Monday, December 2
Got an email over the weekend from Harry. He's a leftie, and he was desperate for a plug. Well, we're a broad church so what the hell. And somebody who has permalinks to Red Pepper and Tribune deserves some sort of accolade. Good luck, Harry, hope you find what you're looking for. Yes, there are plenty of leftie bloggers out there. Loads of Americans, a few Limeys. British Spin has certain Rawlsian aspirations, likewise the Mighty Bertram. Go read and enjoy.
|
|
Yup. CBB is over, and Mark won. Overall I thought it was pretty dull and uncontroversial. But then I would, wouldn't I? Being a white, male I watch these things from a position of privilege. Being a chick of a slightly non-pellucid complexion, Helen Kolawole in the Wanker sees things differently:
"the evidence so far suggests that black and Asian contestants - introvert, extrovert, appealing, repulsive, fat, thin, dim-witted or equipped with Machiavellian skills - are all guaranteed one thing. They won't win".
That's right. BB is racist.
"Without exception, over the five series to date, every black or Asian Big Brother contestant pitted one-to-one against a white candidate has been voted out by the great British public".
And why shouldn't they be? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"Granted, chicken-loving Darren and Nike-tattooed Lee"-
both non-caucasians, in case you hadn't guessed.
-"were not much more than vacuous, narcissistic eye-candy. But then what of the anally retentive Alex, a pretty, monotone white Essex boy highly skilled in the art of checking his appearance; or the self-obsessed Josh?"
Yes, but at least he was a WOOFTER. Which must be a good thing, no?
"As for exotic Amma, loudmouth Narinder, bottom-flashing Mel and boisterous Alison - attention-seeking bores the lot".
Yes, but at least they were WOMEN ( not to mention yet more non-caucasians ). Which must be a good thing, no?
"But any more obnoxious than the majority of their white counterparts? Remember Helen, who listed blinking as her favoured pastime? Or Sada and Sophie, both resolutely personality-free? As for Big Brother winner Kate Lawler - to call her a nonentity would be unkind to nonentities".
Hey, baby, it's only a game show.
"To cite a reality TV show as an indicator of the state of British race relations may be as wrong-footed as Goldie's attempts to explain street slang to Anne Diamond. But there is a serious point".
Yeah, well, being the Wanker, there would be.
"Last week, figures revealed that black schoolchildren are three times more likely to be excluded from school than their white counterparts. Big Brother may just be a frivolous TV show, yet it illustrates how, for many, exclusion can be a life-long, ever-present reality".
So what's the remedy? Lock'em all up, throw away the key? Offer them counselling? Have no evictions? Or, pace Will Hutton and Roy Hattersley, give all the money to the first person to be evicted?
Helen Kolawole: she's got more hidden agendas than a pandora's box.
|
"the evidence so far suggests that black and Asian contestants - introvert, extrovert, appealing, repulsive, fat, thin, dim-witted or equipped with Machiavellian skills - are all guaranteed one thing. They won't win".
That's right. BB is racist.
"Without exception, over the five series to date, every black or Asian Big Brother contestant pitted one-to-one against a white candidate has been voted out by the great British public".
And why shouldn't they be? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"Granted, chicken-loving Darren and Nike-tattooed Lee"-
both non-caucasians, in case you hadn't guessed.
-"were not much more than vacuous, narcissistic eye-candy. But then what of the anally retentive Alex, a pretty, monotone white Essex boy highly skilled in the art of checking his appearance; or the self-obsessed Josh?"
Yes, but at least he was a WOOFTER. Which must be a good thing, no?
"As for exotic Amma, loudmouth Narinder, bottom-flashing Mel and boisterous Alison - attention-seeking bores the lot".
Yes, but at least they were WOMEN ( not to mention yet more non-caucasians ). Which must be a good thing, no?
"But any more obnoxious than the majority of their white counterparts? Remember Helen, who listed blinking as her favoured pastime? Or Sada and Sophie, both resolutely personality-free? As for Big Brother winner Kate Lawler - to call her a nonentity would be unkind to nonentities".
Hey, baby, it's only a game show.
"To cite a reality TV show as an indicator of the state of British race relations may be as wrong-footed as Goldie's attempts to explain street slang to Anne Diamond. But there is a serious point".
Yeah, well, being the Wanker, there would be.
"Last week, figures revealed that black schoolchildren are three times more likely to be excluded from school than their white counterparts. Big Brother may just be a frivolous TV show, yet it illustrates how, for many, exclusion can be a life-long, ever-present reality".
So what's the remedy? Lock'em all up, throw away the key? Offer them counselling? Have no evictions? Or, pace Will Hutton and Roy Hattersley, give all the money to the first person to be evicted?
Helen Kolawole: she's got more hidden agendas than a pandora's box.
|
And talking of comeback artists, albeit one not quite as popular as our Diana, here's Stephen Byers, the much-maligned genius who was but a stone's throw away from saving the railways, offering his wisdom to an ungrateful nation:
"A year from now, we shall probably be two years from the next general election".
That's right, Steve. And in two years' time, we shall probably be a year from the next general election. And when the big hand points at the twelve, and the little hand at the three, that means...
|
"A year from now, we shall probably be two years from the next general election".
That's right, Steve. And in two years' time, we shall probably be a year from the next general election. And when the big hand points at the twelve, and the little hand at the three, that means...
|
Her knees may be rickety, and she may not be able to make those three pointers like she used to, but the Michael Jordan of the blogosphere is back. Allelujah!
|
|
John Rawls, the American political philosopher, went off to that great Veil of Ignorance in the Sky last week, and Will Hutton writes his report. Apparently, Rawls
"proved that the liberal left case is right".
Did he now? But what kind, I hear you ask. The 'social democrat' style, as favoured by Gordon Brown, or the 'social liberals', as touted by ( don't laugh ) Tony Blair?
"This is not a trivial intellectual difference", says our Will.
"Blair's social liberalism is essentially rooted in utilitarianism. This tradition believes that society has to live with unfairness, unredressed inequality and injustice, but as long as they are compensated by sufficient others having wellbeing, that is the best we can hope for, especially if we believe that unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value".
Well, Tony Blair has been accused of many things, but even I wouldn't throw stones at him for his belief that 'unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value'. When Our Tone gets hauled before the European Court for Crimes Against Humanity, that is one charge that will not stick. He can even call me as a witness. Roy Hattersley adds his own pennyworth today. If anything he is even less convincing than Hutton:
"We do not have to earn the same wage, live in the same sort of house, eat the same brand of breakfast cereal or walk the same breed of dog. Rawls and Tawney just wanted less inequality.
Their view of society is so right and reasonable that it is hard to think of a reason - other than personal greed - for anyone to argue with them".
That's because you've got a stunted imagination, Roy.
|
"proved that the liberal left case is right".
Did he now? But what kind, I hear you ask. The 'social democrat' style, as favoured by Gordon Brown, or the 'social liberals', as touted by ( don't laugh ) Tony Blair?
"This is not a trivial intellectual difference", says our Will.
"Blair's social liberalism is essentially rooted in utilitarianism. This tradition believes that society has to live with unfairness, unredressed inequality and injustice, but as long as they are compensated by sufficient others having wellbeing, that is the best we can hope for, especially if we believe that unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value".
Well, Tony Blair has been accused of many things, but even I wouldn't throw stones at him for his belief that 'unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value'. When Our Tone gets hauled before the European Court for Crimes Against Humanity, that is one charge that will not stick. He can even call me as a witness. Roy Hattersley adds his own pennyworth today. If anything he is even less convincing than Hutton:
"We do not have to earn the same wage, live in the same sort of house, eat the same brand of breakfast cereal or walk the same breed of dog. Rawls and Tawney just wanted less inequality.
Their view of society is so right and reasonable that it is hard to think of a reason - other than personal greed - for anyone to argue with them".
That's because you've got a stunted imagination, Roy.
|
Friday, November 29
There are batting collapses and there are batting collapses. And that was a batting collapse. You can't even blame our somewhat green bowling attack, either. What the hell Dominic Cork makes of all this, sitting at home with a mug of ovaltine and Sky Sports on the tv, I can hardly imagine. There he was, bowling at the Oval in September against India, now he can't even get a call-up in spite of the fact that Gough and Jones have gone home, Caddick and Flintoff are injured, and Hoggard is dropped. And don't get me started on Martin Bicknell.
|
|
The Root Cause boys are back in town. Only this time they're, like, not too sure of themselves. First up, the Indy:
"the campaign against al-Qa'ida and other brands of anti-American and anti-Israeli extremism should involve a better understanding of the causes of Muslim grievances, some of which are justified".
Oh yes? Which ones? The wicked imperialism that is Miss World?
"Of course, even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved – not an imminent possibility – it would be little defence against the demented ideology of Osama bin Laden. But it is something that ought to be attempted anyway".
The first time the Indy has admitted that, I think. The Wanker, however, is even gloomier:
"A reliable, long-term defence depends fundamentally on a cooperative, not confrontational approach that tackles the roots of the anti-western Muslim resentment upon which terrorism feeds. As long as a single individual feels justified in firing a missile, or planting a bomb, or wielding a penknife, terror will never be totally defeated. The killers can never all be killed".
What? Why not? Killers often are killed. It's called War, buddy boy. But because these guys would rather die - literally - than kill somebody, it does somewhat paint them into a corner, and all they can do is wring their hands in despair. Cheer up, Wankers, there is such a thing as a machine gun and a nuclear bomb, you know. In any case, I really don't think they mean it. Would you ever get the Guardian writing:
"As long as a single individual priest feels justified in buggering a choirboy, paedophilia will never be defeated".
Fisky meanwhile, does his usual mix of horror and relish, coupled with a bizarre contradiction in his first two paragraphs:
"It was inevitable. It was the nightmare of Israeli officials that there would be an al-Qa'ida attack on the Jewish state.
The one thing they did not think about, even after Bali, is that al-Qa'ida would strike Israel abroad".
Look here Bobby, if something is inevitable then it is also predictable. Thicko.
|
"the campaign against al-Qa'ida and other brands of anti-American and anti-Israeli extremism should involve a better understanding of the causes of Muslim grievances, some of which are justified".
Oh yes? Which ones? The wicked imperialism that is Miss World?
"Of course, even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved – not an imminent possibility – it would be little defence against the demented ideology of Osama bin Laden. But it is something that ought to be attempted anyway".
The first time the Indy has admitted that, I think. The Wanker, however, is even gloomier:
"A reliable, long-term defence depends fundamentally on a cooperative, not confrontational approach that tackles the roots of the anti-western Muslim resentment upon which terrorism feeds. As long as a single individual feels justified in firing a missile, or planting a bomb, or wielding a penknife, terror will never be totally defeated. The killers can never all be killed".
What? Why not? Killers often are killed. It's called War, buddy boy. But because these guys would rather die - literally - than kill somebody, it does somewhat paint them into a corner, and all they can do is wring their hands in despair. Cheer up, Wankers, there is such a thing as a machine gun and a nuclear bomb, you know. In any case, I really don't think they mean it. Would you ever get the Guardian writing:
"As long as a single individual priest feels justified in buggering a choirboy, paedophilia will never be defeated".
Fisky meanwhile, does his usual mix of horror and relish, coupled with a bizarre contradiction in his first two paragraphs:
"It was inevitable. It was the nightmare of Israeli officials that there would be an al-Qa'ida attack on the Jewish state.
The one thing they did not think about, even after Bali, is that al-Qa'ida would strike Israel abroad".
Look here Bobby, if something is inevitable then it is also predictable. Thicko.
|
Thursday, November 28
Patrick Crozier has joined the twenty-first century and you can find all his latest musings on getting from A to B at transportblog.com. Drop in and say Hi.
|
|
Sorry. Not much to say today. Let's face it, I know damn all about economics, so if you want an insight into Gordon Brown's beautiful mind you have come to the wrong place. I did traipse over to the Indy, hoping that Natasha Walter's comments on rape would provide some material, but came up short. Okay, it's leftie, feminist and boring, but what's new? Also, I'm still reeling from the great Sue Perkins' debacle. What is wrong with these celebs? It's only a gameshow, as the pulchritudinous songbird Caggy once sang ( before having her own public nervous breakdown ). Anyway she's out of there tonight, leaving Mark Owen alone to breast the tape without anyone else even in the frame. Anyway, I shall probably be watching the Uefa Cup tonight, which is a lot more interesting than the Champion's League in my book. Knockout football, that's what it's all about, Brian. Incidentally, whatever happened to the law that a free kick could be advanced ten yards if the defence kept complaining? I don't think I have ever seen it implemented. And why wasn't a penalty awarded after Bellamy was sent off? It all happened inside the area.
These things keep me awake at night.
And to all my American readers, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy your turkey and your football of the other persuasion. Go Packers!
I shall probably have more to say tomorrow, when Polly and co have ruminated on the Kenya business, provided I have recovered from our latest batting collapse.
And congratulations and good luck to Sasha and Andrew. Who's next? Perry, David, Dale, and Adriana announcing they've become Mormons and are moving to Utah to make it legal? The Spinsters announcing their Sapphic love for each other? Stay tuned.
|
These things keep me awake at night.
And to all my American readers, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy your turkey and your football of the other persuasion. Go Packers!
I shall probably have more to say tomorrow, when Polly and co have ruminated on the Kenya business, provided I have recovered from our latest batting collapse.
And congratulations and good luck to Sasha and Andrew. Who's next? Perry, David, Dale, and Adriana announcing they've become Mormons and are moving to Utah to make it legal? The Spinsters announcing their Sapphic love for each other? Stay tuned.
|
If you want to find the root cause of the forthcoming Martian invasion look here. What have the little green men done to deserve this?
|
|
Wednesday, November 27
Education! Education! Education! John Prescott is deputy Prime Minister.
