Public Interest.co.uk

Peter Preston just couldn't resist it, today in the Guardian:

"Before September 11, Pakistan had some realistic chance of returning to democracy and showing the generals (compare and contrast Turkey) that their time was up. You may forget such hopes now. Musharraf has had himself elected president in a gambit even Florida would choke on".

|

"A 19-year-old student is seeking £100,000 in compensation from the exam board at the centre of the scandal over "grade fixing", it emerged yesterday, becoming the first person to take legal action over this year's A-level crisis",

The Guardian reports. Good luck to him, and all who hope to profit by the precedent. 90 thou times 100 thou is an awful lot of k. Think of all the Trident missiles and prisons you could build with that. Or, if you prefer, schools and hospitals.

|

The Guardian:

"Asked to compare their ideal party to a type of drink and a sport, floating voters in one poll opted for red wine and football. Asked to make the same comparison for the Tories, the floaters nominated a gin-and-tonic and cricket. Somehow the comparison tells you everything".

It sure does. We Tories have taste, sophistication and a profound understanding of the human condition. Unlike the snobbish pesudoprole who wrote this crud.

|

Another Monday, and another lousy Terence Blacker column. On Friday he was denouncing 'male' behaviour, and commending Edwina Currie for getting down and dirty with John Major. Two days later, the ludicrous Blacker has now discovered his manly side:

"I have not been to London for so long that the mere thought of the place – with its dead-eyed zombie commuters and psychotic bus drivers, its muggers waiting around every corner – makes me feel like a frightened little old lady.
This is not me. I am a man and frankly, with every day of my rough, feral existence in a field, I am becoming more manly".

He seems to think this is a good thing.

"Ever since I have taken to driving around in an old white Ford Transit van, my life and personality have been transformed. Complexity, the wimpish uncertainty of the liberal, is banished. I feel stronger, bigger, more in control and, between you and me, randier than I ever was when cocooned in a saloon car or buffeted around on a bike".

I reckon we should stick our Edwina in the back of the van with him and let them get on with it.

|

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean Claude Juncker laid down the law to those petulant Maltese yesterday:

"After withdrawing its application in 1996, there will no third time for Malta. This is not a game. This is a serious job for Malta and for Europe. This is not for children."

The Maltese are reportedly quaking in their boots.

Or maybe they've all gone down to the beach, giggling uncontrollably.

Enjoy your weekend.

|

The Labour conference has ended, and perhaps this explains Polly Toynbee's euphoria:

"After five years in power, this is the best government Britain has ever had. By far".

Argument over, then.

"What jolted me into this frame of mind was not the tub-thumping of Gordon Brown, not Tony Blair's "Be Bold" burnished rhetoric. It was certainly not Clinton's sexy showmanship - this old political crooner, all mouth and no trousers, who left behind no progressive monuments. Instead, the reminder of the best of Labour came in Estelle Morris's deft and powerful speech, stripped of airiness and windy abstraction, calmly seasoned with a deep understanding that earned her a heartfelt standing ovation from a party these days full of decent people much like her. That's it. That is what is best about Labour, when at its best. There is an array of ministers, senior and junior, thoroughly competent, by now pretty experienced and good at governing. (Not all, but most.) One after another, Blunkett, Hewitt, Milburn, Cook, they looked formidable, they know whereof they speak, grounded in the real world that eluded even the better Tory ministers who had never worked in and rarely used the public services they ran".

Well if that's the real world give me an ivory tower now. If Estelle Morris is the best they can do then it's an open goal for IDS next week.

|

Apparently Boris Johnson wrote this week attacking "new laws on paternity leave, unfair dismissal and rights for part-time workers, all of which make it more difficult to hire and fire."

David Aaronovitch comments that:

"It is hard, offhand, to think of any ground on which Labour would rather fight than this. Can we really – if we are pro-family – not afford to give new dads the right to a few days off when their kids are born? The party political broadcast writes itself".

A leader in the same paper takes a similar line:

"The whole point of legally enforced rights is that they impose a sharp and meaningful responsibility on those in a position of power".

Actually they impose responsibility on everyone. Rich and poor, powerful and powerless alike.

"We should, therefore, welcome the second annual review from the Disability Rights Commission, which reports that the number of legal cases it supports has increased by more than half. This "compensation culture" is not some conspiracy by lawyers (they may do well out of it because of past restrictions on their recruitment, but that is a separate matter). It is a question of equality and justice for people with disabilities. Does anyone seriously contend that disabled people would be better off if their rights had not been given the force of law in 1995?"

Well yes. I do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Freedom of association is the freedom to discriminate. They're the same thing.

"Civilised values surely include an equality of respect for people regardless of any physical or mental impairment".

Ye, and it's the sanction for those who don't have the respect that is the issue.

"But the most certain way to secure equal treatment, where it is possible, is the sanction of legal penalties for discrimination".

So that's it. Lock them up and throw away the key. Is this really the New Labour dream? Make as many things as possible illegal but try and stop prosecuting people for breaking these laws? Well Aaro and the leader writer may dismiss the opponents of this as cripple-kickers and the like. But if the Tories want a policy all of their own they should tackle these interfering hypocrites head on. Freedom of association is an idea waiting to happen, and they may as well make the running now, while they are unpopular. By the time they become electable again, it will be an acceptable, if not accepted idea. And the Neo-socialists will never be able to claim it as their own. That's one of the advantages of being out of power for so long.

|

Another Friday, and another lousy Terence Blacker column. This time he's been contemplating the fact that the last Tory PM was giving Mrs. Currie a good seeing to. He muses

"surely we are now grown up enough to be able to admit that sometimes, maybe quite often, adulterous relationships can be good and loving; they can require quite as much generosity and self-sacrifice as a marriage, although of a different sort; life is complicated; every marriage is different; people work out their own forms of love, of getting along together. It is simply childish self-deception to see infidelity as if life were a Mills & Boon romance with, for example, a cheap trollop playing the villain's part, an easily led husband the victim and a betrayed wife as a saintly figure in the background".

Who of us is innocent? Who would like to throw the first stone? Step forward, Terence Blacker:

"There has been something cowardly – and, one has to say, male – in the way that he has avoided answering questions while putting out statements that present him as the good, penitent husband, while his former lover, and the relationship that was once important enough to him to risk all for it, are dismissed as a source of shame".

Oh, one has to say it doesn't one?

|

The Human Rights Act celebrated its second birthday yesterday, and Francesca Klug is all agog. She explains:

"The European convention sprung from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is essentially an ethical document influenced by the collectivist and communitarian values of its Islamic, Confucian and socialist drafters, as well as by western liberalism. It aimed to provide common standards for a diverse world".

Now that's encouraging, isn't it? Nothing wrong with being influenced by a mish-mash of clapped-out and discredited philosophies. How very modern.

"Influenced by these traditions, the convention seeks to find a balance between the protection of individual rights and the concerns of the wider community. Inalienable rights are not a reward for responsible behaviour. They belong to everyone. But they can, and sometimes must, be limited to protect the fundamental rights of others".

Great. So inalienable rights aren't inalienable, then.

"Without clear leadership from the government, it is unlikely that this broader vision of human rights will be appreciated".

Yup. Let's get Mr. Blair to sort it out.

"Schoolchildren seem to understand the ethical vision behind the Human Rights Act".

Er. I don't think so.

"Nearly 150 schools and youth groups contributed to a national award scheme on citizenship values - showcased at the anniversary event yesterday, using videos, mime and rap".

