Public Interest.co.uk

You say it's your birthday, well it's my birthday too, yeah. Who'd a thunk it? Times passes etc. Anyway, this seems as good a time as any for me to take a well-earned rest. So go check out the good people on the blogroll, or bask in the wisdom of my archives. Feel free to make comments on stuff I wrote over the past two years that is totally irrelevent to anything now. Was I really so exercised about Gibraltar? Perhaps. Go on, give me something to read when I get back. Which will be in March sometime, as I've got other stuff to do in the interim. The toad work comes to everyone. See you soon.

|

"A question: how many phony, full-of-shit people do you have in your life - ?"

The VomitGod wonders.

|

"It might appall sentimentalists to know that nothing I have seen in thirty years as a doctor, from epidemic and civil war to accident, murder and suicide, has ever caused me a moment’s sleeplessness, and that a man could cut his throat in front of me without it affecting my appetite for dinner in the slightest".

Harold Shipman? No, it's Anthony Daniels.

|

SFW, believe it or not.

Welcome to a land where men could be Lesbians too.

|

Presumably influenced by the fact that his fellow ex-jailbird Lord Brocket has gone down so well with the great British public, it now seems that Jonathan Aitken plans to whip out his trusty sword of truth once again, and return to his rightful place in the House of Commons. There is, alas, the small matter of the fact that this would currently be against the law. But that never stopped him before, did it? And if this man has his way, Mr. Blair could be losing his job soon as well. Aitken and Byers as PM and leader of the opposition? It can only be a matter of time.

UPDATE: You can read the full story here, though you will have to register. Curiously, there is no mention of the legal impediment that the BBC posits, and the Chief Gnome questions it in the Comments, so really it seems like there is nothing to stop him.

|

NSFW.

No future,
no future,
no future for him. He didn't wanna holiday in the sun. Nothing's gonna stop Lord Brocket now. Not even these.

|

Do you wannabe a British Monica Lewinsky? These people can help.

|

According to Policy Exchange, a 'rightwing' thinktank, it says here, 9.7 million people are "living below the poverty line". I hate to think what number the leftwing thinktanks come up with. At any rate Polly Toynbee is in raptures:

"Labour has stamped its imprint on social justice. Labour language is now common parlance among Tories extraordinarily eager to talk about poverty and how to tackle it: not long ago they denied its very existence. The terms of political engagement between the parties are now drawn up firmly on Labour turf".

I find this all too plausible. One of the most depressing things about being a Tory is watching them behave like trendy vicars suddenly announcing how much they like Eminem. First they denounce it, then they grudgingly tolerate it, then they embrace it just when everyone else has filed it away in the attic as being so 2001. Look, if you want to believe that 9.7 million people are in poverty, that's your prerogative. People believe in Santa Claus and UFOs. But should they really be encouraged? It also leaves the Conservatives in a right pickle policy-wise:

"Do they go for tax-cut bribes - or for shadowing Labour? If their polling tells them they must sound as if they really care about social justice, then they can't offer tax cuts as well".

Mind you, Labour mustn't be too complacent about this. After all

"if Labour really wants to abolish child poverty by 2020, it will have to redirect money from rich to poor radically. The income of the bottom 10% will have to rise at three times the rate that it rises for the top 60% of the population for the next two decades. Is that politically saleable?"

I don't see why not. If the Tories have capitulated who's to stop them?

"It can be done: the Nordic countries prove it".

In which case it's in the bag. I wonder what's next for the Tories. Adoption of the Euro, maybe?

|

Wolverhampton Uni is offering porn as part of its English degree. The blokes who run the course explain it thus:

"Watching pornography in a classroom becomes a Brechtian experience, causing discomfort and alienation. Porn then reveals not just flesh, but also its formal conventions, its repetitive narratives, its tableaux of power, its cold ideologies, its descent into bathos".