( Stolen from Stephen Pollard who sends me a lot of traffic, so here am I, returning the favour. )
|
( Stolen from Stephen Pollard who sends me a lot of traffic, so here am I, returning the favour. )
|
David Aaronovitch announces to the world that it's about time prostitution was legalised. The reason?
"Because as I get older and meet and talk to more people, I increasingly see sex and sexuality as a vastly more complex, intricate and individual business than grope, marry and groan".
Well perhaps Aaro did once believe in holding hands at the cinema, an innocent dance to the jitterbug at the Legion on a Saturday night, and a quick peck on the cheek as he walked the lucky girl home across the cobbled streets, to greet an anxious father standing at the gate. On the other hand, as he proudly admitted less than a month ago, he's never married his current squeeze, and he's been porking her for fourteen years, so his disenchantment with romance has a longish history. I reckon it's working at the Indy that did it. Perhaps the first day at work, our virginal, wet behind the ears Aaro turned up at the office all youthful naivety, only to be confronted by the sight of Philip Hensher sodomising Donald Mcintyre, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown masturbating with a cucumber, and Deborah Orr giving the editor hand relief. I suppose it's possible.
|
"Because as I get older and meet and talk to more people, I increasingly see sex and sexuality as a vastly more complex, intricate and individual business than grope, marry and groan".
Well perhaps Aaro did once believe in holding hands at the cinema, an innocent dance to the jitterbug at the Legion on a Saturday night, and a quick peck on the cheek as he walked the lucky girl home across the cobbled streets, to greet an anxious father standing at the gate. On the other hand, as he proudly admitted less than a month ago, he's never married his current squeeze, and he's been porking her for fourteen years, so his disenchantment with romance has a longish history. I reckon it's working at the Indy that did it. Perhaps the first day at work, our virginal, wet behind the ears Aaro turned up at the office all youthful naivety, only to be confronted by the sight of Philip Hensher sodomising Donald Mcintyre, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown masturbating with a cucumber, and Deborah Orr giving the editor hand relief. I suppose it's possible.
|
Labour MP George Galloway is so full of shit I wonder if he's got more than one asshole. After a brisk condemnation of
"the most rightwing and warlike Republican administration Washington has ever seen",
the great man starts salivating at the prospect of war with Iraq:
"every burning building, every scorched corpse, every broken family dragged out of the Iraqi ruins will be viewed in Technicolor from the Atlantic to the Gulf".
which is true enough, though hardly relevant. That's war for you, George, and people die. But our George has a certain relish for flowery language, and drips into his article a number of quotes from Macbeth. Why? It sounds good, reckon. His concluding paragraph is a bit of a humdinger, though, and is worth quoting in full:
"Many have praised Tony Blair for nudging Bush into the thicket of the UN. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the pathway leads to peace, as was no doubt his good intention, he will be a hero. If it turns out that he has merely paved the way to hell, Burnham Wood will have come to Dunsinane - and the Blair project will be at an end".
So what, really, is he saying? If Blair wins, he's a hero - Blair loses, he's a loser.
Is that it?
George Galloway: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
|
"the most rightwing and warlike Republican administration Washington has ever seen",
the great man starts salivating at the prospect of war with Iraq:
"every burning building, every scorched corpse, every broken family dragged out of the Iraqi ruins will be viewed in Technicolor from the Atlantic to the Gulf".
which is true enough, though hardly relevant. That's war for you, George, and people die. But our George has a certain relish for flowery language, and drips into his article a number of quotes from Macbeth. Why? It sounds good, reckon. His concluding paragraph is a bit of a humdinger, though, and is worth quoting in full:
"Many have praised Tony Blair for nudging Bush into the thicket of the UN. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the pathway leads to peace, as was no doubt his good intention, he will be a hero. If it turns out that he has merely paved the way to hell, Burnham Wood will have come to Dunsinane - and the Blair project will be at an end".
So what, really, is he saying? If Blair wins, he's a hero - Blair loses, he's a loser.
Is that it?
George Galloway: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
|
Shine on, you crazy Diamond! So farewell then, Ann. I said before the wouldn't last too long, but I also said the same about the sour-faced Uranian, Sue, so what do I know? Generally, though, I reckon I'm still on the money. Mark will see the Perkster off, and although Les is putting in a good late bid, Owen's name is written on the trophy.
|
|
Tuesday, November 26
What kind of society is it where women are forced into the marketplace to fend for their children? They'll be sending kids up chimneys next.
|
|
Splendid news in the Indy. Papers are starting to charge for content. Like the Times, ( which is one of the reasons I stopped fisking 'em. ) Well we knew that. But the rest are thinking of doing the same. Sounds good to me. At first I wondered how this would effect blogging. And then I thought: "Great!" If I don't feel obliged to read Hugo Young, Matthew Engel and all the rest of the sorry Wankers, well that could only be a good thing. I might even live longer. Never again, for example, would I have to read Philip Hensher, who reveals in the Indy the startling news that, in the light of the Neo-socialist decision to modernise our sex laws, the word 'homosexuality' is no longer PC. The Blairites will in fact, use the phrase:
"orientation towards people of the same sex".
Fantastic! I've said it before and I will say it again, but Political Correctness is a fabulous phenomenon, simply for keeping the liberals at bay. Like wondering how many angels you can get on the end of a pinhead, it keeps the Wankers busy. Take Hensher. He discloses that he never liked "gay", is kind of partial to "queer", enjoys "poof" ( but only among fellow nancy boys - if you're a breeder don't even go there ), and thinks "Uranian" will never catch on. His conclusion?
"Let's return to our roots, and start talking about "sodomites".
And why not? Just so long as he keeps thinking that this is an 'interesting debate', the better.
|
"orientation towards people of the same sex".
Fantastic! I've said it before and I will say it again, but Political Correctness is a fabulous phenomenon, simply for keeping the liberals at bay. Like wondering how many angels you can get on the end of a pinhead, it keeps the Wankers busy. Take Hensher. He discloses that he never liked "gay", is kind of partial to "queer", enjoys "poof" ( but only among fellow nancy boys - if you're a breeder don't even go there ), and thinks "Uranian" will never catch on. His conclusion?
"Let's return to our roots, and start talking about "sodomites".
And why not? Just so long as he keeps thinking that this is an 'interesting debate', the better.
|
Monday, November 25
"It is entirely moral, humane and proper to place electrodes in the brains of primates",
announces Mick Hume, in the Times. Quite right. And the sooner they start on this one the better.
|
announces Mick Hume, in the Times. Quite right. And the sooner they start on this one the better.
|
Friday, November 22
"The latest Palestinian suicide bombing is an act of execrable cruelty matched only by its unutterable stupidity", announces the Wanker. So, who's to blame?
Well, the suicide bomber, obviously. But he isn't the only one.
"Yasser Arafat, his orders flouted and his poll ratings falling, is again left looking foolish".
Foolish? But who is really to blame?
"But any discussion of all-round stupidity cannot fairly exclude Mr Sharon and his blinkered patron, George Bush. Their ill-will and incompetence has combined to bring what was left of the peace process to a grinding halt. Do not prate on about two or three-year-long "roadmaps"! Talk about dead children now".
The Guardian: a newspaper of execrable cruelty matched only by its unutterable stupidity.
|
Well, the suicide bomber, obviously. But he isn't the only one.
"Yasser Arafat, his orders flouted and his poll ratings falling, is again left looking foolish".
Foolish? But who is really to blame?
"But any discussion of all-round stupidity cannot fairly exclude Mr Sharon and his blinkered patron, George Bush. Their ill-will and incompetence has combined to bring what was left of the peace process to a grinding halt. Do not prate on about two or three-year-long "roadmaps"! Talk about dead children now".
The Guardian: a newspaper of execrable cruelty matched only by its unutterable stupidity.
|
I suppose if I were incredibly cynical I might point out to Mr. British Spin this article by Larry Elliott which reveals that:
"The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, entirely because the already rich have become stupendously richer".
However, I dare say he'd say, yes, but it would have got worse under the Tories. For a good capitalist like me, though this kind of news does indeed get a shrug of the shoulders and an amused sigh: Labour can't even get the things they believe in right. For Elliott, however, this is a bad thing. First, he points out the obvious, that:
"bifurcation of the labour market should come as no surprise, because market economies have an in-built tendency towards inequality. People are paid differently because some are more talented, some work harder, some start from more advantageous positions and some are luckier. Even starting with a wholly egalitarian system of income and wealth, it would not be long before the market turned equality into inequalities".
So far so obvious. However, here comes the conclusion:
"Massive income inequality does, however, sit uneasily with democracy. There is a conflict between the egalitarian notion of one person one vote and executives earning a thousand times more than their workers".
Sorry, I just don't get it.
|
"The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, entirely because the already rich have become stupendously richer".
However, I dare say he'd say, yes, but it would have got worse under the Tories. For a good capitalist like me, though this kind of news does indeed get a shrug of the shoulders and an amused sigh: Labour can't even get the things they believe in right. For Elliott, however, this is a bad thing. First, he points out the obvious, that:
"bifurcation of the labour market should come as no surprise, because market economies have an in-built tendency towards inequality. People are paid differently because some are more talented, some work harder, some start from more advantageous positions and some are luckier. Even starting with a wholly egalitarian system of income and wealth, it would not be long before the market turned equality into inequalities".
So far so obvious. However, here comes the conclusion:
"Massive income inequality does, however, sit uneasily with democracy. There is a conflict between the egalitarian notion of one person one vote and executives earning a thousand times more than their workers".
Sorry, I just don't get it.
|
British Spin bites back! He doesn't disagree with me, exactly, he just thinks there's more to it than simple moral choice. There is such a thing as society. Moreover, you can throw money at problems. By investment crime can come down. He cites an estate where crime is down by a third, and attributes this to, aside from better policing, government investment. My response is this: Sure, you can throw money at problems. But why's that always a good thing?
Thus, you can give a mugger a hundred grand when he gets out of prison. It's possible he won't do it again. Or you could invest all that money in something else that employs said criminal ( or at least, future criminals waiting to happen ), but I still don't see that that is a good thing - provided bad things are done in the process. What bad things? Taking money off the innocent, for a start. Why should Bill Gates, say, be forced to contribute one penny towards somebody else's lifestyle? In effect you're still rewarding vice, and punishing virtue. Why is that a good thing?
He also cites "A Clockwork Orange", and says my world view reflects that of the book. Well, I'm quite happy with that. I like the book, and Anthony Burgess is one of my few, literary heroes.
But one of the weaknesses of that book is that he cooks the books. The Ludovico Technique - a process of intellectual behavioral intimidation that tortures people into being good is so cruel that few people, other than the Gestapo and some seriously doctrinaire Marxists might approve of it.
But supposing the Ludovico Technique was a lot more user-friendly? Suppose, sometimes soon a scientist discovers the 'liberal gene'? Suppose some people are shown to have a natural tendency towards worrying about inequality, a deep concern for community, a huge craving to embrace the EU, and a fabulous respect for homosexuals, women, and ethnic minorities? Suppose you could develop a hormone from an individual with such a gene, turn it into a pill, and give it to criminals. So instead of wasting all that money on sending someone to prison, you could just give someone that pill. He takes it, and hey-ho, he's been turned into a good, compassionate, caring, socially aware hard-working selfless person. And it would be entirely pain-free. Pleasurable to take, non-addictive, and with no unpleasant side-effects.
Would you want him to take it it?
Would you force him to take it?
Would you take it?
|
Thus, you can give a mugger a hundred grand when he gets out of prison. It's possible he won't do it again. Or you could invest all that money in something else that employs said criminal ( or at least, future criminals waiting to happen ), but I still don't see that that is a good thing - provided bad things are done in the process. What bad things? Taking money off the innocent, for a start. Why should Bill Gates, say, be forced to contribute one penny towards somebody else's lifestyle? In effect you're still rewarding vice, and punishing virtue. Why is that a good thing?
He also cites "A Clockwork Orange", and says my world view reflects that of the book. Well, I'm quite happy with that. I like the book, and Anthony Burgess is one of my few, literary heroes.
But one of the weaknesses of that book is that he cooks the books. The Ludovico Technique - a process of intellectual behavioral intimidation that tortures people into being good is so cruel that few people, other than the Gestapo and some seriously doctrinaire Marxists might approve of it.
But supposing the Ludovico Technique was a lot more user-friendly? Suppose, sometimes soon a scientist discovers the 'liberal gene'? Suppose some people are shown to have a natural tendency towards worrying about inequality, a deep concern for community, a huge craving to embrace the EU, and a fabulous respect for homosexuals, women, and ethnic minorities? Suppose you could develop a hormone from an individual with such a gene, turn it into a pill, and give it to criminals. So instead of wasting all that money on sending someone to prison, you could just give someone that pill. He takes it, and hey-ho, he's been turned into a good, compassionate, caring, socially aware hard-working selfless person. And it would be entirely pain-free. Pleasurable to take, non-addictive, and with no unpleasant side-effects.
Would you want him to take it it?
Would you force him to take it?
Would you take it?
|
Thursday, November 21
And now for my first report on Celebrity Big Brother. It's too early and too close to call at the moment. However, here are those first impressions: Ann Diamond will probably do all right in the house, but not with the public. Melinda Messenger, vice versa. Goldie could well wind us all up pretty damn quick and might well be headed for an early bath. Sue, the dark-haired one, might last a couple of days, but as soon as she's up for the vote, it's hasta la vista, baby. Les Dennis will get through to the final three. The Winner, though, unless, he reveals himself to be a right pillock, must surely be Robbie Williams old mucker, the former Take That star, Matt Owen. Mind you, I always get this wrong.
|
|
A correction! Yes, we make mistakes just like everyone else. Andrew, who has settled in like a veteran at Sasha's incredibly sassy site, is in fact the only ex-dodgeblogger to have made his home there. The other two ( male, white ) alumni are currently homeless. The Big Momma herself, though, MommaBear, has joined up with the bellicose women down at site-essential.com. Go check her out!
|
|
News just in: We're losing the War on Terror. The Terrorists are winning! Or so says Seumas Milne ( Is that really how he spells Seamus? ):
"After six months of multiplying Islamist attacks on US, Australian and European targets, civilian and military - in Tunisia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Russia, Jordan, Yemen, the US and Indonesia - western politicians are having to face the fact that they are losing their war on terror".