Eminem will save the world. Of course, though I might be being a bit cynical here, it might be that the little munchkins would rather do anything than study their Euclid. Do these kids really dig the Human Rights Act? Or could they have set the Magna Carta to music with the same result?

|

Beware of false idols, you socialist reprobates. First up, the Mirror:

"WHAT a performance. What a politician. What a superstar.
Bill Clinton played the parts of elder statesman, philosopher and world leader at Labour's conference and played them to perfection.
He was more idealistic and visionary than during his presidency, and added the experience of eight years in the White House...
To hear Mr Clinton talk with compassion and humanity about the slaughter of innocent people by "smart" bombs and stress the vital importance of working with the United Nations threw a chasm between him and the warmongers in today's White House...
"But he spoke yesterday with an extraordinary passion, vision and clarity that inspired the Labour conference to roar from the rooftops".

But that's only because they're power-worshipping desperadoes. Second up, the Guardian:

"There is no single definition of what makes a great political speech. Probably the accolade is handed out too readily. Yet no one who was present at Blackpool yesterday afternoon was in any doubt that they had just heard one. In an intimate, almost conversational tone, speaking only from notes, Bill Clinton delivered the speech of a true political master".

Speaking only from notes. So the guy can read, can he?

"this was the speech of a truly serious political leader, and if it went on five minutes longer than it needed to do, it was still a performance of the highest possible class. If one were reviewing it, five stars would not be enough".

Out of what? A hundred?

"If the delegates came away feeling good about themselves, they had every right to do so".

No they don't. Anyone who is a Labour delegate would have woken up this morning wondering what the hell he was cheering for. Those guys are manic depressives. Neo-labourism is a mental affliction, buddy.

"What a speech. What a pro. And what a loss to the leadership of America and the world".

What a pillock. Or, as Simon Carr puts it:

"If these people have to choose between equality and freedom they clutch instinctively at the panoply of state powers with which they think they can enforce equality. We end up being neither free nor equal, but they get re-elected which is the point all along".

|

Sometimes Mark Steel has something to say:

"none of the commentators who claim Blair's speech asserted his dominance over British politics has acknowledged that fewer people feel any allegiance towards any mainstream politicians than at any time for more than a century. If his hold is so strong, why was the turnout at the election the lowest since everyone had the vote? And why have there just been the two biggest demonstrations ever, both outside official politics, one from the
left and one from the right?"

|

It seems I have to return once again to Political Correctness. Fine. Natalie Solent says that:

"My judgement says that blacks have been harmed and insulted, individually and collectively, a great deal by people who used the word "nigger."

To which I would say: well up to a point. The worst injustices blacks suffered, individually and collectively, like slavery, and segregation, was when blacks were called blacks. It was hardly the word that caused the problem. Hitler would have hated the Jews whatever he called them. These days the word 'black' has achieved, at least in my social circle, a kind of non-moral, non-partisan status that I would be reluctant to lose. When there was a movement a few years back to use the phrase 'person of colour' instead I found it annoying. Why bother? I wondered. But presumably this movement was caused by some people who found 'black' offensive. Fortunately, for me, that movement seems to have failed. But I say that not from any moral point of view, but for convenience. For selfish reasons, in other words.
It's swings and roundabout. I'm not at all sure that blacks have been damaged by the use of the word "nigger" per se. Getting worked up about the word rather than the abuse that is intended by the use of the word - if abuse is intended, and we know that that is not always the case - is the straw target. People will always find a word to abuse their enemies, and to try and persuade them to use a different word is futile. Telling 'white trash', as you put it in a comment on my blog, that they shouldn't use the word "Paki" because it can be offensive is not going to impress them. If they want to offend then they're going to carry on using the word. If they don't, then they themselves might well be offended at your prissiness.
I know people, from dear old Malta, who use the word "nigger" as freely as I use the word "black" and they are no more racist than I am. Wild horses would not get me to say the word with their liberality. I cringe whenever I hear it. But wild horses, equally, would not get me to correct them. I might however, if there were a black person present, chide them gently that this might not be the most sensitive use of the word. But that is a practical problem, not a moral one. For all I know they might find my use of the word 'black' offensive. ( I must ask them. )

"So there are scarcely any real situations where "nigger" is acceptable".

In my experience, sure. But I dare say if I were to join the music biz as England's answer to Eminem I might well find myself using it.

"Men, on the other hand, do all right in this world and only need defending every five years or so".

This actually strikes me as the crux of the matter. I know Ms Solent thinks I say all this only to tease. Or at least partly, like some kind of right-wing shock jock. Well I could say the same with this statement. Do you really mean it, Nat? Even if you don't, well plenty of people do, I think, so I shall take it on:

Since when have Men been a group?

By what criterion can it be said that they "do all right in this world". In comparison with whom? Women? Hermaphrodites? How can you tell?
What about all the men who don't do all right? What about the women who do do all right? Is this a money thing? A power thing?

Surely, to lump Men all together is the same moral mistake as lumping all women together, all blacks together, and so on. I could quote Martin Luther King here, but I don't have it at hand. However, I think the general point he was making was that: we, all humans, should be judged by our individual moral qualities, not by which particular group we identify with, be it race, creed, colour, sex, or age.

And this is the PC mistake. Political Correctness identifies people by these qualities, and then, with sumptuous hypocrisy, says that they must not be judged this way. I know they think that they are allowed to, as part of some grand strategy of righting ancient wrongs. However. I think they are wrong. I simply don't see why I should treat black people as any better of worse than I do white people, just because their great great grandfather used to be a slave. And I don't see why I should treat you any better or worse, just because your great great-grand-mother couldn't vote. Not only is this wrong morally, it is politically dangerous too. What happens when along comes a white male group - White Power, say - that bristles at the special treatment dished out to blacks, women, and gays etc. and says: What about us? How come everybody else gets to feel sorry for themselves, what about us?

Would they have a point, too? It's not only minorities who can play the identity card. In any case, just supposing you are right, and that I am wrong, well we're both going to be defeated by fashion, aren't we, whatever happens.

Supposing Martians invade, and settle in, and we find that, apart from the fact that they are little green men, that they speak English with a cut-glass accent, they are all nice and polite and so on. Assume that the casual, non-partisan descriptive term is Martian. Sooner or later someone is going to come along and start calling them 'Marshies', or 'Greenies', or something similar. Sometimes it will be a term of endearment, sometimes a term of abuse. Sooner or later someone will come along and say this is a bad thing and that it ought to be abolished. And sooner or later, a bunch of Martians, out to shock both their detractors and enemies and their human defenders whose patronage they find annoying, will start a pop group called 'Marshies with Attitude'. And there will be conservative, elderly Martians who hate this, and disown them, and think that they are doing tremendous disservice to their cause. Which will encourage the MWA even more.

That's just how it is.

|

The Guardian:

"It is always worth re-reading a party leader's speech a few months after it is given".

Why? It's bad enough the first time.

"First impressions are often very misleading".

Whereas second impressions just make you want to throw up. Did anyone actually take any of this stuff seriously? It's only a speech. Simon Jenkins sticks his oar in:

"Mr Blair is emerging as a Tory radical in the style of Disraeli. Abroad he offers the glamour of moral commitment and military conquest. At home he enlists the new capitalism to improve the condition of the people. I cannot see how a Tory could fail to vote for this man".

I can. He's a pillock.

"There is no trace of socialism in him".

Exactly. If he were a Leftie we'd have his measure. It's the lack of principle - the man will do anything.

"He glories in being the darling of the American Right. He positions himself beyond the wildest Thatcherism on public sector reform. Watching him yesterday, I wondered if this Prime Minister might be a practical joke played by history on the British electorate"

And the laugh is on us.

|

Tony Blair yesterday:

"I believe we are at our best when we are at our boldest".