Well that's one excuse. But I suspect a more mundane one: most students these days can hardly get it up any more. And most of their teachers are worried about the demographic timebomb. Or more specifically their future pensions. It's that simple.

|

Would you want a second-hand one of these?

|

We have ways of making you sing.

|

Germaine Greer, the Australian weirdoid and role model, was invited to appear in the latest series of I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here. Unfortunately she declined:

"My nightmare would be having to endure the twittering of a bunch of has-beens and wannabes, interested only in themselves and how they come across".

Explains the great has-been and wannabe.

"I really don't need to know that Jordan is not noisy in bed or that she occasionally likes to be treated rough".

Which is presumably because she is more interested in this sort of thing. Shame, really. I wouldn't have minded watching her eat cockroaches and stick her head in a bowl full of snakes.

UPDATE: I suppose it's vaguely possible that some of you read this while you are at work, in which case, as Mark Holland reminds me, various alarums and stuff might be triggered by clicking on the Role Model link. So save it for the privacy of your own home. Or internet cafe.

|

"I have to say, Mr. Cuthbertson, it is a grave shame that you are so articulate and yet so misguided.
Indeed, a true demagogue for the modern times".

so sayeth Anon. Who is this person? Presumably some poor deluded liberalist - probably a pensioner or a social worker - lured from this competition - the Guardian's Best Political Weblog Award. For some strange, unaccountable reason, I didn't make the cut. The Boy Wonder, however, did. As did Harry and his pals. There are ten others, but they are all inconsequential nobodies known only to their wives and boyfriends, so really it is a face-off between, well if not good and evil, toff and prole. Consequently, I would urge you to vote for the Lord Brocket of the Internet. Johnny Rotten may have the common touch, but I think he may blow it in the end, with one temper tantrum too many. Mr. Cuthbertson may offer up a slightly uncharacteristic and unEnglish piece of shameless self-promotion here, in contrast to Harold's typically self-effacing modesty, but nonetheless he deserves to win. As long-time readers of this site will know, I have long-campaigned for him to become that paper's editor. This is but the first step on the ladder. So, come on everybody, vote Cuthbertson!

|

Gott in Himmel! The next series of the German Big Brother show will last a whole year:

"Nine contestants will battle it out in the German Big Brother house, separated into three "castes" - three different container units in the house in the western city of Cologne. Some lucky housemates will live a life of luxury while others will have to earn extra cash by fulfilling various duties for their "rich" counterparts.
The least fortunate of the housemates will be given only vegetables and will have to slaughter animals if they want to eat meat".

Or slaughter each other and eat one another's penes.

|

Michael Foot, surely the Greatest Prime Minister We Never Had, has an excellent suggestion as to who should replace the much-lamented Gregory Lesbian:

"Make Polly Toynbee the new director-general or chair of the BBC. Her article (Comment, January 30) shows that she understands the present crisis better than any other commentator. The new Toynbee regime could guarantee the BBC's independence and scatter all other threats, especially those of a Murdochite variety".

Bring it on!

|

A letter to the Indy:

"So this is what it felt like to be a Florida voter after the recount".

|

I wonder why the Council Of Europe exists any more. Or rather, why anybody would want to take any notice of it. It isn't even EU-affiliated so it doesn't have much going for it in terms of Tranzi expansionism. Anyway, the bog-trotters and the land of my Fathers have just been traduced by these worthies thus:

"Ireland, which prides itself on an enlightened human-rights record, has had its voting rights suspended at the Council of Europe because all of its delegates to the body's parliamentary assembly are men.
The council, which sets standards for civilised and democratic behaviour across 45 European nations, ruled last autumn that national delegations - composed of MPs from member states - must include at least one woman".

The smart reaction would be for Ireland and Malta just to withdraw. That would do a whole lot more for civilised and democratic behaviour than abject capitulation to these self-evident hypocrites. But of course they won't. That would be too controversial. In fact, there was serious talk of barring them both:

"But the assembly thought barring Ireland and Malta was too stiff a penalty to impose when some the council's members are accused of war crimes and torturing political prisoners".