So why's it failed, Seumas? Guess.
"All this has been the inevitable product of the central choice made last autumn, which was to opt for a mainly military solution to the challenge of Islamist terrorism. That was a recipe for failure".
Not necessarily. If we'd killed all their leaders and catholicised the people, well that might have helped, eh, Hugo? Or we could have tried to address the root causes, couldn't we?
"But there is little sign of any weakening of the wilful western refusal to address seriously the causes of Islamist terrorism. Thus, during the past year, the US has armed and bolstered Pakistan and the central Asian dictatorships, supported Putin's ongoing devastation of Chechnya, ccontinued to bomb and blockade Iraq at huge human cost, established new US bases across the Muslim world and, most recklessly of all, provided every necessary cover for Ariel Sharon's bloody rampages through the occupied Palestinian territories".
Yup. It's always Israel's fault. Maybe we should catholicise them, too. But only in a liberal, Hugo Young kind of a way.
|
"After six months of multiplying Islamist attacks on US, Australian and European targets, civilian and military - in Tunisia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Russia, Jordan, Yemen, the US and Indonesia - western politicians are having to face the fact that they are losing their war on terror".
So why's it failed, Seumas? Guess.
"All this has been the inevitable product of the central choice made last autumn, which was to opt for a mainly military solution to the challenge of Islamist terrorism. That was a recipe for failure".
Not necessarily. If we'd killed all their leaders and catholicised the people, well that might have helped, eh, Hugo? Or we could have tried to address the root causes, couldn't we?
"But there is little sign of any weakening of the wilful western refusal to address seriously the causes of Islamist terrorism. Thus, during the past year, the US has armed and bolstered Pakistan and the central Asian dictatorships, supported Putin's ongoing devastation of Chechnya, ccontinued to bomb and blockade Iraq at huge human cost, established new US bases across the Muslim world and, most recklessly of all, provided every necessary cover for Ariel Sharon's bloody rampages through the occupied Palestinian territories".
Yup. It's always Israel's fault. Maybe we should catholicise them, too. But only in a liberal, Hugo Young kind of a way.
|
In a Hattersleyite article, David Walker slams the current fad for local decision-making.
"We are all localists now",
he begins. I think that's what passes in the Guardian for heavy-handed sarcasm. We, aren't, you see. He isn't, especially.
"Giving more power to local government is therefore a recipe for diversity. Communities may be energetic and progressive; they may also be sluggish and mean. Localism has to mean some people get more and some get less, just like in markets. It is not a level playing field out there. Some cities have been poor (and poorly run) for ever. Some regions will always be richer and thus capable of sustaining higher taxation. If you value inequality, localism is a fine doctrine to hold. And of course, the party pushing for more inequality always used to be the Tories".
And now New Labour is just like the Tories. Yeah, we've heard all this before. These die-hards socialists, well they die hard, don't they? An individual, a locality, somebody out there might make a decision which is is wrong for it, and thereby run the risk of increasing inequality. Imagine! Somebody making the wrong decision. Far better to suppress autonomy, and let central government sort it out. Look pal, if you don't like autonomy, and want others to make decisions for you, go and join the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of us out of it.
UPDATE: This is even a bridge too far for Chris Bertram. We'll have a Paul Johnson of him yet.
|
"We are all localists now",
he begins. I think that's what passes in the Guardian for heavy-handed sarcasm. We, aren't, you see. He isn't, especially.
"Giving more power to local government is therefore a recipe for diversity. Communities may be energetic and progressive; they may also be sluggish and mean. Localism has to mean some people get more and some get less, just like in markets. It is not a level playing field out there. Some cities have been poor (and poorly run) for ever. Some regions will always be richer and thus capable of sustaining higher taxation. If you value inequality, localism is a fine doctrine to hold. And of course, the party pushing for more inequality always used to be the Tories".
And now New Labour is just like the Tories. Yeah, we've heard all this before. These die-hards socialists, well they die hard, don't they? An individual, a locality, somebody out there might make a decision which is is wrong for it, and thereby run the risk of increasing inequality. Imagine! Somebody making the wrong decision. Far better to suppress autonomy, and let central government sort it out. Look pal, if you don't like autonomy, and want others to make decisions for you, go and join the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of us out of it.
UPDATE: This is even a bridge too far for Chris Bertram. We'll have a Paul Johnson of him yet.
|
Wheeling himself out of the closet, Hugo Young claims to be some sort of Catholic: but guess which type? The liberal kind.
"This has always been an uneasy stance. Who are we liberal sinners to be sure what is right and what is wrong?"
Indeed. Good Old Hugo still has a go, though, doesn't he? Away with such scepticism! Hugo knows, and he wants the world to know too.
"The church removes itself from the axiomatic standards of the world with an arrogance that forfeits all respect".
Then why join? If 'the world' has a superior moral view, then join 'the world'.
"It has to be unequivocally contested when it claims to stand above the elementary norms of society".
Then why join? If 'society' has a superior moral view, then join 'society'.
"Here the liberal is right, and the church emphatically wrong".
So much for all that doubt, eh? And I repeat: Why join? If you know the difference between right and wrong, Hugo, what o you need a church for, let alone the Catholic church, whose whole point is that you get your morality from elsewhere. What is it about Catholicism that Hugo likes? Eating fish on Fridays? Beating up Rangers' fans? Buggering choirboys? Seriously, Hugo, what is it that makes you want to call yourself a Catholic?
"What's truly shameful is the church's failure to connect with a world that has a thirst for spirituality, if not religion as exemplified by Rome".
Ah, so maybe 'the world' isn't so superior, after all. Look, punk. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the pulpit. And if you really want some spirituality, go and join the Moonies.
|
"This has always been an uneasy stance. Who are we liberal sinners to be sure what is right and what is wrong?"
Indeed. Good Old Hugo still has a go, though, doesn't he? Away with such scepticism! Hugo knows, and he wants the world to know too.
"The church removes itself from the axiomatic standards of the world with an arrogance that forfeits all respect".
Then why join? If 'the world' has a superior moral view, then join 'the world'.
"It has to be unequivocally contested when it claims to stand above the elementary norms of society".
Then why join? If 'society' has a superior moral view, then join 'society'.
"Here the liberal is right, and the church emphatically wrong".
So much for all that doubt, eh? And I repeat: Why join? If you know the difference between right and wrong, Hugo, what o you need a church for, let alone the Catholic church, whose whole point is that you get your morality from elsewhere. What is it about Catholicism that Hugo likes? Eating fish on Fridays? Beating up Rangers' fans? Buggering choirboys? Seriously, Hugo, what is it that makes you want to call yourself a Catholic?
"What's truly shameful is the church's failure to connect with a world that has a thirst for spirituality, if not religion as exemplified by Rome".
Ah, so maybe 'the world' isn't so superior, after all. Look, punk. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the pulpit. And if you really want some spirituality, go and join the Moonies.
|
Wednesday, November 20
It's Bash the Blokes day, down at the Wanker. First up, Cherry Potter:
"This weekend the nation will settle down to watch Daniel Deronda and Dr Zhivago, both by Andrew Davies".
She wonders:
"does it matter if virtually the entire canon of 19th-century women's literature is adapted by one person who also happens to be a man? Am I being a boorish feminist for even bringing up the subject?"
Is there any other kind? Imagine. All those plays written by one man, all about the kings of England and Scotland, and princes of Denmark, and doges of Venice.
And that's just the beginning. Here's Catlin Gunn, the paper's resident lap-dancer, who reveals in the latest installment of her memoirs:
"It's clear that a lot of the guys who come to strip bars are here to get their revenge on women. I can usually spot them. It's an expression of distaste they wear permanently - whether it's a handsome young blade, a suited business man or, like last night's guy, a bloated, sagging, professional onanist, whose sallow pallor, slack features and faint fishy reek indicate a bitter life misspent".
Just like the cretinous hacks who ply their trade in the Guardian. All that equality-speak. All that Europhilia, all that hatred for America. All those professional onanists. They don't call it the Wanker for nothing, ducky.
"Sometimes I panic that all men are serious women-haters, but then I catch myself, think about my men friends - my funny, clever, warm, intelligent friends - and remind myself that the men I meet aren't necessarily a healthy cross-section of male society".
Yeah. Me too. Sometimes I panic that all women are serious man-haters, but then I catch myself and think about all the women I know. None of them buy the Wanker. It's a lousy paper full of weirdoes, misanthropes, and Matthew Engel.
"The problem is that every week I am exposed to about 100 men who are leery, needy, hostile, angry, creepy and ultimately dysfunctional".
Right, so anyone who wants to cop a view of your tits is dysfunctional? Perhaps. But I reckon there's an attitude problem here. If you can't provide a decent service and respect your clientele, then stop impuning their motives go and become a bag lady.
Third, just to show that the anti-male virus isn't just a female preserve, here's Kevin Maguire, who, in a fatuously class-riddled defence of Britain's firemen, condemns Sir George Bain, the human appointed by the government to sort it all out, thusly:
"Bain (male, white) and the government's newspaper cheerleaders (overwhelmingly male, white) have also condemned firefighters for being mainly male and white".
Well I suppose it's possible, when some arsonist sets fire to Wanker House in Farringdon Road, and Kevin, Hugo and the rest of the hatchet-faced masturbators are all crawling all over the rooftops, that they will turn down help from the ( male, white ) firemen, and demand only to be rescued by the ( female, black ) Lesbian Separatist Women's Co-operative of firefighting Ultradykes. But somehow I don't think so. Even if they arrived on time, ( which is doubtful, as in my experience, girls hate breaking speed limits ) what about the risk of them climbing up the ladders, offering cups of tea, asking Kevin about his feelings, and whether he had caught the latest episode of Oprah, while the whole damn lot of them melt into the noosphere?
And then of course there's the dreaded Pollster, who muses about the prospect of sarin gas, cyanide and anthrax being unleashed on the London Underground:
"If/when a Bali or a twin towers happens here, what will it do to the country? Usually countries under attack rally to their leaders, though this time there may be a strong undertow of opinion that wonders if Britain's closeness to the US brought this down upon us needlessly".
Yeah, sure. When Wanker House burns to the ground, unsaved by our fire-fighting lesboes, Polly's last thoughts will be a Robert Fisk-like:
"I'm sorry. This is all a result of the Florida recount".
But then I would say that wouldn't I? Being ( male, white ).
|
"This weekend the nation will settle down to watch Daniel Deronda and Dr Zhivago, both by Andrew Davies".
She wonders:
"does it matter if virtually the entire canon of 19th-century women's literature is adapted by one person who also happens to be a man? Am I being a boorish feminist for even bringing up the subject?"
Is there any other kind? Imagine. All those plays written by one man, all about the kings of England and Scotland, and princes of Denmark, and doges of Venice.
And that's just the beginning. Here's Catlin Gunn, the paper's resident lap-dancer, who reveals in the latest installment of her memoirs:
"It's clear that a lot of the guys who come to strip bars are here to get their revenge on women. I can usually spot them. It's an expression of distaste they wear permanently - whether it's a handsome young blade, a suited business man or, like last night's guy, a bloated, sagging, professional onanist, whose sallow pallor, slack features and faint fishy reek indicate a bitter life misspent".
Just like the cretinous hacks who ply their trade in the Guardian. All that equality-speak. All that Europhilia, all that hatred for America. All those professional onanists. They don't call it the Wanker for nothing, ducky.
"Sometimes I panic that all men are serious women-haters, but then I catch myself, think about my men friends - my funny, clever, warm, intelligent friends - and remind myself that the men I meet aren't necessarily a healthy cross-section of male society".
Yeah. Me too. Sometimes I panic that all women are serious man-haters, but then I catch myself and think about all the women I know. None of them buy the Wanker. It's a lousy paper full of weirdoes, misanthropes, and Matthew Engel.
"The problem is that every week I am exposed to about 100 men who are leery, needy, hostile, angry, creepy and ultimately dysfunctional".
Right, so anyone who wants to cop a view of your tits is dysfunctional? Perhaps. But I reckon there's an attitude problem here. If you can't provide a decent service and respect your clientele, then stop impuning their motives go and become a bag lady.
Third, just to show that the anti-male virus isn't just a female preserve, here's Kevin Maguire, who, in a fatuously class-riddled defence of Britain's firemen, condemns Sir George Bain, the human appointed by the government to sort it all out, thusly:
"Bain (male, white) and the government's newspaper cheerleaders (overwhelmingly male, white) have also condemned firefighters for being mainly male and white".
Well I suppose it's possible, when some arsonist sets fire to Wanker House in Farringdon Road, and Kevin, Hugo and the rest of the hatchet-faced masturbators are all crawling all over the rooftops, that they will turn down help from the ( male, white ) firemen, and demand only to be rescued by the ( female, black ) Lesbian Separatist Women's Co-operative of firefighting Ultradykes. But somehow I don't think so. Even if they arrived on time, ( which is doubtful, as in my experience, girls hate breaking speed limits ) what about the risk of them climbing up the ladders, offering cups of tea, asking Kevin about his feelings, and whether he had caught the latest episode of Oprah, while the whole damn lot of them melt into the noosphere?
And then of course there's the dreaded Pollster, who muses about the prospect of sarin gas, cyanide and anthrax being unleashed on the London Underground:
"If/when a Bali or a twin towers happens here, what will it do to the country? Usually countries under attack rally to their leaders, though this time there may be a strong undertow of opinion that wonders if Britain's closeness to the US brought this down upon us needlessly".
