves them wide fucking open for a charge of insincerity and/or hypocrisy.

Another good example of this if those godawful fucking adverts showing fat chavs and warning them that if they are dole cheats, then they will be found and charged by the authorities. Grand, I say. Lock 'em up, and remove any benefits they might yet claim. They are rinsing the public purse for all it is worth. But the irony is lost on our elected leaders - they too, are effectively cheating dole scum. They are paid for from the public purse, and they are determined to get as much as possible from the people, regardless of what they actually contribute to the country. There isn't one - not one - politician in this country who actually represents value for money. So yeah, benefit cheats are leeches on the taxpayer's money. The reality is that they are indistinguishable from our MPs - except the latter take more, and dress a little better.

Of course, it is human nature to be, at least on some levels, expedient and self-centred. Most people manage a balance between that and being at least a little socially aware and a little philanthropic. Not so our politicians. They are simply out for themselves, and will only do things if they make life easier for the self-perpetuating oligarchy in this country. Politicians may despair about the levels of cynicism in this country, but in this area they truly are leading by example. There is no-one more cynical and self-serving in this country that Blears and the shower of shits who surround her.

They work for us? Really? Don't make me fucking laugh a hollow, bitter laugh.

From the BBC:

There is no suggestion councils did not do their jobs properly.

Really? You fucking what? Even if you are a fan of the councils, you have to concede that some are suggesting that councils did not do their jobs properly. Like me. I think, on balance, that the councils - with a hefty amount of help from TFL and the fucking training companies - showed themselves to be utterly incapable of doing their jobs properly. The absolute farce that came after just a little bit of snow can be blamed squarely on those institutions that failed to act on the repeated warnings that a cold snap was coming.

But nothing quite beats the mindless, self-serving justifications of those in local councils. The chairman of the Local Government Association Environment Board, Paul Bettison, is on grabbing onto the excuse making part of his role with both hands:

"The claim that it is local authorities' fault that they cannot run services needs to treated with a huge pinch of gritting salt..."

Oh, ahahahahahaha. Gritting salt. How fucking topical. Shame you couldn't stick some of the gritting salt on the roads rather than just using it as a punchline for a joke that Roy "Chubby" Brown would turn his nose up at.

Bettison goes on to claim that local governments did all they could to take the edge of what TFL were euphemistically - and pretentiously - calling "adverse weather conditions", but they were hampered by the snow continuing to fall. I sorry, but did they not consider for one moment that the snow might continue to fall? And that sometimes the snow can get inches deep? Where the fuck was the contingency plan?

The snow fall was never going to make life easier for people to get around, but the inaction of local governments and transport companies really did help to turn a snowy situation into an utterly crappy one for swathes of people across the UK. And they fucking wonder why we complain about ticket prices and about council tax...

Anyway, enough ranting about the snow for me. Let me summarise with my thoughts on all those who turned my daily commute into an arduous, frustrating trek in the freezing cold in a city that is supposed to be a world leading modern metropolis. They are a bunch of cunts. 

When binge drinking isn't binge drinking...

There’s an epidemic of middle class binge drinking. Apparently:

A comprehensive survey claims that middle aged, professional Britons are more likely to exceed recommended daily levels of alcohol consumption than the working-classes, with twice as many drinking every night of the week.

Which would be far more concerning if they recommended daily levels weren’t, well, made up:

Mr Smith, a former Editor of the British Medical Journal, said that members of the working party were so concerned by growing evidence of the chronic damage caused by heavy, long-term drinking that they felt obliged to produce guidelines. “Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee,” he said.

Of course, that doesn’t stop our leaders treating these stats as the gospel truth:

Dawn Primarolo, the Public Health Minister, said: "We are only now beginning a sustained programme to inform people about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. However, initial tracking from our Units campaign, launched in May last year, shows more people know how much is safe to drink and know how many units are in their drinks."

Except, Dawn, those limits are still made up. So people may be aware of how many units they should drink based on your pointless yet no doubt expensive campaign, but realistically it is of fuck all use to them. Since the limits are “plucked out of the air”, the government may as well have launched a campaign to convince people of the existence of Santa.