Iain Duncan Smith next week:

"I believe we are at our best when we are at our baldest".

|

David Aaronovitch:

"To put it as bluntly as I can, lefties tend to be sceptics about their parties, right-wingers to be flag-carriers for their cause".

Discuss.

|

Dodge Blog has a good post on next week's Tory conference. I wonder if Currie has actually done IDS a favour, inasmuch as providing a distraction from his less than stellar leadership.

|

Matthew Engel discusses the complications of Supreme Court appointments today. Somehow, no discussion of the American Constitution in the Wanker is complete without a gratuitous Florida Recount Reference, and here it is:

"The court is already split ideologically. This manifested itself most ignobly in December 2000 when, by an astonishing coincidence, the court's five Republican-leaning judges thought Florida's electoral laws required that George Bush should be declared as president, and the four Democratic-leaning judges thought they did not".

Yes, and Tories vote one way, and Labour the other. So what's new?

|

Peter Mandelson:

"In designing the new Europe, we need to be clear about the EU's true role. It is not an alternative to nation states; it is an aid, a means of enhancing what nation states do for themselves but which can be done better by working together".

Like chucking foreigners in prison for "xenophobia", for example.

|

Sarah Sands in the Telegraph:

"a sociable male Tory once told me en passant over lunch that John Major was spectacularly endowed".

|

What's gray and smells of curry?

|

Edwina Currie, eh? I wouldn't touch her with yours.

|

On Friday in a blind bit of panic I deleted the post below. It has not been restored verbatim. It was not because I changed my mind on it, but because I feared that must have put things rather badly to have engendered such criticism. I was, of course, completely wrong. Indeed if anything I was far too generous. Terence Blacker's piece was a pile of nonsense that deserved a severe censure. The number of times I have read a self-regarding piece about Political Correctness. It starts by giving a crass example thereof, just to prove the writer has a sense of proportion - usually something about Council's banning bin-liners or ba-ba-blacksheep, and then gives another horrific example to prove how 'necessary' it is. Steven Lawrence's murder is an old reliable here, although Blacker chooses Scottish 'racism' as his benchmark. And so the screws are turned on the innocent. He doesn't answer his own questions about the two public figures harrassed for saying the wrong things, then does that all stand-by "At least we're having this conversation" baloney. What kind of a 'moral theory' is it that can't answer serious questions? One that gives Terence Blacker something to talk about, apparently. However, there are two things I would in retrospect have changed:

"'Write' not 'writer', in my second paragraph.

In my last paragraph I might have been wise to have stuck an 'intrinsically' before the word 'wrong', just to make it crystal clear. Otherwise I stand by every word. I would now also like to add an email from a friend of mine, David, which puts how I feel about this pretty well ( though mentioning the Soviet Union, like mentioning the Nazis, does raise the temperature a little more than I would. But I'm not going to start censoring him now am I? ) And thanks to Andrew Ian Dodge, who actually linked to the original. And also I would like to acknowledge Steve Chapman, who wrote as a comment:

If I deleted every half-arsed post I ever wrote my blog would be nothing more than a twinkle in HTML's eye. However you took the offending article down before I had chance to snort with derision at its fubar logic and textual opacity. Boo hoo".

So if you want to tear into this one, Steve, your welcome.

So here's what David said:

"Surely the comments prove the point about the post. People make inferences about words and the way that people use them. Should we condemn a generation of older people as bigots and racists purely because they use the language of their day? People (like Solent et al) don’t get that Niggaz With Attitude and Eminem and Dr Dre etc is humor that others find funny and interesting social comment. They are entitled to their opinion however wrong they may be.

I also note that no one takes offence to the remark about fat chemistry teachers or references to nancies, woofters and queers. It is also socially acceptable to refer to ‘all men are bastards’ and sneer at people from Glasgow/Croydon/Mosside as being lesser beings. However mention the word nigger (or nigga as is the term chosen by the youth of today) and a whole bunch of white middle class goons get all touchy. I’d love to hear the opinion of one black person on the subject rather than the select white skinned conservatives.

While it is easy to appreciate that no one likes being the butt of others derisive remarks, be it fatso, lardy, nigger, bitch, bastard, motherfucker, filth, fuzz, rozzer. If these terms are applied without any offensive context, are they still offensive?

Robert Harding makes an interesting point about only using certain words in an offensive context, but as someone that undoubtedly would use the phrase ‘ I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to free speech’ surely limiting certain words to certain contexts detracts from the wonderful range of language phrases that we have in our marvellous English language and is also equivalent to communist Russia burning certain books as they could promote ill feeling amongst the populus.

Foul and abusive language does have a place in civilised society as without it, many frustrated generations would be lost. Also giving a label to someone based on their appearance is exactly what everyone does every day. In Iain Murray’s world the labels man, woman, child, boy, girl, short, tall would all be lost would they? While I’m sure this detracts from his point this is basically what he is saying. Wouldn’t it be nice to be so self-disciplined".

|

Terence Blacker, always an original thinker, has decided that Political Correctness can go too far.

"A great army of scolds and disapprovers are always on hand to tell the rest of us what we should be reading, watching, saying and thinking, and for them this vague new code of appropriateness was a useful weapon when it came to stifling awkward messages and debates that they found unpalatable".

Yes, and most of them writer for the Independent.

"But the general effect of what is called political correctness has been beneficial. There is a greater awareness of the feelings of minority groups. Even if, as has been reported this week, a large proportion of Scots still find nothing racist in referring to "chinkies" or "pakis", the trend has been to isolate the bigots".

This is rubbish. A quarter of Scots think there is nothing racist in referring to "chinkies" or pakis". Neither do I. So what? Does this prove I and the Scots are bigots? And in what sense have we been isolated? We've been scolded, disapproved of, and told by the Blackers of this world what we should read, watch say and think, but, just as there have always been murderers, rapists and thieves, so there will always be Blackers.

"It is still a complex business that stirs up disagreements every week".

And that of course is the attraction. If it were categorical that the use of particular words was demonstrably wrong, that using the word "paki" really proved "racism", then there wouldn't be a debate. It's the murkiness, the way Blacker and co can adopt a snooty sneer without any bonafide proof that is the appeal.

"Was the senior nurse right to resign after her reference to Ten Little Niggers?"

No.

"Should Tessa Jowell have been carpeted for joking about "fat chemistry teachers"?

No.

"But the fact that the rows and discussions take place at all is a small indicator of a society growing up".

No, it's not. There is no row or discussion, and people like the senior nurse and Tessa Jowell have few defenders. So I'll do it for them. There is nothing wrong with using words like "chinki", "Paki", "Nignog" or all the rest of them. Poncy liberals like Blacker may like to get all steamed up about them, just as poncy Tories like to get all steamed up about "fuck" and "cunt". But so what? Being offended proves nothing. Indeed a world without swearing and insults is a word stripped of emotion. Language is power, which is precisely what the Liberal Oppressor is afraid of. Would the world really be a better place without Niggaz With Attitude, whose plaintive melodies, like She Swallowed It and I'd Rather Fuck You have enchanted a generation? Political Correctness is a substitute moral code for people scared of linguistic liberty- people like Terence Blacker, in other words. Its only benefit to the Libertarian and the Tory is that it wastes their time. If the Blackers of this world wanted to engage in a heated argument about whether they should be called "girls", "women", or "ladies", or "woofters", "nancies", or "queers", and thereby that any such argument proves anything, then so much the better. If these goons weren't worrying about this, what would they be worrying about instead? But for the rest of us: forget it.

|

Arundhati Roy - the 'distinguished Indian writer', in the Wanker:

"Soviet-style communism failed, not because it was intrinsically evil but because it was flawed. It allowed too few people to usurp too much power: 21st-century market-capitalism, American-style, will fail for the same reasons".