Yeah, sure. When Wanker House burns to the ground, unsaved by our fire-fighting lesboes, Polly's last thoughts will be a Robert Fisk-like:
"I'm sorry. This is all a result of the Florida recount".
But then I would say that wouldn't I? Being ( male, white ).
|
Tuesday, November 19
The British Spin man is unimpressed with my rejoinder to his rejoinder and asks someone to 'put forward a case for poverty not being the cause of crime'. Iain has a go. Now here's mine. I don't blame leftist intellectuals, I don't blame rightist intellectuals, I blame the individuals who do the crime. Okay, that's the glib 'micro' answer. Now here's my glib 'macro' answer: I suppose I blame politicians, mostly, of all stripes, not exactly for the laws they enact, but for not having a realistic appraisal of what would happen as a result of these laws. Ah, but those politicians are influenced by leftist intellectuals, and rightist intellectuals. And who voted for them anyway? You ( or we ) the public. And so it goes on.
What was the cause of WW2? Hitler? The evil German public who voted for him? The evil German financiers who paid for him? The Treaty of Versailles? Archduke Ferdinand? The bloke who shot him? High unemployment? The Allies for not understanding the 'root causes?' The Americans for not getting involved? Human nature? We can all have fun with that one.
Poverty does not cause crime. My view is that crime happens because people like it. The Yorkshire Ripper harboured fantasies of murdering women for years, finally did it, decided he liked it, got away with it, and carried on until he was caught. A similar process, I imagine, occurred in the brain of the little creep who smashed in the window of a car of a friend of ours who came to visit a few weeks' back. He did it to another car that night, and another car a couple of days later. He will presumably carry on until he gets caught. He didn't do it because he was Robin Hood, he did it because he could and because it was fun. Why here? Presumably because he lives near here. If he could do it in St. Johns Wood he would do so.
But why do they do it? What is the root cause? Well, I'm happy with the 'fun' answer. It's the same reason people go to the movies, watch football, read books, and set up blogs. It takes them out of themselves, and gives them a thrill. These things happen in waves. You show a suicide in East Enders and suicide rates go up. When I was at school heroin-taking was a complete taboo. I knew of others where it was all the rage. Why? Isn't the more pertinent question: Why not? People imitate each other. And if they find a taste for something, and there is little disincentive not to carry on, they will then carry on.
Was Myra Hindley innately evil? No. She was innately Myra Hindley. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that if she had never meet Ian Brady she would probably have gone on to marry some normal bloke, had a couple of bouncing babies, and ended up smoking sixty fags a day and watching Coronation Street every night. The two kids who killed James Bulger just got the idea of kidnapping a kid and stoning him to death, and decided to do it. If they'd decided to get into trainspotting or sneaking into the Kop to watch Liverpool on a Saturday afternoon instead we would probably have never heard of them.
But this is what people are like. People do horrible things to each other. There is no reason that they have to. Nobody has to mug anyone, nobody has to go and get drunk on a Friday night. Nobody has to have sex with strangers. But people do. And people get a taste for things. They get addicted, and obsessed by things.
One of the wisest pieces of advice I ever heard was given by John Waters, the otherwise mostly dismal film director. He thought that instead of going out and murdering people, anyone who has that tendency ought to just sit down and write about it. Helps if you could write, but I take his point.
Forget poverty then. And I mean Western style poverty. Crime committed by people who are genuinely starving and desperate is not always wrong after all. There are higher human values than property values, in my book. But what about inequality, then? Does inequality cause crime? Only in the same way that unequal good looks cause lust. The grass is always greener. In a society where people have similar incomes, similar amounts of property, then there is less of an incentive to envy. Sure. Likewise in a society where people tended to look similar, and have similar degrees of attractiveness ( or where one of the sexes wears the burqa, say ), there is less of an incentive to lust after anyone. But are these prices worth paying? Wouldn't the joy of living, and the infringement against freedom, autonomy and privacy not be worth the candle? Isn't it better just to punish people when they infringe, rather than to try and anticipate the evil-doing in the first place, which is something that can only be done successfully by a totalitarian state. How can you know if someone is going to do good? You can't. Any more than you can know someone is going to do bad.
So that's why I'm a conservative. It's also why I am, in the classical sense, a liberal. It's also why I'm an optimist. I think most people are nice, caring and decent. Left to their own devices people do indeed get along. Yes, we have our obsessions, and our sick imaginations, but we manage to channel them, if not productively, harmlessly. Most people, after all, are not serial killers, or even muggers. Even that little creep who's got his own crime wave going in the street outside. He'll probably grow up to be a just another unemployable lout with three children by three different women.
And that's where my blame for the politicians. So long as they subsidise laziness, indulge envy, and give little toerags the benefit of the doubt then it doesn't surprise me that the little toerags will carry on. All they do, and this goes for Major as well as Blair, and Thatcher for that matter, is announce crackdowns, promise initiatives, but never really carry out their simple duty of punishing the seriously guilty: those guilty of basic crimes like robbery and theft. Instead they like to tell the police to set up 'hate crime' hotlines, and try and abolish fox-hunting and the like.
Although more things are illegal in the UK than ever before, the police try and turn a blind eye to so much because it just isn't worth the bother, the judiciary do all that they can not to send people to prison both because prison is so degrading and because the prisons are so full. Consequently we have the most liberal punitive policies, and the biggest prison population ever. Now there's a causal link in there somewhere.
I shall no doubt return to this tomorrow with Mr. Blunkett's new eye-catching initiatives on sexual offences.
|
What was the cause of WW2? Hitler? The evil German public who voted for him? The evil German financiers who paid for him? The Treaty of Versailles? Archduke Ferdinand? The bloke who shot him? High unemployment? The Allies for not understanding the 'root causes?' The Americans for not getting involved? Human nature? We can all have fun with that one.
Poverty does not cause crime. My view is that crime happens because people like it. The Yorkshire Ripper harboured fantasies of murdering women for years, finally did it, decided he liked it, got away with it, and carried on until he was caught. A similar process, I imagine, occurred in the brain of the little creep who smashed in the window of a car of a friend of ours who came to visit a few weeks' back. He did it to another car that night, and another car a couple of days later. He will presumably carry on until he gets caught. He didn't do it because he was Robin Hood, he did it because he could and because it was fun. Why here? Presumably because he lives near here. If he could do it in St. Johns Wood he would do so.
But why do they do it? What is the root cause? Well, I'm happy with the 'fun' answer. It's the same reason people go to the movies, watch football, read books, and set up blogs. It takes them out of themselves, and gives them a thrill. These things happen in waves. You show a suicide in East Enders and suicide rates go up. When I was at school heroin-taking was a complete taboo. I knew of others where it was all the rage. Why? Isn't the more pertinent question: Why not? People imitate each other. And if they find a taste for something, and there is little disincentive not to carry on, they will then carry on.
Was Myra Hindley innately evil? No. She was innately Myra Hindley. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that if she had never meet Ian Brady she would probably have gone on to marry some normal bloke, had a couple of bouncing babies, and ended up smoking sixty fags a day and watching Coronation Street every night. The two kids who killed James Bulger just got the idea of kidnapping a kid and stoning him to death, and decided to do it. If they'd decided to get into trainspotting or sneaking into the Kop to watch Liverpool on a Saturday afternoon instead we would probably have never heard of them.
But this is what people are like. People do horrible things to each other. There is no reason that they have to. Nobody has to mug anyone, nobody has to go and get drunk on a Friday night. Nobody has to have sex with strangers. But people do. And people get a taste for things. They get addicted, and obsessed by things.
One of the wisest pieces of advice I ever heard was given by John Waters, the otherwise mostly dismal film director. He thought that instead of going out and murdering people, anyone who has that tendency ought to just sit down and write about it. Helps if you could write, but I take his point.
Forget poverty then. And I mean Western style poverty. Crime committed by people who are genuinely starving and desperate is not always wrong after all. There are higher human values than property values, in my book. But what about inequality, then? Does inequality cause crime? Only in the same way that unequal good looks cause lust. The grass is always greener. In a society where people have similar incomes, similar amounts of property, then there is less of an incentive to envy. Sure. Likewise in a society where people tended to look similar, and have similar degrees of attractiveness ( or where one of the sexes wears the burqa, say ), there is less of an incentive to lust after anyone. But are these prices worth paying? Wouldn't the joy of living, and the infringement against freedom, autonomy and privacy not be worth the candle? Isn't it better just to punish people when they infringe, rather than to try and anticipate the evil-doing in the first place, which is something that can only be done successfully by a totalitarian state. How can you know if someone is going to do good? You can't. Any more than you can know someone is going to do bad.
So that's why I'm a conservative. It's also why I am, in the classical sense, a liberal. It's also why I'm an optimist. I think most people are nice, caring and decent. Left to their own devices people do indeed get along. Yes, we have our obsessions, and our sick imaginations, but we manage to channel them, if not productively, harmlessly. Most people, after all, are not serial killers, or even muggers. Even that little creep who's got his own crime wave going in the street outside. He'll probably grow up to be a just another unemployable lout with three children by three different women.
And that's where my blame for the politicians. So long as they subsidise laziness, indulge envy, and give little toerags the benefit of the doubt then it doesn't surprise me that the little toerags will carry on. All they do, and this goes for Major as well as Blair, and Thatcher for that matter, is announce crackdowns, promise initiatives, but never really carry out their simple duty of punishing the seriously guilty: those guilty of basic crimes like robbery and theft. Instead they like to tell the police to set up 'hate crime' hotlines, and try and abolish fox-hunting and the like.
Although more things are illegal in the UK than ever before, the police try and turn a blind eye to so much because it just isn't worth the bother, the judiciary do all that they can not to send people to prison both because prison is so degrading and because the prisons are so full. Consequently we have the most liberal punitive policies, and the biggest prison population ever. Now there's a causal link in there somewhere.
I shall no doubt return to this tomorrow with Mr. Blunkett's new eye-catching initiatives on sexual offences.
|
The unnamed creature who runs British Spin has dared to mock my comments on Roy Hattersley, as featured below. Or rather one particular comment. Go on. Go read him.
Well, sorry, but I'm not impressed. Hattersley is the one who is drawing the postcode distinction, not me. He's the one who seems to know where the good people live, and the bad people ( St. Johns Wood, and Lambeth, for those who can't be bothered to follow the links ) .Roy also knows why the good people do good things, and why the bad people do the bad things. As does British Spinman. It's poverty. Well, inequality, which as far as they are both concerned, are one and the same thing. I'm not so sure. I don't have all the answers. Roy does. That's why he wants to the give the thieving brats more money, more rights, more opportunities. I have two backers. One, Mark, in a comment over at his site, who says:
"Most of the wack little sociopaths on the loose in my area with their graffiti cans, short knives and yen for mobiles 'n' money are wearing trainers that cost more than all the clothes I'm wearing put together. Poverty doesn't create crime anymore; dysfunctional aspiration does. Crime is cool, unfortunately".
And the great Swordsman himself, Iain Murray, who digs out his sociology textbook. No, if you want to take a hatchet to my wisdom, go check out Steven Chapman, where, in contrast, I'm accused of wimpishness. Now that's what I call a fisking.
|
Well, sorry, but I'm not impressed. Hattersley is the one who is drawing the postcode distinction, not me. He's the one who seems to know where the good people live, and the bad people ( St. Johns Wood, and Lambeth, for those who can't be bothered to follow the links ) .Roy also knows why the good people do good things, and why the bad people do the bad things. As does British Spinman. It's poverty. Well, inequality, which as far as they are both concerned, are one and the same thing. I'm not so sure. I don't have all the answers. Roy does. That's why he wants to the give the thieving brats more money, more rights, more opportunities. I have two backers. One, Mark, in a comment over at his site, who says:
"Most of the wack little sociopaths on the loose in my area with their graffiti cans, short knives and yen for mobiles 'n' money are wearing trainers that cost more than all the clothes I'm wearing put together. Poverty doesn't create crime anymore; dysfunctional aspiration does. Crime is cool, unfortunately".
And the great Swordsman himself, Iain Murray, who digs out his sociology textbook. No, if you want to take a hatchet to my wisdom, go check out Steven Chapman, where, in contrast, I'm accused of wimpishness. Now that's what I call a fisking.
|
Monday, November 18
Former heroin user and current husband of the delightful Deborah Orr Will Self slams Dubya and his recent electoral victory:
"In so far as it has a popular will at all, the American electorate resembles a crack head at the end of a particularly savage and protracted binge".
Well he should know.
"Rather than face up to the fact that it's the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that it's fast squandering not only its own natural resources, but also all those of the rest of the Earth's inhabitants, crack-head America has decided to embark on another run.
Make no mistake about it, the "war" against Iraq has everything to do with mugging the muddle-headed Middle East for its oil reserves, and very little to do with human rights".
It's all about oil. Hey, now where have I heard that before?
"As for all of this flim-flam about weapons inspections, take my word for it, in years to come the casus belli for this little slice of Armageddon will come to be seen as a piece of fraudulent, cynical manipulation to rival the Nazi's "reason" for invading Poland.
Still, I can't really feel that angry with Dubya, or with any of his corrupt, self-seeking henchmen, or even with the paranoid, deluded American electorate, who are in search of another fleeting rush of imperialism. Like the scorpion in the parable - to sting is just in their nature".
Now that's what I call a 'root causes' explanation. Dubya's just a Nazi. He can't help it.
|
"In so far as it has a popular will at all, the American electorate resembles a crack head at the end of a particularly savage and protracted binge".
Well he should know.
"Rather than face up to the fact that it's the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that it's fast squandering not only its own natural resources, but also all those of the rest of the Earth's inhabitants, crack-head America has decided to embark on another run.