They could, of course, do something about that, I suppose. But that really would be controversial.

|

Here's yet another depressed blogger. She doesn't even have comments so you can't even go and cheer her up ( though she does have email ). Pull yourself together, Nicole! You're only 18 with your whole life ahead of you.

|

Sex and the City is coming to the end of its long and distinguished run. So, unsurprisingly, some of Britain's leading feminists are in mourning:

Kim Akass:

"Sex and the City changed huge amounts for women. Women now have a language with which to talk about their experiences and their friendships. It's almost given them permission to have female friendships that are more important than anything else. It has given a respectability to something that previously was just gossip - something less than conversation. The episode about breastfeeding and Miranda's entire pregnancy was just revolutionary. Thank god! It was the first time you'd ever seen an engorged breast on TV. I think it's fantastic that women now feel comfortable talking about vibrators, whether you choose to buy a Rampant Rabbit or not".

Lynne Segal:

"Sex and the City has been a sort of post-feminist empowerment of women, up to a point".

Well, I'm all for the empowerment of women and for the engorgement of their breasts. Must set the video.

|

It seems to me that everything was fine with the Hutton Report except its conclusions. That is to say: why did he bother? Virtually everyone reverts to type. The Times takes the Blairite view, the Telegraph the Michael Howard view, the Indy goes Whitewash, and the Guardian backs the BBC pretty much all the way. Clare Short, Robin Cook, Boris Johnson and everyone except Polly all write pieces that could have been written weeks ago. And Polly is the only one I want to read. Maybe she's saving her "The Master Rules Triumphant" piece for tomorrow. So why did he bother? Seriously, he should have just amassed all the evidence and told us all to make up our own minds. Which is what we're all doing anyway. Waste of public money, which could have been far better spent co-ordinating Britain's lesbians. And me, what do I think? Well I know I'm on the moderate wing of the Tory Party, and I think the BBC made some serious errors here - both Dyke and Sambrook ought to be fired, in my opinion - I find myself agreeing with Jonathan Freedland.

|

Mamma Mia. Here I go again.

|

Time to hit the bottle, folks. All in all this has been a good week for people like me, though I wouldn't advise sunbathing right now. It's just started snowing, and we just had lightning as well. Maybe the polar bears are coming sooner than I thought.

|

"Leave me comments on these posts, I like to know what other people think. Especially if you have advice".

I wish I had some advice for Ross. But "Cheer up, it may never happen" sounds so glib. If you've got anything better go tell him.

|

"Crescendo, then anti-climax. That's the way it always happens when the enemy think they have finally got Tony Blair cornered".

Or so wrote Polly Toynbee, back in August. Times have changed.

"Five votes? This was no victory: the prime minister is holed below the waterline and listing. This was his third and deadliest rebellion in a year - all of his own making. What next? This raises serious questions about whether Labour is losing its appetite for power if so many MPs were willing to hand the Tories a triumph. But it also raises serious questions about who can best lead Labour now".

I wish I could be so confident.

"Is Gordon Brown the winner today? Never mind protestations of innocence: his unseen hand will be generally believed to have guided this drama. He is the master now ... unless he has over-reached himself and finds his party will not reward such treachery".

"He is the master now". Well not even Polly can serve two masters. Et tu, Brute? And yet... and yet they've done so much for us.

"Out there in the real world, a million poor children have been lifted out of poverty by this government. Millions of families draw substantial tax credits to ease hardship. Poor pensioners have had their biggest ever increase. Scores of new hospitals are built and schools renovated with cascades more cash. NHS waiting times have dropped dramatically, school results improved as never before. The voters may be ungrateful whingers, moaning for more while forgetting how bad things were seven years ago - but they are sufficiently aware of what Labour has delivered to support it, and not the tax-cutting Tories who would take it all back".

"The voters may be ungrateful whingers", eh? Polly Toynbee - you couldn't make her up.

|

jp thinks big:

"Why are we so inclined to survive? What is the purpose of this survival, what is so important which is driving us to survive? These are the questions I arrived at after much musing.
I hope these questions are answered some day not for my sake but for the sake of our species and life itself".

Why not for his/her sake I wonder. Sometimes people take selflessness too far.

|

"Women constitute 5% of the prison population and 15% of its suicides".