Discuss.

|

Liddlegate rumbles on. No doubt in response to this post, and then perhaps to a leader in the Telegraph, the man's literary career is hanging by a thread.

|

A leader in the Indy castigates the USA for not reacting with happiness at Mr Schröder's re-election:

"Instead of holding their peace and awaiting the election result, however, members of the US administration allowed themselves to be riled. They used intemperate, personalised language, which was played back to Germany and only strengthened Mr Schröder".

Amazing. The Indy having a go at "intemperate, personalised language". The Indy, home of Robert Fisk, and the delightful Ms. Roddick.

"For common sense and diplomatic grace, Washington could take lessons from the French. They too failed to anticipate a Schröder victory, but were quick to send congratulations and express hopes for renewed co-operation".

Three cheers from Gallic hypocrisy and bullshit, eh?

"The US administration needs to realise that, more than 10 years after reunification, Germany has grown up".

I suppose so. At least they've stopped chucking people in gas chambers. A welcome sign of maturity.

|

In a way this story is more suited for Biased BBC, but seeing as I started here, I'll continue. The Telegraph today joins in bashing Rod Liddle, pointing out that he is not just a journalist at the Wanker, but is also the Editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, which, the day after the march, didn't even mention it on its main bulletin.

|

Rod Liddle, in the Wanker, honours us with his views on the Livelihood and Liberty March:

"This is just a guess, but maybe you are reading this as you wait on a station platform for a train that is 30 minutes late, still fuming over your eldest daughter's trials at the hands of one of those staggeringly inept A-level examining boards and deeply apprehensive about the forthcoming annihilation of Iraq. And you may, therefore - understandably - have forgotten why you voted Labour in 1997.
But then you catch a glimpse of the forces supporting the Countryside Alliance: the public schools that laid on coaches; the fusty, belch-filled dining rooms of the London clubs that opened their doors, for the first time, to the protesters; the Prince of Wales and, of course, Camilla ... and suddenly, rather gloriously, it might be that you remember once again".

Well fair enough. If you're that hateful, and that indifferent to your own suffering, that indifferent to the suffering of your daughter, and that indifferent to the suffering of the Iraqi people, and that hatred of toffs, public schoolboys, the Prince of Wales and his girlfriend are more important to you, then I suppose that is a rational choice. But this kind of malice is worth remembering the next time you hear one of these preening, self-regarding defenders of New Labour talk about 'compassion', 'caring' and all the rest of their sorry virtues.

|

Well, that's another morning wasted. But I did it so that you don't have to. I've read about twenty different leaders on the Iraq Dossier and I am none the wiser. I'm not going to provide the hyperlinks, as I find any post with more than three is pretty hazardous to load. Anyway, you really don't want to follow them. Robert Fisk is hysterical, David Aaronovitch pretty reasonable, Polly Toynbee typically idolatrous to her hero, Mr. Blair. But you knew all that anyway. The Guardian seems to think that there has to be a link between solving the Iraq problem and solving the Israel problem, which I don't get. Simon Jenkins is a bit more trenchant and persuasive than usual, likewise Janet Daley when batting for the other side. The Sun is gung-ho, the Mirror peacenik. So what do I think? Well none of them seem to make this point, so I will: I think Bush and Saddam appear to be the only two people who actually understand each other in the entire conflict ( other than me ). What's going on is good old-fashioned brinkmanship. Bush has to be prepared to invade, otherwise it's bluster. And Saddam has to believe that Bush is prepared to do so. There is no point in having the nuclear and general military option if you're not prepared to use them. Saddam does not want a war, as he will lose it. He has two main aspirations. One, to hold on to power as long as possible. Two, to buttress his base. He's been doing the latter for all his career, but is not prepared to die in its cause. So long as he believes that he, personally, is threatened he will give way. He'll let the weapons inspectors in, he'll sacrifice some of his arsenal provided he can still stay in power.However, so long as he believes that he isn't threatened then, quite reasonably from his point of view, he will continue to bolster his arsenal. Why wouldn't he? As long as he is forced into doing the former, or has the option of doing the latter, nothing else matters: no other issue, nor any other person's opinion. Certainly, not the French, not the Germans, not the Eurogoons, not the UN, not the Pope, nor the editor of the Guardian. It seems to me that Bush will not invade, just so long as Saddam believes that he might. If Bush blinks, or if Saddam thinks that Bush is blinking, he will carry on bolstering his arsenal, and provided he thinks no one is prepared to stop him, then he will be happy to invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, provided he can get away with it. Bush and Saddam get it, the British commentariat don't.

|

And talking of those horrible, have-a-nice-day totalitarians, here's Matthew Engel. Guess which country he's talking about. ( Hint: it isn't San Marino. )

"The land of the free is a bossy country, where myriad federal, state and local authorities spend a great deal of time passing interfering little laws for people's supposed good, and then putting up didactic notices to enforce them".

And it isn't England. Where you will soon be allowed to be kidnapped by foreign policmen for the crime of 'xenophobia'.

"Deep within the American psyche is a belief in the perfectibility of humankind. Europeans tend not to share this certainty. Indeed, they are inclined to think that those who do may be, to coin a phrase, assholes".

Karl Marx: European.

Stalin: European.

Hitler: European.

Matthew Engel: European.

And you're not coining a phrase, Matthew, you're using one. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the phrase was coined long ago. Asshole.

|

Dubya has just published a new mission statement, called "US National Security Strategy", apparently, and the Guardian isn't pleased:

"This Bush doctrine is by turns arrogant, patronising, complacent, amazingly presumptuous - but above all, aggressive. It brooks no opposition. It will tolerate no perceived threat. In the world according to George Bush, an irresistible America, convinced of its rightness and its altruism, always decides. Fatally, but in the true, naive American tradition, this doctrine is deaf to history, oblivious to consequences, and wondrously lacking in self-knowledge. But those who ask what, in the shorter term, is in store (and not just in Iraq) should read this document. It marks the moment when the US, shifting up from superpower to hyperpower, unveiled the new age of the have-a-nice-day totalitarians".

I can't wait, myself. Consider the alternatives.

|

One of the curiosities of current British politics is that, to all intents and purposes, the government we have with its massive majority is far closer to the Liberal Democrat vision of things than it is to either the Tories, nor even Labour. Fiercely pro-EU, and very keen to blather on about Liberty and Freedom while enchaining us in rules, I'm suprised Roy Hattersley hasn't signed up yet. But then he refused to join the SDP. Clearly, he knew where his bread was buttered. One man who did was Danny Finkelstein. Former David Owen adviser, and now a Tory underling, who tears into them in today's Times. Simon Carr, in the Indy, also joins in:

"Freedom is the Lib Dem watchword. Liberty! Or, because this is politics, the opposite! Massive, intrusive, pervasive state power matched with administrative incompetence and unintended consequences that disable good intentions!"

Hattersley, take note.

|

Every now and again Roy Hattersley uses his column in the Guardian to take a shot at explaining this 'philosophy'. Today is that day. Apparently,

"practical equality - real equality, equality of outcome - is a libertarian philosophy. It gives the once-disadvantaged the opportunity to fulfil themselves".

So, equality of outcome means libertarianism. I'm not sure Perry and the Boys would recognise this, and neither would I, as it is fundamentally dishonest. If you're going to make the case for 'equality of outcome' then do so. But to pretend that by achieving it you also achieve something else is both dishonest and cowardly. It's like saying by increasing the consumption of vegetables will make us more carnivorous. Taking money from a rich man and giving it to a poor man is not libertarian. It might be justified, but it is not libertarian. Why pretend otherwise? Dressing it up as 'real equality', 'true equality' or 'genuine equality' is just double talk.