Make no mistake about it, the "war" against Iraq has everything to do with mugging the muddle-headed Middle East for its oil reserves, and very little to do with human rights".
It's all about oil. Hey, now where have I heard that before?
"As for all of this flim-flam about weapons inspections, take my word for it, in years to come the casus belli for this little slice of Armageddon will come to be seen as a piece of fraudulent, cynical manipulation to rival the Nazi's "reason" for invading Poland.
Still, I can't really feel that angry with Dubya, or with any of his corrupt, self-seeking henchmen, or even with the paranoid, deluded American electorate, who are in search of another fleeting rush of imperialism. Like the scorpion in the parable - to sting is just in their nature".
Now that's what I call a 'root causes' explanation. Dubya's just a Nazi. He can't help it.
|
It's poverty day over at the Wanker, and three writers have three very different views. Another famine is looming in Africa, and a leader ends:
"Given $200bn to spend, what is a better option: a Marshall plan for Africa or a martial plan for Iraq? The answer is that the only just war to launch is the fight against poverty".
But what is poverty, anyway? You might have thought that even the most dyed-in-the-wool egalitarian would agree that poverty in the UK and poverty in Africa are at least, different. Unless you're Roy Hattersley, that is, who muses about Blair's latest crackdown on crime:
"It is not because St John"s Wood is free of original sin that its telephone kiosks are less vandalised than those in Lambeth. It is because the social conditions of the two are different".
True enough. One is where good people live. The other bad. Or maybe he wouldn't quite put it like that.
"Most of the young men on whom the anti-social behaviour bill is focused do not believe that they have the slightest hope of enjoying the material good life that they see exalted on television. It is no good telling them that they had a chance of winning a place in a city technology college".
Wny not?
"The young hooligans who live in those conditions will play fair by society only when they feel that society is playing fair by them".
This of course is deterministic rubbish. Nobody forces a toerag to smash the window of a car, any more than anyone forced Roy Hattersley into becoming a bloated socialist. He chose to do it, and so do they. And the proles of Lambeth aren't exactly starving to death. I wonder where he'd rather spend the $200bn. I also wonder where Randeep Ramesh would like to spend it. He too is in a state. He's worrying about imperialism. Or rather
"The new liberal imperialism".
He seems to disapprove of helping starving black folks.
"Dressed up as benign assistance or humanitarian interventionism, the years ahead will once again see great powers intervene in the affairs of independent peoples".
There's no pleasing some people. Let the poor starve, and you're accused of cruelty. Help them, and you're accused of imperialism.
|
"Given $200bn to spend, what is a better option: a Marshall plan for Africa or a martial plan for Iraq? The answer is that the only just war to launch is the fight against poverty".
But what is poverty, anyway? You might have thought that even the most dyed-in-the-wool egalitarian would agree that poverty in the UK and poverty in Africa are at least, different. Unless you're Roy Hattersley, that is, who muses about Blair's latest crackdown on crime:
"It is not because St John"s Wood is free of original sin that its telephone kiosks are less vandalised than those in Lambeth. It is because the social conditions of the two are different".
True enough. One is where good people live. The other bad. Or maybe he wouldn't quite put it like that.
"Most of the young men on whom the anti-social behaviour bill is focused do not believe that they have the slightest hope of enjoying the material good life that they see exalted on television. It is no good telling them that they had a chance of winning a place in a city technology college".
Wny not?
"The young hooligans who live in those conditions will play fair by society only when they feel that society is playing fair by them".
This of course is deterministic rubbish. Nobody forces a toerag to smash the window of a car, any more than anyone forced Roy Hattersley into becoming a bloated socialist. He chose to do it, and so do they. And the proles of Lambeth aren't exactly starving to death. I wonder where he'd rather spend the $200bn. I also wonder where Randeep Ramesh would like to spend it. He too is in a state. He's worrying about imperialism. Or rather
"The new liberal imperialism".
He seems to disapprove of helping starving black folks.
"Dressed up as benign assistance or humanitarian interventionism, the years ahead will once again see great powers intervene in the affairs of independent peoples".
There's no pleasing some people. Let the poor starve, and you're accused of cruelty. Help them, and you're accused of imperialism.
|
When I opened my email today I had no less than three offers of a bigger penis. Ive decided to send them all over to Emily. Maybe she could use them - or just give them to that Greer woman.
|
|
Sunday, November 17
So there it is. You go away for a few days and the whole world changes. One of the finest prose writers in the blogosphere has thrown in the towel, one of the feistiest has gone away for a while and may be some time, and three Britbloggers have merged with one sassy New Yorker. This is the most extraordinary union since the Buggles joined Yes. What will those opera lovers make nof Andrew's predilection for Napalm Death? We shall see.
Then Myra Hindley dies. On Children in Need day and all.
And finally, if that ain't bad enough, another dismal sixties female role model Germaine Greer comes flying out of her cave with another pronouncement about Men, brought to you as ever, by the Guardian. She's really lost it now. The one thing she once had was a vague talent for the arresting phrase. Now she's just turgid. Take the opening paragraph:
"The truth is out. Men are much more trouble than they're worth. Sisters are doing it for themselves. Discarded males of all ages loiter in the streets, looking for trouble to get into and finding no lack of it. Male security guards shoot male football fans in Bratislava, male fans howl racist abuse and hurl chairs at each other, males train as suicide bombers, male heads of state stroll about discussing whether they could get away with another shooting war on the women and children of Iraq, and their male flunkies zoom around the world trying to talk other males into joining in. The Beltway Sniper turned out to be a man. And those "children" ejected from school for threatening to kill their teachers are actually boys. It doesn't do to say so. A kind of mad squeamishness prevents us from quantifying the nuisance value of maleness, possibly because if you actually tell men that they are damned nuisances, they are likely to behave even worse".
There are another few thousand words of this. Do you really want to read any more?
UPDATE: Princess Emily, or somebody pretending to be her, adds her own caustic comments.
|
Then Myra Hindley dies. On Children in Need day and all.
And finally, if that ain't bad enough, another dismal sixties female role model Germaine Greer comes flying out of her cave with another pronouncement about Men, brought to you as ever, by the Guardian. She's really lost it now. The one thing she once had was a vague talent for the arresting phrase. Now she's just turgid. Take the opening paragraph:
"The truth is out. Men are much more trouble than they're worth. Sisters are doing it for themselves. Discarded males of all ages loiter in the streets, looking for trouble to get into and finding no lack of it. Male security guards shoot male football fans in Bratislava, male fans howl racist abuse and hurl chairs at each other, males train as suicide bombers, male heads of state stroll about discussing whether they could get away with another shooting war on the women and children of Iraq, and their male flunkies zoom around the world trying to talk other males into joining in. The Beltway Sniper turned out to be a man. And those "children" ejected from school for threatening to kill their teachers are actually boys. It doesn't do to say so. A kind of mad squeamishness prevents us from quantifying the nuisance value of maleness, possibly because if you actually tell men that they are damned nuisances, they are likely to behave even worse".
There are another few thousand words of this. Do you really want to read any more?
UPDATE: Princess Emily, or somebody pretending to be her, adds her own caustic comments.
|
Thursday, November 14
"George Bush and Tony Blair are beginning to look alike",
Hugo Young reveals.
"Bush has risen from illegitimacy to mastery on the back of small numbers of swinging votes and seats, thanks to a single week of campaigning that put all his prestige on the line".
Nope. Hugo doesn't mean Dubya had a momma like Saddam's. He's referring to Florida again. Let it go, man!
The two men have also found they are similar characters. Though Blair is obviously more educated, and much the better speaker, neither of them is an intellectual".
Obviously. Somehow Hugo missed his calling, I think.
|
Hugo Young reveals.
"Bush has risen from illegitimacy to mastery on the back of small numbers of swinging votes and seats, thanks to a single week of campaigning that put all his prestige on the line".
Nope. Hugo doesn't mean Dubya had a momma like Saddam's. He's referring to Florida again. Let it go, man!
The two men have also found they are similar characters. Though Blair is obviously more educated, and much the better speaker, neither of them is an intellectual".
Obviously. Somehow Hugo missed his calling, I think.
|
Top Shrink Jerrold Post has been talking to the Guardian about Saddam:
"It all goes back to his mother's womb," Post declares with some professional satisfaction. "During the mother's pregnancy with Saddam Hussein, his father died, and another son died when he was only 12 years old. She both tried to commit suicide and to have an abortion."
If at first you don't succeed...
|
"It all goes back to his mother's womb," Post declares with some professional satisfaction. "During the mother's pregnancy with Saddam Hussein, his father died, and another son died when he was only 12 years old. She both tried to commit suicide and to have an abortion."
If at first you don't succeed...
|
"When should Iraq join the European Union? A ridiculous question, you may say", muses Timothy Garton Ash.
Indeed. But I reckon there's a column in there somewhere.
"Of course, to join the EU you must be a democratic state, respecting human and minority rights".
Now that's just knit-picking, isn't it?
|
Indeed. But I reckon there's a column in there somewhere.
"Of course, to join the EU you must be a democratic state, respecting human and minority rights".
Now that's just knit-picking, isn't it?
|
Happy Birthday, Princes Charles. Don't let the buggers get you down. You'll outlast the Indy anyway.
|
|
Wednesday, November 13
Frying tonight! Yes, as of six o'clock, it's burn baby burn time. The firemen are going on strike. Well, who wouldn't want a forty percent pay rise? Makes a change from playing cards all week, and then getting called out to rescue a kitten, I suppose.
|
|
Richard Perle speaks his mind, and the Guardian finds it "extraordinary". Why? Take Simon Tisdall. He's not exactly an optimist of the George Moonbat variety. No, he's in a grim, fatalistic mood, predicting that:
"The casualties of Desert Storm II, physical and figurative, will include Iraqi civilians and combatants on both sides; the people of Israel and of sidelined Palestine; Kurdish hopes of self-rule; Iran's pro-western civil reform movement; the entire region's security, living standards and environment if chemical or biological weapons are used; the Arab and Muslim world's already strained relationship with "Christendom"; state sovereignty as defined in international law; and democracy".
And it hasn't even started yet. Still, not all is bad. Celebrity Big Brother starts next week. Esther Rantzen? Dawn French? Who goes? You decide!
|
"The casualties of Desert Storm II, physical and figurative, will include Iraqi civilians and combatants on both sides; the people of Israel and of sidelined Palestine; Kurdish hopes of self-rule; Iran's pro-western civil reform movement; the entire region's security, living standards and environment if chemical or biological weapons are used; the Arab and Muslim world's already strained relationship with "Christendom"; state sovereignty as defined in international law; and democracy".
And it hasn't even started yet. Still, not all is bad. Celebrity Big Brother starts next week. Esther Rantzen? Dawn French? Who goes? You decide!
|
Tuesday, November 12
Go make an appointment with the Doctor. Yes, the Blogs of War is back. I'll stick him back on the blogroll whenever I can be bothered.
|
|
"It is not easy to find anything in last week's American midterm election results that might give the average Guardian reader something to cheer about",
Matthew Engel announces sagely, proving once again that he has his finger on the pulse. However, the ever-optimistic George Monbiot proves once again he's got his finger somewhere else: up his ass. After a brief foray into the world of black helicopters and faked moon landings:
"The tens of millions of US voters opposed to a war with Iraq were, until he died in a mysterious plane crash two weeks ago, represented by just one senator, Paul Wellstone".
Moonbat tells us that:
"The Democrats lost the mid-term elections because the Greens did not rattle their cage.
The Green party, led by Ralph Nader, is widely reviled by liberals in the US for "handing the presidency to Bush". The 2.7% it won in the presidential election is said to have deprived the Democrats of power. Nader, as a result, is now held responsible for everything from the bombing of Afghanistan to the logging of old-growth forest. But his critics are wrong, on two counts".
How so? After all, I imagine most Naderites would, if Nader hadn't stood, have voted Gore, who lost by a smaller margin than 2.%. Simple mathematics, surely. Too simple, for our Georgie. Her's got a point or two that will enlighten us:
"The first is that Bush did not win the presidential election. Al Gore did, though as we know he lost the subsequent power struggle".
Ah. It's Florida Recount Time again. Anyway, that's got damn all to do with anything. If Nader hadn't stood, there wouldn't have been a Florida recount. Anyway... here's point two:
"The second is that the Democrats won only because Nader forced them to win".
I see. In MoonBatWorld Gore is President, prodded there by the genius that is Ralph Nader.
"Had Nader not frightened them, Gore may well have lost".
Er, well actually-
"Nader dragged the Democrats back to the electorate".
So who's gonna drag Moonbat back to planet earth? This is a job not even Engel could tackle.
"A vote for a third political party, even one which has no chance of being elected, could, far from being wasted, be the most powerful vote you can cast. It is arguably the only force which could drag the bigger parties apart, oblige "progressive" politicians to implement progressive policies and enhance the scope of mainstream democratic choice. Ralph Nader, as the mid-term elections show, did not sink the Democrats; he rescued them. The tragedy of American politics is that they were too blinkered to see it".
So you crazy Yankees - take off your blinkers. Vote Nader, so that Gore can win. Oh, sorry, I forgot. He already did.
|
Matthew Engel announces sagely, proving once again that he has his finger on the pulse. However, the ever-optimistic George Monbiot proves once again he's got his finger somewhere else: up his ass. After a brief foray into the world of black helicopters and faked moon landings:
"The tens of millions of US voters opposed to a war with Iraq were, until he died in a mysterious plane crash two weeks ago, represented by just one senator, Paul Wellstone".
Moonbat tells us that:
"The Democrats lost the mid-term elections because the Greens did not rattle their cage.
The Green party, led by Ralph Nader, is widely reviled by liberals in the US for "handing the presidency to Bush". The 2.7% it won in the presidential election is said to have deprived the Democrats of power. Nader, as a result, is now held responsible for everything from the bombing of Afghanistan to the logging of old-growth forest. But his critics are wrong, on two counts".