Exclaims an outraged Zoe Williams. Yet instead of interpreting this as manifest proof of the terrible burdens suffered by men in our female-dominated society, - 95% of prisoners are blokes, and 85% of the suicides are perpetrated by them - somehow, being a feminist, she manages to mangle the maths to suggest that this is evidence of unfairness to women. And in particular, mothers:

"Some 55% of all women in prison have at least one child under 16. Over one-third have a child under five".

She doesn't even tell us how many cons are daddies. Perhaps none. Perhaps they're all virgins. And perhaps some of them are so dedicated to family matters that they have fathered children by several different women. It would be nice to know. Still, there's a simple solution to this terrible imbalance:

"let's not imprison mothers at all. There's nothing, after all, that we can do about abuse in the past; there's not much anyone can do about women who've been harassed into crime by domestic pressure. But we can do something about people being driven to suicide by anxiety over their children, and that's not lock them up in the first place".

You could of course have said the same about the late lamented Dr. Harold Shipman. Perhaps he killed himself because he was anxious about his children. Let's face it, he'd surely still be alive now if the filth hadn't done the dastardly deed of throwing him in the slammer. And why had he gone on his killing spree in the first place? Maybe he'd been "harassed into crime by domestic pressure". Maybe it was all his wife's fault.

|

Stephen Moss, in the Guardian:

"The notion that university is primarily about getting a qualification that will generate cash to enable you to pay back your fees and loans and spiralling debts is deeply insulting - but entirely consistent with the crass, stupid, book-blind, culture-hating government of a crass, stupid, culture-less, increasingly fractured society".

Dearie me.

"Didn't Mastermind always used to be won by cabbies, postmen and railway workers? People who hadn't been to university and hadn't got posh jobs. People who had passionate, perhaps recherché interests".

Exactly. University of life, mate.

|

Terry Jones talks sense in the Indy:

"Let's get rid of all these parasites on society - like soldiers, engineers, doctors, nurses, social workers - unless they are prepared to pay for the training that provides them with the lifestyle to which they aspire".

Trouble is he's being satirical. Still, I see the seed of wisdom has been planted. It must be left to flourish.

|

Come on, Sean. Stand in line! You know she cares, don't you?

|

This sounds pretty shady to me. Not exactly 'whiter than white', as Mr. Blair used to say. Or perhaps it's an example of their new transparency and honesty.

( Link found via Dot Comrade over at Harry's Place, who doesn't seem quite so concerned about it as I do. )

|

Polar bears to come, and wild boar already. And this time they're angry:

"The Government is now trying to decide what to do about them after an absence of some 400 years".

Yes, well it would, wouldn't it? You could always give Obelix a call, I suppose. But really what's it to do with them? Just enjoy it.
Meanwhile, in what has been an outstanding weekend for the Indy's neophiliac scare-mongerers, we've got more on the sun-bathing is good for you story. You better whip out the Bergasol before the Eskimos get you. And if you're pregnant, maybe it's time to lower yourself into the Serpentine before it freezes over.

|

Wrap up warm, folks. Polar bears are coming to Oxford Street. I hope I live to see it.

|

Beware of Marxist-feminists. Chances are she's a nutter.

|

The world's greatest LibDem bloggeuse is back, defending the indefensible Ms. Tonge. She gives it a good shot, far better than yesterday's pitiful leader in the Guardian, but I am still unimpressed. The thing that struck me most about Tonge was the amount of bullshit involved. Instead of sympathising, or empathising with the suicidalists, she was patronising. To say that I feel your pain, and although I'd be tempted to do what you do but I wouldn't, is to say that, when push comes to shove, I am superior to you. Well how does she know? I do particularly enjoy this line from the Guardian, though:

"What is beyond doubt is such views are an unavoidable fruit of a bitterly controversial issue".