This man was once deputy leader of the Labour Party.

|

The plight of those accused of sexual offences has been a cause close to my heart ever since, well, puberty, so naturally I take the news that so-called 'rapists' and 'child abusers' may be granted anonymity up until conviction with delight. Of course, the law could be further improved by abandoning anonymity altogether, either for the accused or the accuser, but this is a step in the right direction. I can't see the sisters going for it, though. It'll be interesting to see what the Blair Babes make of this.However, as one door opens another closes. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, wants to cull his party of its male candidates. How very liberal. How very democratic.

|

Contrasting views of yesterday's Countryside March. First up, William Rees-Mogg in the Times:

"I am overlooking Pall Mall as I write this article. For the past five hours the street has been full of the countryside marchers, who stretch from St James’s Palace at one end, past the Athenaeum Club and the statue of the Grand Old Duke of York, down to Trafalgar Square. Beyond that the march has turned into Whitehall where more than 200,000 — the original target figure — had been counted by lunchtime".

And it must have been close to double that all told.

"There has been much noise of bagpipes, hunting horns and cheering; the countryside is always full of sounds as well as sights. All day I have been watching the marchers file past, a few with flags, more with placards, all in a holiday mood. I have seen some people I know, including Boris Johnson signing autographs, under a Spectator placard. I wish more members of the Government had been in town. This march is a phenomenon in itself, something the Government needs to understand, even if it is too much to hope that it will sympathise.
When one reads the most interesting placards, which turn out to be home-made and handwritten, they show the variety of motives which have brought people on this march. The good humour is reflected in most of the slogans — my favourite has been “no taxation without morris dancing” — but there is an inescapable tone of anger in some of them. “Ignore us if you dare Tony Blair” is a fairly typical example. Many of the posters express the view that the Government is refusing to listen to the complaints of the countryside. Tony Blair is blamed personally. It might have done him good to see the march in person, but I’m afraid he would have certainly been booed".

Fair-minded and generous, though slightly superior. Typical Rees-Mogg, really. Then, turn to the Indy, and the hysterical ravings of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:

"Hundreds of thousands of true sons and daughters of this great nation stormed into London to sound off about how deprived they are and how they feel victims of prejudice so bad that, according to the Prince of Wales, they are even worse off than blacks and gays. How intolerable! My heart breaks at the thought of those poor, flushed apple cheeks of country Brits as they watch us blacks and those queers overtaking them in the gallop to privilege".

Actually, this is all second-hand reporting of what Charlie boy allegedly said. But this does't worry our Yazza. It's all guns blazing.

"Has he given the slightest thought to why it is that the countryside remains such a no-go area for most people of colour? Hundreds of thousands of black and Asian Britons have farming in their blood, and are the descendants of tillers, but have you ever seen a black or Asian farmer or farm worker?"

She's right. She has got a point. You only see them in Bongo-bongoland, cutting the sugar beat.

"may we not speculate that the march is in truth making a stand for the kind of country this was before all us darkies arrived? Could it be that the number of Countryside Alliance supporters has swollen because the Tory Party seems in danger of abandoning this agenda, what with all this talk of learning to embrace gays and blacks and Asians into the party?"

Well possibly. But then again. Maybe there aren't that many black people living in the countryside.

"Down with you I say, and stay out of our mixed cities".

To each his own, eh?

|

I have decided to let Sleeping Blog Lie. That is to say, Blogs of War, Iain Dale, and Croziervision have all been excised from the Permalinks. The latter has died a premature death, while the first two have just failed to be updated. Get with the programme, guys. It takes a lot, folks, to get on my permalinks page ( though an obsequious email commending my commentary usually does the trick ).But it doesn't tkae much to get consigned to the ashheap of history. There is no time for losers. However, if the owners decide ever to update them, perhaps they may return, humbled, tails wagging.

|

In a powerful argument over at the Guardian, the dreaded Pollster condemns Sunday's March for Liberty and Livelihood:

"Rural poverty is less pro rata than in cities. There is rural crime, but far less of it. Country dwellers are statistically richer, happier, better educated and the envy of city dwellers, most of whom dream of retiring there but will never afford to. Meanwhile more new money is flowing into rural areas for buses and keeping post offices and schools open".

Well I'm convinced anyway. Consequently, instead of joining the marchers as planned, I have decided to set up a counter-offensive: The Urban Alliance. We intend to set off at six in the morning from the Trafalgar Square, planning to meet at Wadhurst Village Green in East Sussex at 12. Terence Blacker will be there, and Hugo Young has promised to appear, and will be giving a talk on Bush's War on Terror. George Monbiot will be marching with the Concerned Citizens Against GM Food, and Toynbee herself is planning to lecture farmers on the minimum wage. Deborah Orr hopes to speak to disenfranchised fox-hunters on the link between Islam and feminism. Her husband Will Self will give a short speech on how to get crack cocaine at 3 o'clock in the morning in Central London on a week day. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has hired a tent where she will be having an abortion, which for those who can't make it, will also feature live on the internet. Steve Richards will also be explaining the benefit of the Euro to any vets present. Drug-dealers, muggers, and liberals of all persuasion are most welcome. Please join us! The dress code is stiletto heals for women, and top hat and tails for men. Unless you're part of the oppressed urban poor in which case you can come as you are.

Caution: it sometimes rains in the country, and the fields can get pretty muddy. Coaches back to London will be leaving on the hour every hour.

|

"These are testing times for the liberal conscience".

Magnus Linklater announces in today's Times. In contrast to us conservatives who've never had it so good. Maybe he should go kill himself.

"For those of us who view with horror the notion of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, its dubious morality and potentially disastrous consequences, the phrase “not without United Nations approval” has been the umbrella under which we have generally taken shelter".

That's because you're a coward. UN approval has got damn all to do with the morality of the thing.

"America’s brusque rejection confirms our view that, behind the rhetoric, it simply wanted war all along".

That's because you're a bigoted idiot.

"Except that at this point the liberal conscience begins to prick. Not for it the easy certainties of the Right, the black-and-white distinction between the good guys and the bad. What liberals have to confront is something more complex. Iraq’s apparent climb-down came about, not because of the UN’s resolute action (a phrase which is in any event an oxymoron), but because Washington laid claim to the moral high ground and pursued the clearest and most consistent line".

No, what liberals - or the ones who are as obtuse as Mr. Linklater - have to confront is the searing power of their naivety. It's just as black-and-white to be opposed to a war as to be in favour. Get off your self-congratulatory high horse, goon.

"It may be that there is a moral case for ousting Saddam by invading Iraq, but there is equally a reasonable case for challenging it. The notion that innocent civilian life should be sacrificed and all the uncertainty of a Middle East backlash set in train, in order to pre-empt a threat whose nature is so imprecise, is one that deserves, at the very least, the most rigorous interrogation".

And it's not going to come from someone as slow on the uptake as Linklater.

|

Sarah Boseley has some startling news in today's Guardian:

"Suicide rates have tended to rise in the UK when a Conservative government has been in power during the last 100 years, with the big exception of Edward Heath's 1970-74 administration, according to a scientific paper published today".

Or to put it more baldly, "During the 45 Tory years of the century, there were 238,431 suicides".

The writers of this paper draw this conclusion:

"roughly 35,000 of these people would not have died had Conservative governments not been in government. This is one suicide for every day of the century, or more appropriately, two for every day that the Conservatives ruled."