How so? After all, I imagine most Naderites would, if Nader hadn't stood, have voted Gore, who lost by a smaller margin than 2.%. Simple mathematics, surely. Too simple, for our Georgie. Her's got a point or two that will enlighten us:
"The first is that Bush did not win the presidential election. Al Gore did, though as we know he lost the subsequent power struggle".
Ah. It's Florida Recount Time again. Anyway, that's got damn all to do with anything. If Nader hadn't stood, there wouldn't have been a Florida recount. Anyway... here's point two:
"The second is that the Democrats won only because Nader forced them to win".
I see. In MoonBatWorld Gore is President, prodded there by the genius that is Ralph Nader.
"Had Nader not frightened them, Gore may well have lost".
Er, well actually-
"Nader dragged the Democrats back to the electorate".
So who's gonna drag Moonbat back to planet earth? This is a job not even Engel could tackle.
"A vote for a third political party, even one which has no chance of being elected, could, far from being wasted, be the most powerful vote you can cast. It is arguably the only force which could drag the bigger parties apart, oblige "progressive" politicians to implement progressive policies and enhance the scope of mainstream democratic choice. Ralph Nader, as the mid-term elections show, did not sink the Democrats; he rescued them. The tragedy of American politics is that they were too blinkered to see it".
So you crazy Yankees - take off your blinkers. Vote Nader, so that Gore can win. Oh, sorry, I forgot. He already did.
|
Monday, November 11
For those of you who were worried that the Yorkshire Ripper and Jeffrey Archer don't masturbate enough, here is news to warm the cockles of your heart. Link courtesy of a speechless Peter Cuthbertson.
|
|
John Vidal, the Wanker's environment editor, spent last week in Florence, where there were
"40,000 intellectuals, students, ecological and social activists, people representing the poorest and most marginalised, radical economists, concerned individuals, humanitarians, artists, culturalists, churches, scientists and land workers from a bewildering array of non-government groups and grassroots social movements".
Sounds like fun.
"This was no ordinary political gathering; indeed many called it "the new politics".
And some called it a bunch of white-flag Eurobunnies. Whatever.
"Seemingly without form, issuing no final communique, inadequately translated, often chaotic, the four-day meeting drew people from every corner of Europe and 80 other countries".
Yeah, get on with it.
"No conclusions were reached or consensus sought, for this was more a laboratory of ideas and debate than a rally to conceive a new party or constitution, but for the first time it is possible to disentangle the broad threads of a genuine new vision for Europe from the 400 passionately debated overflowing meetings, often attended by 3,000 people or more".
Please. Get on with it.
"Top of the list, they sought a demilitarised Europe at peace with itself and the world, an ethical continent that takes a high moral stance against US imperialism. High on the list too was a radical rethink, or complete rejection, of the predatory capitalism the continent now knows. They imagined a Europe that rejected crude market ideology, made institutions fully accountable, put people before profit, and where big business was not allowed to dominate the political or consumer agendas".
But this is what we've got! Apart from the Gay Hussars, Europe is basically demilitarised. The Eunuchs love taking a high moral stance in relation to the US. They don't like capitalism, predatory or otherwise, at all. It's called the EU, sunshine.
"There were specifics: Europe, they said, should have open borders, and all people within it should have the right to work and to have a home; it sshould have a Tobin tax on financial markets and regulation of corporations; there should be no GM foods or pollution; no privatisation of public sservices; the media should be in the hands of the many not the few; and racism should be driven out".
Yes, they tried that. Pim Fortuyn got a bullet in his head.
"There was almost complete consensus on three issues: that "neo-liberalism" - the free-market ideas espoused by the IMF and G7 - is a violent political and economic doctrine; that trade with poor countries should be fair; and that one vote every four years given to political parties run by self-serving elites is no way to run modern, complex democracies in a globalised economy".
Ye gods. I hope he had time for a cornetto.
|
"40,000 intellectuals, students, ecological and social activists, people representing the poorest and most marginalised, radical economists, concerned individuals, humanitarians, artists, culturalists, churches, scientists and land workers from a bewildering array of non-government groups and grassroots social movements".
Sounds like fun.
"This was no ordinary political gathering; indeed many called it "the new politics".
And some called it a bunch of white-flag Eurobunnies. Whatever.
"Seemingly without form, issuing no final communique, inadequately translated, often chaotic, the four-day meeting drew people from every corner of Europe and 80 other countries".
Yeah, get on with it.
"No conclusions were reached or consensus sought, for this was more a laboratory of ideas and debate than a rally to conceive a new party or constitution, but for the first time it is possible to disentangle the broad threads of a genuine new vision for Europe from the 400 passionately debated overflowing meetings, often attended by 3,000 people or more".
Please. Get on with it.
"Top of the list, they sought a demilitarised Europe at peace with itself and the world, an ethical continent that takes a high moral stance against US imperialism. High on the list too was a radical rethink, or complete rejection, of the predatory capitalism the continent now knows. They imagined a Europe that rejected crude market ideology, made institutions fully accountable, put people before profit, and where big business was not allowed to dominate the political or consumer agendas".
But this is what we've got! Apart from the Gay Hussars, Europe is basically demilitarised. The Eunuchs love taking a high moral stance in relation to the US. They don't like capitalism, predatory or otherwise, at all. It's called the EU, sunshine.
"There were specifics: Europe, they said, should have open borders, and all people within it should have the right to work and to have a home; it sshould have a Tobin tax on financial markets and regulation of corporations; there should be no GM foods or pollution; no privatisation of public sservices; the media should be in the hands of the many not the few; and racism should be driven out".
Yes, they tried that. Pim Fortuyn got a bullet in his head.
"There was almost complete consensus on three issues: that "neo-liberalism" - the free-market ideas espoused by the IMF and G7 - is a violent political and economic doctrine; that trade with poor countries should be fair; and that one vote every four years given to political parties run by self-serving elites is no way to run modern, complex democracies in a globalised economy".
Ye gods. I hope he had time for a cornetto.
|
Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian, is talking Turkey. Garlic-eating Former French Prez Giscard d'Estaing doesn't want them in the EU on the grounds that they're not... European. Or is it because they're towelheads?
"The tawdry truth is that, yes ... racism and cultural bigotry and fear and economic failure still stalk the Europe and Britain in which we live; that France can't cope with its Algerians, Germany with its existing Turks - and perhaps we can't cope either. So close the door quietly, muttering excuses".
On the other hand
"our Europe of declining birth rates will need the youth and dynamism Turkey brings. That our bravest new world, inescapably, joyously, is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.
Travel with trepidation, I think. But above all: travel hopefully".
But make sure you never arrive, eh? So this is the argument. The ango-saxon indigenous white folk have forgotten how to breed, so we need towelheads to keep the flame alive. They should stick that slogan on the Euros.
|
"The tawdry truth is that, yes ... racism and cultural bigotry and fear and economic failure still stalk the Europe and Britain in which we live; that France can't cope with its Algerians, Germany with its existing Turks - and perhaps we can't cope either. So close the door quietly, muttering excuses".
On the other hand
"our Europe of declining birth rates will need the youth and dynamism Turkey brings. That our bravest new world, inescapably, joyously, is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.
Travel with trepidation, I think. But above all: travel hopefully".
But make sure you never arrive, eh? So this is the argument. The ango-saxon indigenous white folk have forgotten how to breed, so we need towelheads to keep the flame alive. They should stick that slogan on the Euros.
|
The peacenicks never give up without a fight, as Gary Younge admits, in today's Wanker:
"Having argued that bombing Iraq without UN authorisation would be illegal, we must now explain why bombing with UN blessing would still be immoral".
Someone, somewhere, you see, has got to rein in "the world's most powerful rogue state - like a well-armed vigilante, acting in its own interests and outside of the law, alone where necessary and with others where possible".
Yup, it's the USA.
"The biggest threat to the UN's credibility now is not Saddam Hussein, but Bush. The American position, endorsed by Britain, is cynical. They support multilateralism when multilateralism supports them. When global rules prove inconvenient - be it Kyoto, steel tariffs or the chemical weapons test ban treaty - they are happy to do without them".
Not to mention the Florida recount.
"If Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions, then Israel is no less so".
Yeah, I had a feeling they'd get a mention.
|
"Having argued that bombing Iraq without UN authorisation would be illegal, we must now explain why bombing with UN blessing would still be immoral".
Someone, somewhere, you see, has got to rein in "the world's most powerful rogue state - like a well-armed vigilante, acting in its own interests and outside of the law, alone where necessary and with others where possible".
Yup, it's the USA.
"The biggest threat to the UN's credibility now is not Saddam Hussein, but Bush. The American position, endorsed by Britain, is cynical. They support multilateralism when multilateralism supports them. When global rules prove inconvenient - be it Kyoto, steel tariffs or the chemical weapons test ban treaty - they are happy to do without them".
Not to mention the Florida recount.
"If Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions, then Israel is no less so".
Yeah, I had a feeling they'd get a mention.
|
Roy Hattersley comes clean:
"I was wrong".
He admits today in the Wanker. So what's he talking about? Ownership of the means of production? Equality meaning freedom? The idea that he might have made a fantastic deputy PM? Alas, no. Roy's big road to Damascus moment is that he has now decided that the private life of the royal family matters. Only to those who are interested, I guess.
|
"I was wrong".
He admits today in the Wanker. So what's he talking about? Ownership of the means of production? Equality meaning freedom? The idea that he might have made a fantastic deputy PM? Alas, no. Roy's big road to Damascus moment is that he has now decided that the private life of the royal family matters. Only to those who are interested, I guess.
|
Anne Karpf is worried about the growth of digital television. She claims that
"few of us channel-hop, so to entice the socially excluded you need to put your programmes on to the networks they view, rather than those you think they should".
Look, love, I know education in the UK is at an all time low, but even those socially excluded neanderthals who buy the Guardian know how use a remote control. So sticking programmes about Rembrandt on the Adult Channel is not going to make a blind bit of difference. Really.
|
"few of us channel-hop, so to entice the socially excluded you need to put your programmes on to the networks they view, rather than those you think they should".
Look, love, I know education in the UK is at an all time low, but even those socially excluded neanderthals who buy the Guardian know how use a remote control. So sticking programmes about Rembrandt on the Adult Channel is not going to make a blind bit of difference. Really.
|
The Indy takes a different line to Yazza about the UN Declaration, congratulating Blair for
"his diplomatic triumph at the United Nations has stilled the anti-war faction – for now".
I'd have thought it was more down to Bush than to Blair, but still... I'm also puzzled that they think this a triumph. I thought the Indy was the anti-war faction. At any rate, this is an excuse for a rant about Blair's latest crime-busting initiative.
"Locking up more people does not reduce crime – on the contrary, it entrenches criminality".
Indeed. It's about time we all learnt this. The only way to crack down on crime is to empty the prisons. Obvious!
"It is simply not necessary to erode civil liberties to speed up court procedures, or to treat drug addiction, or to instil responsibility in bored teenagers, all of which are more likely to cut crime".
I would have thought that plans to treat drug addiction, or indeed trying to instil responsibility in bored teenagers were themselves erosions of civil liberties, but there you go.
String'em up, I say.
|
"his diplomatic triumph at the United Nations has stilled the anti-war faction – for now".
I'd have thought it was more down to Bush than to Blair, but still... I'm also puzzled that they think this a triumph. I thought the Indy was the anti-war faction. At any rate, this is an excuse for a rant about Blair's latest crime-busting initiative.
"Locking up more people does not reduce crime – on the contrary, it entrenches criminality".
Indeed. It's about time we all learnt this. The only way to crack down on crime is to empty the prisons. Obvious!
"It is simply not necessary to erode civil liberties to speed up court procedures, or to treat drug addiction, or to instil responsibility in bored teenagers, all of which are more likely to cut crime".
I would have thought that plans to treat drug addiction, or indeed trying to instil responsibility in bored teenagers were themselves erosions of civil liberties, but there you go.
String'em up, I say.
|
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is in spiritual mood today. That's cos it's
"Ramadan, the month-long period of fasting which began last week".
She helpfully explains to the godless souls who predominate among her readership.
"Doors and hearts should be flung open – to non Muslims too. You become more contemplative, aware of the pain of others and your own failures, less addicted to choking consumerism and excess".
Bit like Christmas, then. Except that instead of giving presents, the Towelheads would rather walk into a McDonalds and blow people up. Anyway, enough of that. This niceness doesn't suit you, Yazza. Surely it's time to have a go at
"an even more powerful, reactionary Republican President who has bribed and bullied the UN into agreeing to a resolution that can only lead to the war that Bush absolutely wants and now has the mandate from his people to pursue without mercy".
I feel your pain too, Yazza. Mind you, it ain't just the Yankees.
"It is becoming harder and harder to say that the majority of Muslims in the world today are people of peace (which they are) because every week produces yet more evidence of outrages that are committed in the name of Islam".
So the majority are people of peace, but it's becoming harder to say. Go figure.
|
"Ramadan, the month-long period of fasting which began last week".
She helpfully explains to the godless souls who predominate among her readership.
"Doors and hearts should be flung open – to non Muslims too. You become more contemplative, aware of the pain of others and your own failures, less addicted to choking consumerism and excess".
Bit like Christmas, then. Except that instead of giving presents, the Towelheads would rather walk into a McDonalds and blow people up. Anyway, enough of that. This niceness doesn't suit you, Yazza. Surely it's time to have a go at
"an even more powerful, reactionary Republican President who has bribed and bullied the UN into agreeing to a resolution that can only lead to the war that Bush absolutely wants and now has the mandate from his people to pursue without mercy".
I feel your pain too, Yazza. Mind you, it ain't just the Yankees.
"It is becoming harder and harder to say that the majority of Muslims in the world today are people of peace (which they are) because every week produces yet more evidence of outrages that are committed in the name of Islam".