However, there are some people who actually admit to the truth about these limts:

James Le Fanu, a family doctor in south London, said it would not be dangerous for a couple to drink slightly more than the recommended allowance, particularly if they only did so once or twice a week.

He said: "They are arbitrary levels and set low so as to catch as large a section of the population as possible and lecture them about their drinking levels. Mortality levels only begin to climb when you're hitting 50 or 60 units a week."

It is just a shame that James Le Fanu is “just” a family doctor, and therefore is likely to be ignored by the powers that be.

So to summarise, we have politicians complaining that middle class drinkers – private citizens with the right to chose how they live their lives – are exceeding made up, arbitrary limits of how much alcohol they can drink. I, for one, am glad that our politicians have a sense of perspective and are focussed on issues like made up alcohol limits rather than less pressing issues like the Iraq War, the economic melt-down and the possible bankruptcy of the UK.

Election 2008: Terror, terror, everywhere

One of John McCain's staff has got himself into trouble after making comments about terrorism. Apparently another terror attack on the US "Certainly it would be a big advantage to (McCain)".

The response has been tedious in the extreme - Obama slates the aide, McCain distances himself from the aide, and the aide apologies. So far, so good. You could argue the aide is right in his analysis - well, maybe, but you do have to admit it was a pretty dumb fucking thing to say. But the even more worrying comment for me came in that aide's follow-up:

"I recognise that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration." (My emphasis).

Seriously, you what, now? Security is more important than anything else, in the world, ever? That's just pigging stupid. Security is (and must) be a key consideration, but in conjunction with other things. Like, you know, freedom. After all, if we all lived in bomb proof bubbles in concrete shelters we'd be pretty fucking secure - although the quality of live would be absolutely shocking. There is a trade off between security and other considerations; security cannot be placed before any other consideration.

Plus, other considerations will increase security, as insane as that might sound to paranoid politicians everywhere. But it is true. A strong economy means more contentment which is turns means a lesser chance of people being radicalised and therefore increases security. Likewise, health is another key consideration - it doesn't matter how secure I am if my body is consumed by rancid cancer.

This mindless veneration of security is a major problem today. It leads to crap policies like the Patriot Act, like 42 days detention. The only way to guarantee security absolutely is via totalitarianism, and make no mistake about it - that is where the priorities of McCain et al will lead.

Tibet Troubles

China is blaming the current unrest in Tibet on the Dalai Lama. This is an audacious claim to make about a man who has committed his whole life to peaceful regime change in Tibet. It is a staggering claim when you consider that one of the fundamental rules of Buddhism is the commitment to peace, and the refusal to hurt others. It becomes even more of a mind-blowing head fuck when you consider that the claims are coming from the Chinese government - a totalitarian regime with no real concept of what either honesty or basic human rights are.

Needless to say, your humble author is not convinced by the story from the Chinese government. This attempt to paint the Dalai Lama as a cross between a Bond villian and a sub Castro pseudo revolutionary would be funny, if it weren't the backdrop to a story where people are dying.

The Dalai Lama has risen to the claims of the Chinese government by stating he will resign if the violence worsens. Fair play to the guy (and I realise he probably wasn't seeking my approval, but he has it anyway). But this probably won't be the only challenges that China gets this year. That's the problem with hosting the Olympics, see? The eyes of the world tend to turn to you, when you are hosting an endless parade of repetitive athletic events. And, particularly if you are a brutal dictatorship with a reprehensible record in the area of human rights, some of what the world sees ain't going to be positive.

Ghandi changed the world through peaceful protest. The Dalai Lama may not achieve that, but he may yet further show what a mendacious, awful regime currently rules in China. And, for that matter, Tibet.

Diana - Al Fayed speaks!*

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

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

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

*Again.

Cleaning up Corruption, the Parliament Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

"So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

*The Moai sent me that link. In relation to hypocrisy in the EU. But I rather think the words are suitable for the UK parliament as well. And, indeed, to corrupt fucks everywhere. I also think another blogger has used Cromwell's words recently - apologies, stealing your idea a bit, but the speech just seems so relevant to the UK in 2008.

Being Nasty to Christians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not make freedom of speech sacred?