Okay, let's assume there had never been any Conservative governments over the last, say, fifty years. Also, that there had been a smooth transition from Clem Atlee to Harold Wilson, a few years for Roy Jenkins, followed by a golden period in which we were sensibly led by Michael Foot, or even Denis Healey. And then Neil Kinnock, who might only now be thinking of handing over power to some youth - Tony Blair, say, or Mo Mowlem. Perhaps we would indeed be living in peace: no suicide, no unemployment, no aids, no homophobia, and no racism - no rising tide of everything. Perhaps the whol eof Europe, East and West, would have a single currency, and we'd all be holding hands in a multicultural, caring community, with foxes and lesbians gambolling playfully in Chiswick High Street. Alternatively, perhaps we'd all be speaking Russian, living in dire poverty, sixty foot statues of Stalin in every town square, and praying for a US-inspired regime change. Certainly, I could well imagine that suicide rates would be low. After all, few people kill themselves in time of war. Even in the gulag, it brought out a resilience in people. But at what a price. On the whole I think I'd take the suicides.

UPDATE: Peter Cuthbertson has his own take - "Miserable, suicidal people looked around and saw everyone else enjoying the Conservative government and couldn't take it any longer".

Well, maybe.

|

Chris Bertram says that Mo Mowlem's piece today on drugs and war 'borders on the unhinged.' He's far too generous. I'm afraid the old girl is completely off her rocker. The hinges went thattaway.

"It is clear that the present approach to drugs is not working, and if the war against drugs fails then we can be sure that the war against terrorism will also be unsuccessful".

She tells us, in one of the many non-sequiturs and pieces of gobbledygook that litter the page.

"Drugs and terrorism are linked and are set to become more so. Legalisation of drugs would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by drugs today and would isolate the terrorists".

She might as well have said:

"Legalisation of terrorism would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by terrorists today and would isolate the drug-dealers".

To think she was in charge of the government's drugs policy from 1999-2001. What was Tony thinking?

|

My latest BBC-Biased column is up. Okay, it ain't Tech Central Station, but we've all got to start somewhere.

|

Interview with Ricky Gervais, the man behind tv's finest comedy show. It's almost worth being forced to pay the licence for it.

|

Robert Fisk, eh? What do you reckon? I don't think I've ever fisked the great man before, seeing as so many others do it, but today's column is irresistible:

"You've got to hand it to Saddam. In one brisk, neat letter to Kofi Annan, he pulled the rug from right under George Bush's feet".

Saddam - foreign policy genius.

"Saddam would do everything he could to avoid war. President Bush was doing everything he could to avoid peace".

Saddam - peacenik.

"And now the Iraqi regime has put the Americans into a corner. The arms inspectors are welcome back in Iraq. No conditions. Just as the Americans asked".

Robert Fisk. Short sentence. No verb. No brain.

"No wonder the United States was whingeing on about "false hopes" yesterday. No wonder the Americans were searching desperately for another casus belli – be sure that they will find one – in an attempt to make sure that their next war keeps to its timetable. Be sure, too, that Saddam, that master of the post-agreement conditional clause, will have a few surprises for the UN inspectors when they do turn up in Baghdad".

So much for Saddam - the reincarnation of Gandhi, the man with no conditions, the man who would do everything to avoid war.

"But for now, the Americans have been sandbagged. It will take at least 25 days to put the UN inspection team together, another 60 for their preliminary assessment – always assuming they are given "unfettered" access to all Iraqi government facilities -- then another 60 days for further inspections. In other words, George Bush's latest war has been delayed by more than five months".

Assuming that Dubya didn't see this one coming, of course.

"Saddam, of course, must have his own worries".

Really?

"Saddam's letter to Mr Annan was a smart move, as contemptuous as it was inevitable".

In which case I really do think Dubya would have anticipated it.

"Stand by, then, for an equally contemptible response from President Bush".

Okay. I suppose - just - that Fisky doesn't think that "contemptuous" and "contemptible" are synonyms. But it's a very close call.

|

Hywel Williams, eh? What do you reckon? He's the Guardian's token Tory turd-burglar. And he's angry:

"George Carey and David Davis make the perfect couple: both are the representatives of decaying institutions with pretensions to preach at modern Britain. How appropriate, therefore, that they should be united in a symmetry of bigotry".

Define bigotry, please.

"to those high themes of grace and repentance, of works and faith, of equality and liberty, of freedom and conscience, this ghastly duo is indifferent".

Give us some evidence, please.

"They define their institutions in terms of an archaic right to pry and preach, to create misery and foster intolerance. There's a mental squalor at work here, for the fears they exploit reflect the hollowness of their own organisations".

Okay, we get the picture. It's one of those evidence-less Guardian rants again.

"behind all the fatuity of clause 28" -

At last - this is the thing Williams is getting all het up about. An obscure clause of local government act that has never been applied and that should never have been introduced and that Mr. Davis is apparently in favour of - though no evidence at all is cited in this article.

- "lies the idea that gayness is so universally enticing a condition that, given a faint whiff of its delights, most people would rush to embrace it".

And why not? It strikes me that gay rights has a long way to go in Britain if the gays can't even persuade people like our Hywel that being gay is a-okay. And why does he care so much what others think of him?

|

Brian Sewell, eh? What do you reckon? I used to quite enjoy him when he was an art critic. He seemed to have a playful air about him, even if he did have a ridiculous accent. However, like Matthew Engel, who could be quite amusing when writing about Gloucestershire's bowling attack on a turning wicket at Eastbourne, but who knows damn all about America, Sewell has been over-promoted. Clearly, he knows damn all about, well anything:

"America is, as we all know, a synecdochism for all the virtues of Western civilisation. But - and dare one express a but in such a hysterical context? - some might see the events of that day in New York as an assault on the twin monuments of Mammon by an ascetic religious force emanating, yet again, from the deserts of the East to scourge the daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake. Have we forgotten the moral exemplar set by Christ when he scourged the traders in the temple of Jerusalem? When he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, did he pause to ask why any of them should be excluded from his wrath?"

Osama bin Laden = Jesus.

Jesus H. Christ.

|

French people, eh? What do you reckon? I'm not sure I can speak with much authority, since I only spoke to one of them yesterday, but he was reasonably helpful, even though his English was even worse than my French ( though not as bad as Natalie's translation of same - who could make sense of that? ). So perhaps there's hope for them after all, and they're not all a bunch of garlic-eating antisemites. It was an enjoyable enough day, made palatable by being able to pick up Steve Wright's interview with Tony Blackburn on the car radio, though for the life of me I could not understand why so much of our foreign policy in the past has been dictated by the urge to keep Calais British. In my opinion, they're welcome to it. Yes, I dare say it had some kind of strategic value, in the days when we ruled the waves, but was it worth the price? Still, at least we didn't see any synagogues burning, though perhaps that's because there aren't any left. In a spirit of enterprise we ventured as far as Sangatte, the notorious concentration camp for funny foreigners. Many of them seemed to have escaped, as there were a lot of swarthy-looking gentlemen in their twenties and thirties, aimlessly roaming the streets. But it's not so different from England, really. And the booze really is cheap. I also got to spend my first Euro. My hand didn't fall off when I touched the thing, but I can't say it was altogether an enchanting experience. Anyway... back to the blogging.

|

Bonjours, mes enfants! Je ne blogge pas aujourd'hui parce que je et ma belle femme Madame Briffa ons allez le booze cruise a Calais. Nous esperons acheter beaucoup de vins et biere, et peut-etre beaucoup de cigarette pour le pere de ma femme. Aussi, nous esperons avoir un dejeuner a Boulogne. Si vous voulez lire les blogges, avez un look aux homes et femmes a la sinister. Aussi, il est un nouveau bloggeur, M. Cinderella Bloggerfeller, qui est tres interessant. Il contribute beaucoup a ma sections de comment, et a un blogge qui est tres intellectual es humoureux. Aussi il connais beaucoup de phenomenes francaises.