So you're allowed to stay controversial things - indeed they are unavoidable - if they are about controversial subjects. That figures.

|

Harmless fun or a symptom of the decline of Western civilisation? You decide.

|

Harmless fun or a symptom of the decline of Western civilisation? You decide.

|

The greatest show on earth - well, after Big Brother - is back. I rather hope Lord Brocket wins, but fear Mr. Lydon will. I'd never heard of him, but I think the lumpenproles who watch this sort of thing need someone to look up to. He'd better have a nose made of toffee or I'll want my money back.

|

If I had a pound... Well no, but I'd be very intrigued to find out how they argue this one. Today's leader in the Indy is titled:

"Call yourself a liberal, Mr Kennedy?"

and the opening paragraph is this:

"Charles Kennedy should be ashamed of himself. The Liberal Democrat leader sought yesterday to distance himself and his party from the comments of Jenny Tonge, the Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park".

I know the Indy likes to be oppositional, but really. On the other hand, perhaps it's merely a reflection of the paper's readers. Take a look at the letters page.

|

Happy and I'm smiling...

|

I can assure that this didn't happen to me when I appeared on Kilroy.

|

May 18, 2000:

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, called for the resignation of Nick Brown, the Minister for Agriculture. "This ... puts paid to the Government's multiple assurances that all GM seeds, would be thoroughly measured, regulated and controlled," he said.

January 24, 2001:

"Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who criticised the tone of Mr Hague's comments, said Mr Mandelson had made the "right decision" and called for an improved ministerial code of conduct".

May 28, 2002:

"Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "Stephen Byers has finally done the honourable thing - and not before time. From any point of view, his position had become untenable. The prime minister must now appoint a new transport secretary who can start to put our appalling transport system right."

June 28, 2002:

"Charles Clarke's blast against the media caused a backlash today, with a former Labour minister calling it a misjudgement, and both Charles Kennedy and Roy Hattersley calling for the resignation of the Downing Street director of communications, Alastair Campbell".

January 23, 2004:

"Charles Kennedy was last night considering whether to sack a frontbencher who said that she would think of becoming a suicide bomber if she lived in the Palestinian territories".

|

Pre-empting the Hutton report, Polly Toynbee has decided that both Hoon and the Master are innocent:

"Prime minister, have you got blood on your hands?" asked a hostile journalist when news of Kelly's death reached Blair's Far East tour. No, is the plain answer, even if both he and Hoon understandably didn't much care if Kelly's name did leak: they were more worried about being accused of secretiveness".

But if it was such a plain answer, why didn't he make it?

"Blair froze. He stood uncomfortable and silent at the lectern for what must have seemed like the longest 30 seconds of his political career, until Koizumi called a merciful end to the press conference".

|

I hope the readers of this magazine don't behave like these lemmings otherwise we could have some serious problems on our hands.

|

"Tell it like it is: only the state can buy the things that make people happiest".

Wrote Polly Toynbee in May last year.

"Build a palatial children's centre near every primary school, with a promise that every mother is guaranteed all the childcare she needs at a price she can afford. That will lift a burden from families right up the social scale who struggle to patch together childcare while mothers work. Every baby deserves a premium wrap- around service for health and early education, with parenting support, to guarantee the best start in life. Universal Blair creches would leave a memorial in human lives that would do more for opportunity than any other social programme - a perfect demonstration of social democracy and what the tax pound can buy. It would build social trust, since young mothers brought together through children's centres are prime movers in local communities".

Well well well. It doesn't seem to be working now, does it? As the Guardian reports today:

"Thousands of parents whose children were taken into care on disputed medical evidence are to have their cases reviewed, the government confirmed yesterday".

It appears that not all mothers share Ms Toynbee's devotion to the government. Even Polly herself is a little perplexed by it all:

"What the right likes is families to be left alone. Tory policy over its 18 years in power strove to keep the state from crossing the threshold of family life - eager to give money from the state into fathers wallets, not mothers purses; keen to deny the harm that occurs in families; angry at any attempt to stop grown men walloping three-year-olds, and calling it "smacking" in the name of parental discipline. Tory policy had the advantage of being cheap: no nursery schools, no childcare, no nosy nannying from social workers, mothers responsible for everything, the state for as little as possible. The left is inclined to agree with Larkin. It wants to intervene as much as it can afford to: giving children equal opportunities means offering help, education, child care, parenting classes and Sure Start from birth".