So the majority are people of peace, but it's becoming harder to say. Go figure.
|
Sunday, November 10
Tim Blair has a terrific crack at Will Hutton's ludicrous reaction to Payback Tuesday. I can't take exception to any of it. Even his comments about England are well founded. We do bitch and cry and moan all the goddamn time. My skin certainly is grey, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that I had mad cow disease, and I'm always being stabbed. But I have got thick skin, so I can take it. I do try and smile occasionally though, even if events overnight don't make it easy. I wonder what Hutton will be writing next week. Here is a sneak preview:
A dark week for English Cricket
The stranglehold that Australia has now taken on the great game of cricket will make it a more divided, reactionary and illiberal sport
Will Hutton
The toss said it all. England skipper, Nasser Hussein, had dared the Aussies to bat first on a dry wicket. This stunning decision, which no one in his right mind would have made, backfired spectacularly. Steve Waugh grinned all the way back to the pavilion, knowing he wouldn't even to put his pads on until the next day, and the rout was on.
Anyone who thinks that England players are any good has not encountered contemporary Australian cricketers. New South Wales, for example, is now lead by Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh's evil twin, who is a long-time crusader against lousy batting, lousy bowling, and lousy fielding. He would regard last week's decision to field as the work of Satan. He is part of Australian cricket's hard core.
Steve Waugh played every card he could. By getting his team to defend against the good ball, smack the bad ones to the boundary, and to take any catches offered, he set England an unfair target.
And so one of England cricket's darkest days was laughed at around the world. Matthew Hayden scored two centuries. Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrest, bowler and wicket-keeper, both scored run-a-ball fifties, and John Crawley who did so well in the first innings was run out in the second for nothing. It just wasn't fair. Ageing custodian Alec Stewart got precisely zero in both innings. Simon Jones smashed his leg on the first day. Darren Gough is on the plane home to England, and there have been three bowling replacements made to a 17 man squad already. As if to underscore Australia's ascendancy, think of all the players who aren't even in the team: Symonds, Elliot, Blewett, Bevan, Slater, Law, Maher, Love, and of course, Mark Waugh himself. Oh my God.
This is the most fiercely brilliant Australian team to have emerged since the war, and for which last Sunday's victory, arguse anyone who knows anything about cricket, made explicit.
Horseshit. Steve Waugh has an unfortunate coin toss to thank for his victory. Supposing Waugh had won the toss and not Hussein. On a flat track made for batting, Vaughn and Trescothick would undoubtedly have scored triple centuries each. England would have declared at 800 for three at lunch on the third day, and then bowled out an exhausted Australia for 200 in the first innings, with Hoggard and a fully-fit Jones taking five wicket each. Then, instead of enforcing the follow-on, in order to give his bowlers a rest Hussein would have batted again. At tea on day four he would have finally declared at a safe 300 for five, setting the Aussies a daunting 900 to win in four sessions. In actuality they would have been bowled out for 79, with Ashley Giles taking all ten second innings wickets.
The England fans I have spoken to are so traumatised by the overall defeat that they dismiss this possibility as the completely deluded fantasies of a maniac; I think they are wrong.
Such is the toss of a coin.
Australia is not a happy place. It's sunny all the time, and they're pretty good at Rugby too. But the game isn't up. Australia's cricketers, blinded by their talent and in control of every aspect of the game, will overreach themselves and the reality of what they plan - winning the World Cup - will become evident to all, stirring the apathetic viewer and reminding the rest of the world what it stands for - excellence and good play.
Last week represented the highwater mark of Australian cricket and, although it looks bleak, the beginnings of the long-awaited English revival. Not just Australia, but the world, needs it badly. In the meantime, despite its flaws, give thanks to the European Union for partial shelter from the Australian storm. For that is where our hopes lie. If only we could combine with the rest of Europe, think then what we could achieve. With Robert Croft of Wales, and that Danish bloke who used to play for Derbyshire, we could take those kangaroo-fuckers on, make no mistake.
You read it here first.
|
A dark week for English Cricket
The stranglehold that Australia has now taken on the great game of cricket will make it a more divided, reactionary and illiberal sport
Will Hutton
The toss said it all. England skipper, Nasser Hussein, had dared the Aussies to bat first on a dry wicket. This stunning decision, which no one in his right mind would have made, backfired spectacularly. Steve Waugh grinned all the way back to the pavilion, knowing he wouldn't even to put his pads on until the next day, and the rout was on.
Anyone who thinks that England players are any good has not encountered contemporary Australian cricketers. New South Wales, for example, is now lead by Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh's evil twin, who is a long-time crusader against lousy batting, lousy bowling, and lousy fielding. He would regard last week's decision to field as the work of Satan. He is part of Australian cricket's hard core.
Steve Waugh played every card he could. By getting his team to defend against the good ball, smack the bad ones to the boundary, and to take any catches offered, he set England an unfair target.
And so one of England cricket's darkest days was laughed at around the world. Matthew Hayden scored two centuries. Shane Warne and Adam Gilchrest, bowler and wicket-keeper, both scored run-a-ball fifties, and John Crawley who did so well in the first innings was run out in the second for nothing. It just wasn't fair. Ageing custodian Alec Stewart got precisely zero in both innings. Simon Jones smashed his leg on the first day. Darren Gough is on the plane home to England, and there have been three bowling replacements made to a 17 man squad already. As if to underscore Australia's ascendancy, think of all the players who aren't even in the team: Symonds, Elliot, Blewett, Bevan, Slater, Law, Maher, Love, and of course, Mark Waugh himself. Oh my God.
This is the most fiercely brilliant Australian team to have emerged since the war, and for which last Sunday's victory, arguse anyone who knows anything about cricket, made explicit.
Horseshit. Steve Waugh has an unfortunate coin toss to thank for his victory. Supposing Waugh had won the toss and not Hussein. On a flat track made for batting, Vaughn and Trescothick would undoubtedly have scored triple centuries each. England would have declared at 800 for three at lunch on the third day, and then bowled out an exhausted Australia for 200 in the first innings, with Hoggard and a fully-fit Jones taking five wicket each. Then, instead of enforcing the follow-on, in order to give his bowlers a rest Hussein would have batted again. At tea on day four he would have finally declared at a safe 300 for five, setting the Aussies a daunting 900 to win in four sessions. In actuality they would have been bowled out for 79, with Ashley Giles taking all ten second innings wickets.
The England fans I have spoken to are so traumatised by the overall defeat that they dismiss this possibility as the completely deluded fantasies of a maniac; I think they are wrong.
Such is the toss of a coin.
Australia is not a happy place. It's sunny all the time, and they're pretty good at Rugby too. But the game isn't up. Australia's cricketers, blinded by their talent and in control of every aspect of the game, will overreach themselves and the reality of what they plan - winning the World Cup - will become evident to all, stirring the apathetic viewer and reminding the rest of the world what it stands for - excellence and good play.
Last week represented the highwater mark of Australian cricket and, although it looks bleak, the beginnings of the long-awaited English revival. Not just Australia, but the world, needs it badly. In the meantime, despite its flaws, give thanks to the European Union for partial shelter from the Australian storm. For that is where our hopes lie. If only we could combine with the rest of Europe, think then what we could achieve. With Robert Croft of Wales, and that Danish bloke who used to play for Derbyshire, we could take those kangaroo-fuckers on, make no mistake.
You read it here first.
|
"Respect is a simple notion. We know instinctively what it means. Respect for others - their opinions, values and way of life. Respect for neighbours; respect for the community that means caring about others. Respect for property which means not tolerating mindless vandalism, theft, and graffiti. And self-respect, which means giving as well as taking. Respect is at the heart of a belief in society. It is what makes us a community, not merely a group of isolated individuals. It makes real a new contract between citizen and state, a contract that says that with rights and opportunities come responsibilities and obligations".
Whaddafuck?
|
Whaddafuck?
|
Anyone who thinks that that Kurt Cobain's version of "The Man Who Sold The World" is much better than David Bowie's original is a moron. Anyway, it wasn't just Cobain, goon. It was Nirvana.
|
|
Friday, November 8
"Figures released by the Home Office yesterday showed that black people were now eight times more likely to be stopped than whites, compared with only six times more likely when the Macpherson report was published".
The Indy announces worriedly. And Home Office Minister John Denham asks:
"We need to understand why it is that more black and ethnic minority people are stopped than white people".
The Indy then tells us that:
"Some of the answers to Mr Denham's questions can be traced to sources very close to his own office.
For more than a year, Home Office officials have been constantly chasing the chief constables of the largest urban forces, urging them to do more to tackle street criminals".
So perhaps we can draw the conclusion that blacks and ethnic minority people are over-represented within the street crime community? It appears so.
"The situation is likely to become worse. The latest anti-street crime initiatives – which took place in 10 urban forces – only reached their peak after the collation of the stop-and-search figures; the next set of data will probably show even larger discrepancies between black and white".
So far so logical. But what do the goons who write the same paper's editorial make of all this? Well they don't think much of Mr. Denham:
"Perhaps we should enlighten him".
Oh dear.
"It is because too many police officers make assumptions about people from their skin-colour. We do not subscribe to the careless use of the term "institutionally racist" to describe any police force in Britain. But something is amiss, and it is called racial prejudice".
But of course.
"Even if it is the case that black males are more likely to be involved in street crime than whites – both as perpetrators and victims – this disproportion cannot be so great as a factor of eight".
Why not?
"The most surprising of yesterday's statistics is that 81 per cent of those stopped and searched are white. Where do all these incidents take place? Anyone who sees a car pulled over by the police in an urban area in this country knows the driver is almost bound to be black or Asian".
Presumably they happen in the countryside, then. All those cars pulling out of pubs at twenty past eleven, I should imagine.
"Until the chances of being stopped match the likelihood that the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity, police time is being wasted on harassing innocent black people".
And innocent Asian people. And innocent white people. And innocent everyone. Clearly, it's time the police stopped stopping people, let alone arresting them. Then the multicultural paradise can begin. Doesn't they guy who writes all this actually read his own paper?
|
The Indy announces worriedly. And Home Office Minister John Denham asks:
"We need to understand why it is that more black and ethnic minority people are stopped than white people".
The Indy then tells us that:
"Some of the answers to Mr Denham's questions can be traced to sources very close to his own office.
For more than a year, Home Office officials have been constantly chasing the chief constables of the largest urban forces, urging them to do more to tackle street criminals".
So perhaps we can draw the conclusion that blacks and ethnic minority people are over-represented within the street crime community? It appears so.
"The situation is likely to become worse. The latest anti-street crime initiatives – which took place in 10 urban forces – only reached their peak after the collation of the stop-and-search figures; the next set of data will probably show even larger discrepancies between black and white".
So far so logical. But what do the goons who write the same paper's editorial make of all this? Well they don't think much of Mr. Denham:
"Perhaps we should enlighten him".
Oh dear.
"It is because too many police officers make assumptions about people from their skin-colour. We do not subscribe to the careless use of the term "institutionally racist" to describe any police force in Britain. But something is amiss, and it is called racial prejudice".
But of course.
"Even if it is the case that black males are more likely to be involved in street crime than whites – both as perpetrators and victims – this disproportion cannot be so great as a factor of eight".
Why not?
"The most surprising of yesterday's statistics is that 81 per cent of those stopped and searched are white. Where do all these incidents take place? Anyone who sees a car pulled over by the police in an urban area in this country knows the driver is almost bound to be black or Asian".
Presumably they happen in the countryside, then. All those cars pulling out of pubs at twenty past eleven, I should imagine.
"Until the chances of being stopped match the likelihood that the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity, police time is being wasted on harassing innocent black people".
And innocent Asian people. And innocent white people. And innocent everyone. Clearly, it's time the police stopped stopping people, let alone arresting them. Then the multicultural paradise can begin. Doesn't they guy who writes all this actually read his own paper?
|
Thursday, November 7
Michael Brown ponders the IDS affair, and the attitude of Tory MPs:
"Perhaps, if Mr Duncan Smith either resigns or is sacked, they will decide, in smoke-filled rooms, that there will be only one nomination to be submitted to Sir Michael Spicer, the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
Minders for Clarke, Portillo, Howard, Ancram, Davis – and anybody else who may fancy their chances – should sit down in a locked room and decide among themselves who is the favoured man. The single nomination paper should then be signed by every Tory MP. The National Party Convention would then be informed that only one candidate has been proposed and that he has been elected, unopposed, by the parliamentary party. Tories – MPs and party workers – simply cannot be trusted with democracy".
Although his analysis of the problem is right his solution is mad. Never diss the activists. In any case, the whole Nasser Hussain farrago proves that even a great, charismatic leader can have his off days. What the hell was he thinking? This is the worst insertion since Mr. Engel decided to give Mrs. Engel a damned good shafting.
|
"Perhaps, if Mr Duncan Smith either resigns or is sacked, they will decide, in smoke-filled rooms, that there will be only one nomination to be submitted to Sir Michael Spicer, the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
Minders for Clarke, Portillo, Howard, Ancram, Davis – and anybody else who may fancy their chances – should sit down in a locked room and decide among themselves who is the favoured man. The single nomination paper should then be signed by every Tory MP. The National Party Convention would then be informed that only one candidate has been proposed and that he has been elected, unopposed, by the parliamentary party. Tories – MPs and party workers – simply cannot be trusted with democracy".
Although his analysis of the problem is right his solution is mad. Never diss the activists. In any case, the whole Nasser Hussain farrago proves that even a great, charismatic leader can have his off days. What the hell was he thinking? This is the worst insertion since Mr. Engel decided to give Mrs. Engel a damned good shafting.
|
Matthew Engel discusses the bid by New York to host the 2012 Olympics. He'd prefer it went to the moosefuckers.
"Toronto is large and rich enough to do the job; small and keen enough to do it well. Most Americans probably think it's in upstate New York anyway".