Au revoir, mes petit pois!

A demain!

|

The dreamers are giving it large down at the Guardian:

Sarah Boseley first:

"Every now and then, something happens to make the most cynical of us think that maybe this could one day, after all, become a better, even if not the best, of all possible worlds. That it's not naïve to believe there could be justice, fair play and equal life chances for rich and poor".

Then there is Gary Younge:

"Progressive politics demands a mixture of optimism and realism. Without the optimism you would never believe a better world could ever be built. Without the realism you would never be able to engage with the world as it actually is, in order to build it. Allow too much imbalance between the two and you either undervalue your potential to imagine what might be or undermine your ability to improve what already exists".

Finally, George Galloway MP - Saddam's mate:

"Imagine is the socialist anthem. I believe in every word of it".

Every word? Cast your mind back to:

"Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
no need for greed or hunger,
a brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people,
sharing all the world.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us,
and the world will live as one."

Yes, in a world with no possessions we would all live as one. And there'd be a lot of greed and hunger, with the inevitable consequence that we'd die as one as well, and pretty quickly too. Come on, kids, join the real world. It ain't pretty, but it's the only one we've got.

|

I wonder if both of today's leaders in the Indy were written by the same person. If so, they give ample proof to the idea that there is none more romantic than the cynic. First, the romantic ( It's about immigration ):

"Mr Blunkett should consider the radical option of declaring an amnesty. He should give all asylum-seekers currently here the right to remain, and start again. That would provide this country with much-needed workers, many of whom are skilled, entrepreneurial or willing to take low-paid jobs shunned by locals; it would get rid of the backlog at a stroke; and it would allow a well-resourced and fair system of receiving and assessing future claims to start with a clean slate".

I don't know why he bothers. It isn't going to happen. Forgeting the rights and wrongs of doing so, he wouldn't do it, anyway. Look at his track record. And even if so, even if he mentioned at cabinet, he'd be laughed out. Blair wouldn't countenance it, the papers wouldn't. The man would be a laughing stock. Forget it.

And then the cynic:

"The arrest of a group of al-Qa'ida suspects in Pakistan and the charging of five more in the United States was conveniently timed, just after the anniversary of the date that made Osama bin Laden famous.
But we should not be too cynical".

Or maybe cynical is the wrong word. How about naive? It wasn't on the anniversary, and if it were, so what? It's the arrest that is important, whatever the date.

"Although they are all, of course, innocent until proven guilty, against the five in the US and at least one in Pakistan there seems a well-founded case to answer on terrorism-related charges".

Well if the case was well-founded that makes the timeliness even more of an irrelevance. Really.

"This is, after all, the kind of response to 11 September last year on which the world should be expending its energies".

In which case....

"Despite the suggestion in the right-wing press yesterday that Tony Blair's dossier of casus belli will contain evidence that Saddam trained al-Qa'ida fighters, no such evidence has been forthcoming yet. Nor do we expect it on 24 September, when the dossier is due to be published".

Why not? Because it was suggest by the right-wing press? Is that it?

"The case for military action against Saddam is separate from the policy towards al-Qa'ida. Indeed, given that a war in Iraq would make acts of extremist Muslim terrorism more likely, the aims of regime change in Iraq and of minimising the risk of a repeat of 11 September are in conflict".

Just like the war in Afghanistan made them more likely. But fighting wars will always bring out your enemies, that's always a risk. And believe it or not, not all Muslims would be horrified by an attack on Iraq. Think Kuwait, Iran, etc.

Those Muslims, they're all the same, aren't they?

|

Peter Preston reminisces on September 11th:

"It was a horrible attack, an evil act. It needs avenging and rooting out. But when the president's scriptwriters, seeking to shame the UN, dig out Rwanda and Burundi, the deaths of thousands stretching into millions, they haplessly remind us of other failures and other grotesque evils. Sometimes we need to forget to remember; and sometimes we forget what we should remember".

Now, being a former editor of - guess which paper? - clearly the man can write. But could someone please enlighten me as to what that last sentence actually means?

|

Consider the use of the word 'Yet' in this paragraph, and then guess which paper it comes from:

"When I moved to the Cotswolds eight years ago, I was anti-hunt. I had never been to a meet, talked to any of the characters involved, or visited the kennels. I knew nothing about horses. Yet I was wary of imposing my views on people I had only just met, so I decided to test my instincts against the reality of the situation. I agreed to let the hunt continue to ride over my land for a season. In the meantime, I learned to ride and I spent a lot of time listening and watching".

|

According to liberal lardbutt David Aaronovitch:

"it is quite possible that 75 per cent of Britons could be overweight by 2017, and that half of those will be properly obese".

Oh no! What to do?

"This is about more than schools banning fizzy drinks and crisps, and encouraging fruit-eating. It involves radical changes to the way we look at exercise. We must devise regimes that kids like (and not keep moaning on about competitive sports, which many of them don't). We have to get more people walking and cycling to work, which means paying for them to travel on un-carred routes. How about tax breaks for gym use?
Or, instead, we could die – it's our choice, really".

Actually, it's an individual's choice. 'We' aren't all going to die of obesity together, you know. And let's keep the state out of it. The last thing we want is John Prescott explaining to the rest of us why burgers are bad for you. Go on the cabbage soup diet, mate, it worked for me.

The Guardian also blubbers onto the bandwagon:

"the world is losing the fight against flab. An astonishing 60% of all American adults are either overweight or obese".

Oh no! What to do?

"There is growing support for a global treaty on fast food".

Yeah, well there would be, wouldn't there? Get Kofi Annan to sort it out. Then the UN peacekeepers can lock'em up and throw away the key. What these people need is a diet of bread and water. And that goes for you too, Aaro.

|

Apparently Dubya gave a speech yesterday. Charlotte O'Sullivan was far from impressed. The poor bloke, clearly the most unpopular human being in the history of everything, poll ratings plummetting etc. etc. suddenly took a look at his calendar, and breathed a sigh of relief. September 11th. Didn't something happen that day?

"How convenient, then, that the anniversary of September 11 came along. The 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust are nice, handy victims to invoke. But the 3,000 killed in the Twin Towers have just as much pull. Neatly conflated, these deaths make a wonderful distraction from awkward domestic troubles and provide an excuse to invade a whole other country".

What a fantastically original insight. It took her a whole year to come up with it.

|

After mentioning Will Self yesterday, I find this a great excuse to relay this conversation he once had on Radio Five with Richard Littlejohn, chaired by Nicky Campbell. I actually caught the end of it. This, much-edited, transcript barely scratches the surface. Both of the main protagonists actually came out of it quite well, I thought. It was very funny.

|

The wife wanted to watch a cookery programme last night, which at least meant I couldn't see all of Question Time. Not that I've watched an entire episode for years. Ever since they went to five not four panellists, and one of them was an actor or a comedian. The vision of being lectured by cross-dressing humourist Eddie Izzard on the benefits of the Euro still chills the blood. Yesterday's token comic, Michale Moore, was even more ridiculous. He hand't bothered to shave, and couldn't have made a bigger fool of himself if he'd had his mascara on. Yet the audience laughed along whenever he accused Bush of lying, which just goes to show that American morons are no better than British ones. What rocks do these creatures crawl out from? And he's not what I'd call a persuasive arguer. Saying Bush had decided to go to war on Afghanistan as a subtle means of distracting public attention from Florida 2000 was one of his more penetrating insights.Our Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, even though he was sitting right next to him, just ignored his every 'point', and Ed Koch glared at him with more astonishment than annoyance. "I thought this was the BBC, not some lame-brained cable show" appeared to be his thinking. I dare say the BBC were perfectly pleased with themselves. Consequently I flicked over. Channel Five has been running a long and comparatively intellectual series of documentaries about lap-dancing. I find them far more edifying.