A caricature of both positions, of course. But you didn't expect anything else, did you?

"There may be few happy endings - colossal law suits loom with heavy claims for compensation for parents' and childrens' loss of family life. But the heart-rending dilemmas of when the state should take children away will never be finally resolved".

I'm not so sure. The old "innocent until proven guilty" argument has always worked for me. As the Guardian news report tells us:

"There are thought to be thousands of cases in which mothers suspected of harming their children have not been prosecuted but have had their children removed by court order in care proceedings brought by local authorities".

They weren't even prosecuted. You gotta love the government, haven't you?

|

Former government spinmeister Alastair Campbell's current squeeze Fiona Millar has a column in today's Guardian babbling on about the state of Britain's schools:

"At the risk of sounding like a potty lifestyle guru, we need a more holistic approach to teenagers. As a nation we don't like them very much. We don't give them anything to do; we don't listen to them; sports and arts facilities in many areas are pitiful; they can't go into pubs and clubs without fake ID, whereas in other continental countries they could happily sit in bar and enjoy a drink or a cup of coffee and probably end up with a much more mature attitude to alcohol".

This is so on the money. I was on Bethnal Green Road just yesterday and there were some teenagers standing around like zombies. I didn't want to give them anything to do and when they started talking I wasn't listening. I then suggested that perhaps all they needed was a nice cup of coffee or a half of shandy and they looked at me as though I were a paedophile. Apparently they never touch the stuff.

"potty lifestyle guru" indeed.

|

You can ban Kilroy, you can even take the fun-loving Abi off the air, but you try messing with the mighty Richard Littlejohn and there will be riots in the streets.

|

Does David Aaronovitch read Conservative Commentary? I ask only because he has fixed on the same quote from Steve Sailer that our favourite wunderkind did on Wednesday. Googling this quote:

"Human nature - with its sex differences and its stress on individual, family and ethnic self-interest - is an innate heritage, not a blank slate that can be wiped clean by speech codes, sensitivity workshops and re-education camps."

I only came up with the two references. And now there will be three. At any rate this must come as good news to all right-thinking people. There sits Aaro, alone in his shed, musing on the vexed issues of the day, sorely tempted to click on one of these Paris Hilton links that plagues us hourly, and then he does a bit of self-googling, and comes across the Truth Unvarnished. There is hope for him. In fact I rather fancy him as the next editor of the Guardian. In the natural scheme of things and in an ideal world the job would of course go to Peter Cuthbertson himself. But perhaps that would be a bridge too far for the liberal mindset, and Aaro would be a happy compromise. Let's face it, even Cherry Potter would make a better fist of it than Alan Rusbridger.

|

Men's Journal magazine, possibly trying to throw a spanner in Stormin' Norman's Ten Best films of all time list, has just published a list of "the best guy movies of all time". I won't publish them here - but in the Comments so you can first see if you can guess which they are - and Cherry Potter is not impressed:

"Oh dear. Despite years of feminism, it seems that some men's taste for "death cult" movies remains unabated. Although I find attempts to revive "codes of honour", or "sets of rules to live by", creepy. Maybe it's time for women to issue their own list to counteract this dangerous male backlash. Might I suggest: warmth, empathy, sensitivity, openness, kindness, generosity, nurturing ... and love?"

This, of course, is why I find feminists creepy. Talk to them for a minute, and they gush about how all they want is equality, nothing more. Talk to them for five minutes, and that poisonous word 'nurturing' always comes into the conversation. Why can't the termagents just admit they're superior to us, and drop the equality-speak? That's what they think, so why pretend otherwise? Perhaps Natasha Walter is right after all. Maybe the veil really does mean freedom. For the blokes anyway.

|

"Because I think he's a sociopath. He doesn't care. He has no empathy. Nothing registers with him. He doesn't understand the world's disapproval - he just unplugs the TV. Now I understand, for the first time in my life, what the answer is when people ask, 'Why didn't people stop Hitler?'. It's a reign of fear. People are afraid of being called 'unpatriotic'."