Discuss.
|
"Toronto is large and rich enough to do the job; small and keen enough to do it well. Most Americans probably think it's in upstate New York anyway".
Discuss.
|
Catlin Gunn, bored office worker, has decided to start taking her kit off for a living. Her reward? A column in the appositely-named Wanker:
"Peeking into the back room where the lap dancing took place, I was shocked. Before me was a textbook illustration of immorality. Slack-jawed men slumped in chairs while naked girls appeared to crawl all over them. Well, what did I expect? Some of the girls moved sinuously and gracefully, others, clearly bored, kicked their clothes in the air and caught them nonchalantly as they snapped gum, but every single one of them was making money. I had never seen such a distilled representation of capitalism."
Never? What a sweet and innocent little flower she is. She's obviously never been shopping. I wonder where she gets her underwear.
|
"Peeking into the back room where the lap dancing took place, I was shocked. Before me was a textbook illustration of immorality. Slack-jawed men slumped in chairs while naked girls appeared to crawl all over them. Well, what did I expect? Some of the girls moved sinuously and gracefully, others, clearly bored, kicked their clothes in the air and caught them nonchalantly as they snapped gum, but every single one of them was making money. I had never seen such a distilled representation of capitalism."
Never? What a sweet and innocent little flower she is. She's obviously never been shopping. I wonder where she gets her underwear.
|
Wednesday, November 6
Six "terrorists", as the Guardian puts it, are blown away in Yemen's desert. The Wanker don't like it.
"Stateless, gangster terrorism is a fearsome scourge. But state-sponsored terrorism is a greater evil, for it is waged by those who should know better, who are duty-bound to address causes not mere symptoms, who may claim to act in the people's name. As Alexander Herzen said in another age of struggle: "We are not the doctors. We are the disease."
But why don't they quote Marion Cobretti?
"You're the disease, I'm the cure".
|
"Stateless, gangster terrorism is a fearsome scourge. But state-sponsored terrorism is a greater evil, for it is waged by those who should know better, who are duty-bound to address causes not mere symptoms, who may claim to act in the people's name. As Alexander Herzen said in another age of struggle: "We are not the doctors. We are the disease."
But why don't they quote Marion Cobretti?
"You're the disease, I'm the cure".
|
Elizabeth Wurtzel ( or elizabeth wurtzel as the Times would rather call her ) doesn't like the US gun culture:
"Americans like owning guns a lot, and believe it is for their own good. Everyone is protecting himself against crime. The trouble is, these people are defending themselves against dangers that don’t exist. According to the Justice Department, violent crime fell 15 per cent from 1999 to 2000".
Cause and effect, love.
"I find myself wanting to run around the streets saying: This is America! We are the mightiest nation on earth! We invented Disneyland! We created Elvis! We have nothing to fear!"
So why'd she take all the Prozac?
|
"Americans like owning guns a lot, and believe it is for their own good. Everyone is protecting himself against crime. The trouble is, these people are defending themselves against dangers that don’t exist. According to the Justice Department, violent crime fell 15 per cent from 1999 to 2000".
Cause and effect, love.
"I find myself wanting to run around the streets saying: This is America! We are the mightiest nation on earth! We invented Disneyland! We created Elvis! We have nothing to fear!"
So why'd she take all the Prozac?
|
Today David Aaronovitch lends his brain to the vexed issue of adoption. Well vexed for him, anyway.
"It is a sobering thought that any children needing to be adopted would, according to the House of Lords, be better off if they were placed with Peter and Sonia Sutcliffe, the Shipmans, or the Crippens than with me and my partner. For these last three couples have all been married, and me and the missus haven't".
It's a sobering thought that Aaro doesn't even read the papers: the House of Lords went along with the Government and backed plans to allow gay
and unmarried couples to adopt. Ignorant Aaro. And he's got the history wrong. Peter Sutcliffe and Harold Shipman are in gaol, and Dr. Crippen has long since popped his clogs. And she isn't your missus. You're not married, dumbo. I suppose his point is that he and his de facto are nice people, and they weren't, but because they were/are married, they would have got precedence. So what's his alternative? Niceness as a criterion for the adoption police? Perhaps. Or perhaps Aaro thinks that those goons who decide who gets to adopt and who doesn't ought to be better informed than the police in these matters. Somehow they're supposed to know that Harold Shipman wouldn't have made a good father, and that he would. And he calls himself a liberal. Mind you, they're not without their faults, neither.
"Liberals have to be tremendously careful not to allow their natural tendency towards a cosy relativism to run riot. Everything is not the same as everything else. And yet, at the moment, social and economic changes are bringing about unpredictable transformations in family structures. A huge and almost unprecedented experiment is going on. We have lesbian families, gay families, dad-only and mum-only families, test-tube families, old-enough-to-be-your granny families, dead-dad families and multi-stepparent families. We have families where the parents behave like the kids, families where the kids behave like the parents, families where love rules and families where egoism is king.
Not all of these phenomena are good".
OKay, Aaro. Put your cards on the table. Which ones?
"Some of them, indeed, could turn out to be disastrous, not least for the children who have to endure them. The truth is that we simply don't know".
Poor confused Aaro. He parades his broadmindedness, yet asserts that of course, nonetheless, not everything in the garden is rosy - that you can't just tolerate everything. And then ducks out of making any judgment as to what that is. It's called passing the buck, and the bloated retard can't make the call himself, so would prefer Adoption Agencies armed with poisonous questions about your private life and ludicrous criteria about how much you smoke and how much you eat to make the case.
It seems to me that if you're married, provided you aren't in prison and have no legal queries against your name ( like say, you used to belong to a paedophile network ) you should be allowed to adopt, period. It doesn't matter if you're twenty-five stone or smoke fifty cigarettes a day. There are more married couples wanting to adopt than there are children awaiting to be adopted ( and before you ask, yes, I would let gays marry - or at least have some quasi-marital status ). But that's a bit too simple for Aaro, a bit too liberal. And what about all the bureacrats? They'd be out of a living. It's a times like these that you've got to think of them first, haven't you?
|
"It is a sobering thought that any children needing to be adopted would, according to the House of Lords, be better off if they were placed with Peter and Sonia Sutcliffe, the Shipmans, or the Crippens than with me and my partner. For these last three couples have all been married, and me and the missus haven't".
It's a sobering thought that Aaro doesn't even read the papers: the House of Lords went along with the Government and backed plans to allow gay
and unmarried couples to adopt. Ignorant Aaro. And he's got the history wrong. Peter Sutcliffe and Harold Shipman are in gaol, and Dr. Crippen has long since popped his clogs. And she isn't your missus. You're not married, dumbo. I suppose his point is that he and his de facto are nice people, and they weren't, but because they were/are married, they would have got precedence. So what's his alternative? Niceness as a criterion for the adoption police? Perhaps. Or perhaps Aaro thinks that those goons who decide who gets to adopt and who doesn't ought to be better informed than the police in these matters. Somehow they're supposed to know that Harold Shipman wouldn't have made a good father, and that he would. And he calls himself a liberal. Mind you, they're not without their faults, neither.
"Liberals have to be tremendously careful not to allow their natural tendency towards a cosy relativism to run riot. Everything is not the same as everything else. And yet, at the moment, social and economic changes are bringing about unpredictable transformations in family structures. A huge and almost unprecedented experiment is going on. We have lesbian families, gay families, dad-only and mum-only families, test-tube families, old-enough-to-be-your granny families, dead-dad families and multi-stepparent families. We have families where the parents behave like the kids, families where the kids behave like the parents, families where love rules and families where egoism is king.
Not all of these phenomena are good".
OKay, Aaro. Put your cards on the table. Which ones?
"Some of them, indeed, could turn out to be disastrous, not least for the children who have to endure them. The truth is that we simply don't know".
Poor confused Aaro. He parades his broadmindedness, yet asserts that of course, nonetheless, not everything in the garden is rosy - that you can't just tolerate everything. And then ducks out of making any judgment as to what that is. It's called passing the buck, and the bloated retard can't make the call himself, so would prefer Adoption Agencies armed with poisonous questions about your private life and ludicrous criteria about how much you smoke and how much you eat to make the case.
It seems to me that if you're married, provided you aren't in prison and have no legal queries against your name ( like say, you used to belong to a paedophile network ) you should be allowed to adopt, period. It doesn't matter if you're twenty-five stone or smoke fifty cigarettes a day. There are more married couples wanting to adopt than there are children awaiting to be adopted ( and before you ask, yes, I would let gays marry - or at least have some quasi-marital status ). But that's a bit too simple for Aaro, a bit too liberal. And what about all the bureacrats? They'd be out of a living. It's a times like these that you've got to think of them first, haven't you?
|
I'd like to comment about IDS. One, imposing a three-line whip the other night was dumb. Two, then saying it wasn't really a three-line whip was even dumber. Three, the whole problem is a legacy of William Hague's deranged changes to the system as to how the Tories elect their leader. Allowing 15% of the MPs to challenge a sitting leader, and not allowing that leader to stay in the race, was simply asking for trouble. This could not happen in the Labour Party, simply because the procedure doesn't allow for it. If IDS goes and someone else takes over - whoever it is - there is nothing to stop this happening a second time. If Clarke were to take on Davis in a long drawn out contest, just like last time, whoever won could promptly be challenged by the 15% who didn't vote for him on the day he is elected, and the whole merry-go-round could happen again. It's not so much a question of personalities or egos as a question of procedure. If IDS does nothing else he has to sort this one out, otherwise his legacy will be even sparcer than Hague's.
|
|
Tuesday, November 5
I know it's already a little dated ( but then everything written about the latest development in the IDS story tends to get that way pretty quickly ) but Richard Littlejohn is always worth reading. Today he also has a go at the Royals, the Cops, the CPS, anyone who fancies kidnapping Posh Spice, and the European Arrest Warrant. One day this man will be knighted.
|
|
Clearly it's cat night tonight, with no less than two bloggers posting pictures, Diana Moon and Iain Murray; the latter in somewhat sad circumstances. Diana's, however, looks a game little critter. Anyway, news on the Briffa versus Mice saga has moved along a little. After the carnage discovered in our kitchen over the weekend steps have been taken, and in little under a fortnight messrs Cyd and Campbell, two prize-winning felines will be staying with us for a week while their owners move home. I've given the rodents notice, but will they beat a hasty retreat, or will they die a glorious death? Me, I reckon Iain Duncan Smith will outlive them, but only just. Stay tuned.
|
|
Monday, November 4
In my humble opinion a hundred grand a year for doing nothing is not to be sneezed at. But maybe the Indy pays that much to its commentators. At any rate, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown as a berry has decided, after a ten minute soak in the bath, not to go for the job as chief bigwig at the Commission for Racial Equality, on the grounds that it isn't powerful enough. Also, she's worried, about
"the increasing numbers of attacks by non-white Britons on whites and the apartheid that has developed in some northern towns. White racists still prowl the streets and cause fear and mayhem but these days many concentrate on those official scapegoats – asylum-seekers – outside the protection of the CRE.
The landscape is also changing. Our world is no longer divided into black and white, as it once was thought to be. Whiteness is always assumed to be homogeneous, while black people skip around in the gardens of diversity and difference. When are we going to get research into white ethnicities and cultural identities? Or a serious examination of the problems faced by white people in mixed neighbourhoods? I have seen, for example, how young white mothers of mixed-race children are abused and attacked by racist thugs from white and black groups. Unless we take seriously the concerns of ordinary white Britons, especially those on the margins, we push them towards racist parties".
Precisely. And that's why I am putting my name forward. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it. Especially for a hundred grand a year. I know I'm not a hundred percent honky, what with my swarthy complexion and all ( especially after two weeks under a sunbed ), but I like to think I can relate to the indigenous white population here. So if you think I'd be suitable please email the parasites at this site. If it has fallen to my destiny to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted liberalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight.
Vote now. Vote early, vote often.
|
"the increasing numbers of attacks by non-white Britons on whites and the apartheid that has developed in some northern towns. White racists still prowl the streets and cause fear and mayhem but these days many concentrate on those official scapegoats – asylum-seekers – outside the protection of the CRE.
The landscape is also changing. Our world is no longer divided into black and white, as it once was thought to be. Whiteness is always assumed to be homogeneous, while black people skip around in the gardens of diversity and difference. When are we going to get research into white ethnicities and cultural identities? Or a serious examination of the problems faced by white people in mixed neighbourhoods? I have seen, for example, how young white mothers of mixed-race children are abused and attacked by racist thugs from white and black groups. Unless we take seriously the concerns of ordinary white Britons, especially those on the margins, we push them towards racist parties".
Precisely. And that's why I am putting my name forward. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it. Especially for a hundred grand a year. I know I'm not a hundred percent honky, what with my swarthy complexion and all ( especially after two weeks under a sunbed ), but I like to think I can relate to the indigenous white population here. So if you think I'd be suitable please email the parasites at this site. If it has fallen to my destiny to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted liberalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight.
Vote now. Vote early, vote often.
|
- Comment Central
- Stephen Pollard
- Natalie Solent
- Two Blowhards
- Tim Blair
- Daimnation!
- Machinery of Night
- The Bewilderness
- Freedom and Whisky
- Jackie Danicki
- Biased BBC
- Civitas
- Samizdata
- Normblog
- Jim Miller
- White Sun of the Desert
- Progressive Reaction
- Dodgeblog
- Laban Tall
- Atlantic Blog
- House of Dumb
- Blognor Regis
- Burning Our Money
- The England Project
- Mick Hartley
- Iain Dale
- Tim Worstall
- An Englishman's Castle
- Unenlightened Commentary
- Squander Two
- Patrick Crozier
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Guido Fawkes
- Brian Micklethwait
- Nothing British
- Battenburg.co.uk
- The Devil's Kitchen
-
- February 2002
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009