UPDATE: Steven Chapman has a different, more generous take on the whole sorry business.

|

Oh my God! Michael Moore is going to be on Question Time 2nite, live from New York. To the barricades!

|

Mr. Deborah Orr ( or Will Self as he is known to his friends ) writes in the Evening Standard:

"When - rather than if - George Bush and his hawks swoop on Iraq, Londoners should stand by to receive yet another wave of refugees. We had them in the 1950s, fleeing Senator Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee; we had them in the 1960s and 1970s, on the run from fighting a savage and unjustified war in Vietnam, and I hope we'll see them again: Americans like Joseph L Mankiewicz, who find the policies of their own government impossible to stomach, and seek a more tolerant society".

I think he's being satirical. If he means it, if the UK really is more tolerant than the US, then we can look forward to Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, and co all swirling around Trafalgar Square, jabbering to the pigeons about the crushing of dissent and imperialism. Well, if any of them get anywhere near Bethnal Green, I shall seriously think of getting medieval on their asses.

Yankees, go home!

|

Mice, eh? The mouseman came yesterday. The poison is still being eaten, and the mice still exist. The plan to infest the flat with cats has hit some rocks, so I think it's time to sneak in some breakback traps. After all a quick instant death is probably preferable to the ten-day prolonged agony induced by the poison. Trouble is, the wife might get a little upset if I try that one. No doubt a camera will catch the moment of impact as well. Doh!

|

Marvellous. You go to a party in the middle of a week in which you are taking part in the fabled cabbage soup diet, and the one time you break it, by having a chocolate mousse, it's captured on camera. And who took this incriminating photo? The EU? David Blunkett? No, Perry de Havilland! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

|

It's September 11th, and the Indy is in a reflective mood.

"We are not a better, more thoughtful people. Indeed, our collective life over the past year has in many respects seemed even more trivial".

Unfortunately no example is given to back this up. However, I think I can guess who he means by 'we' in this instant. It's those 'lobotomised leftie dicktasters' again.

"The US has become more outward-looking, but with eyes that do not see".

I disagree. I think they see, and they don't like.

"The attempt by George Bush and Tony Blair to use the events of 11 September to stoke up the war fever against Iraq is deeply disingenuous".

But I don't think they've been doing that. This Iraq talk has been going on for months, and unless they fly in today, then they've missed their chance. The Indy's lumping of the two is far more disingenous.

"While there certainly were links between the attack on the US and the regime in Afghanistan, they were not as clear cut as Mr Bush and Mr Blair like to make out".

Well, how clear cut has it got to be? CCTV and fingerprints?

"All that we have learnt about al-Qa'ida in the past year tells us that Osama bin Laden may have been the high priest of the ideology behind the attack, but that its planners either died in the attack or have yet to be identified".

May have been? So there it is. The Independent has a World Exclusive, buried away in their leader column. It wasn't bin Laden who masterminded the Twin Towers Attacks, it was Dr. Evil.

And at the Guardian? Their leader-writer tells us that:

"Like Bin Laden's al-Qaida, George Bush has much (privately) to celebrate this day".

Well at least they think Ossie did it. Mind you, I don't think he celebrating overmuchly. Even if he's still alive, it must be pretty miserable sitting in his cave, choking of emphysema. Still, nothing beats a good old-fashioned gratuitous Florida recount reference, eh?

"A weak, second-rate president with no mandate and less nous has since September 11 gained unprecedented levels of voter support".

No mandate? What, not even a little one?

|

At the Brit Blogger Bash I had the good fortune to meet the great Steven Chapman, a man as tall as he is wise. I complimented him on one of his postings, this one, in which he tried to penetrate the weird mind of the Liberal. His thesis was, in a nutshell, that the poor saps have a pathological craving to side with the underdog, which colours all their thinking. Thus, although the Americans seemed to suffer most on Sept 11 last year, somehow, because the Americans are usually the oppressor, basically, this cannot happen. Oppressor cannot oppress; it's a logical impossibility. Hence all the baloney about 'root causes'. Somehow, multimillionaire Bin Laden was the underdog. He had to be. There's a bit too much of a 'frog in your pocket' ( all that 'we' stuff, in Steven's post. ) But otherwise I think he was onto something. And it's a lot more arresting than the crap George Monbiot and Hugo Young come up with. Last week, Moonbat revealed that he was in urgent need of the funny farm. This week, it's Hugo's turn to take some Prozac.

Moonbat: "it is surely fair to say that most of us suffer from subclinical neuroses, anxiety or a profound discomfort with ourselves".

Hugo: "the anniversary finds the world, instead of buoyed by reassurance from the great defenders of order and legitimacy, uniquely depressed".

Well like I said last time: Speak for yourself.

Both, interestingly, couch their personal revelations in the blanket 'we', or 'us'. But that's par for the course for your average, and I mean very average, Guardian-writer. For these guys morality is a communal act. And once you're on that road, well, it's a highway to hell. It isn't. It never is. By definition. Still, if you try and believe this kind of voodoo, no wonder you need to speak to your analyst. Well away with all this misery. I know I run the risk of undermining my carefully-crafted "completely disgusted with the modern world" image, but I think we've never had it so good. Sure, there are millions starving, and lots of towelheads are in imminent prospect of being turned into toast, but at least the millions are alive, and many of those towelheads hate the rest of us, and would be perfectly happy to see us die. So it really is kill or be killed. Also, once they start embracing capitalism and the global economy, things will soon start to sort themselves out. Look at Afghanistan now. Westerners are going on holiday there. And If a newspaper as erudite and sophisticated as the Sun can still find time to tell us this story, things really can't be all bad.

|

Sex wars breaks out in Bloggerland. Well Meryl, you're on a slippery slope here. Once you start saying that women ought to be permalinked to, next it'll be gays, then blacks, then dwarfs, and then what? I link to 9 women, out of 25, a pretty good ratio, compared to others, apparently. But so what? That doesn't prove I have a PC attitude to women, it doesn't prove I hate them. It doesn't prove anything.

So some think that Diana Moon is a better writer than Steven Den Beste. Well so do I. But others don't. Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't get the hits he gets. But this is the blogosphere, and freedom rules. I think there are plenty of male bloggers too, who are better than him. Again, so what? This is all a bit like saying Mozart ought to sell more records than Eminem. Why?

Freedom of association means the right to discriminate. And capitalism means the right to make the wrong choices. Otherwise we might as well introduce state subsidies, quotas, affirmative action and the like.

And then the liberals will have won.

|

Sorry. A late start today, still recovering as I am from the traumatic experience that was the Brit Blogger Bash. Not just the alcohol, nor the excellent wit, bonhomie ,and intellectual provocation, but the extraordinary series of allegations about me and my site. Without naming names, not one, not two, not even three ( the third was recounting a conversation he had had with another of his scribes ) which by my calculations means that FOUR people said:

"You know, you're not at all like I imagined".

It's not like I even asked. No, these were entirely unscripted, unprompted, and for that matter, uncalled for assessments.

What had they expected? A twenty-five year old pre-op transsexual? A 65 year old former coal miner from Durham? A lesbian separatist single mother? No, they thought I'd be old ( even older, than I already am ), and somebody 'completely disgusted with the modern world'.

I think Perry redeemed himself. His parting words were: 'Actually, you're just another boozy blogger'.

In the circumstances I think that's what I call a compliment.

Thanks, Perry. It was terrific fun. No, really.

|