I wonder who Joan Baez is talking about. Well I don't really. After Friday's little rant by Rickie Lee Jones, this is starting to look like an epidemic. Are there any whey-faced American singer song-writers who don't hate the Prez? Suzanne Vega, Shania Twain, Dolly Parton, please. We need to know!

|

Right. I'm off to the country. I may be some time.

|

Maybe George Moonbat was right after all. I mean, what are the chances of this happening?

|

"Yes, I did inhale. I can't recall much about it, except that I was pale and withered the following day".

The Yazzmonster once took cannabis. A nation is in shock.

|

Pendennis, in the Observer:

"Stephen Byers is confidently limbering up for a triumphant return to government".

As Defence Secretary, no less, replacing the tarnished Geoff Hoon. Makes sense to me. A man of such integrity and truthfulness is just the man for the job. Bring it on!

|

"He's smug, he's arrogant, he's really dumb, and he's incredibly wealthy. This pisses me off, because I think that if he has that much money, at least he could be smart, y'know? He's corrupt, and he's dumb, and he'll destroy us all because he's corrupt and dumb, not because he's corrupt and smart."

I wonder who Rickie Lee Jones is talking about.

"For the world to be destroyed because somebody is dumb - surely, if we must be destroyed, we want to be destroyed by an evil genius! To go from a president like Clinton, an articulate and thoughtful humanitarian - as far as presidents go - to something like George Bush, is..."

Words fail her. Likewise, baby.

|

He'll be back. Channel 5? Sky? What do you reckon? You can't keep a good man down.

|

I've made a few more changes to my blogroll. The Britblog scene is getting seriously crowded now. I may have to cull a few.

|

Are all Guardian readers as obsessed by breasts as Madeleine Bunting seems to think Sun readers are? I think there is some evidence backing her on the latter point, but it's not like there's a clean slate here for our feminist brethren. Take yesterday, for example, which was a bonanza day for those bra-less ultravixens whose idea of fun is listening to old LPs by the Slits. Of course, I do appreciate that dying of breast cancer is probably quite an unpleasant way to go, even compared to being slaughtered by an NHS doctor, but then this little thing has always given me the willies. Different neuroses for different folks, I guess. On the other hand, if you're an agonized sister who is both worried about your breasts and about the prospect of getting multiple sclerosis then perhaps a bit of topless sunbathing might be in order. It's all so very complicated, isn't it?

UPDATE: On the other hand...

|

Yesterday Mrs. Public Interest.co.uk met that Estelle Morris. She said she was very nice. I think I may have to vote Labour at the next election.

|

Is the penny finally dropping for Polly Toynbee?

"why should those without children pay for schools? Or those without cars pay for roads? Or the great majority who never use trains pay for the 4% who commute by rail? Or those outside London contribute £1bn a year to the tube? Or southerners pay for the Angel of the North, while ballet-haters pay for Covent Garden? And why should the majority pay for social housing or tax credits they will never use?
Once you start to question who should pay for what, the idea of national collective provision crumbles. Where is the line in the sand? Where does it stop?"

Unfortunately, her answer is not my answer. Still, we're getting there.

|

There is some justice, after all.

|

"We are now living in a world that is perilously torn apart by religious extremism. We can no longer afford faith that feeds in any way upon hatred, exclusion and disdain. Before we condemn the bigotry of other traditions, we should try to heal the prejudice that has damaged our own".

claims the former Catholic nun and current liberalist Karen Armstrong. Indeed we should. And what better place to start than this column, which is a veritable hotbed of bigotry and prejudice. The title itself is a bit of a giveaway: "Damned Yankees" and it doesn't disappoint:

"Being either ignored by Washington, or lectured from afar, is the common experience. Exceptions are to be found in Venezuela, where its embattled president, Hugo Chavez, complains that the US is paying far too close an interest in efforts to eject him from office; and in Cuba, which was singled out for the usual ill-informed, self-serving criticism typical of Mr Bush".

What, I wonder, did Bush say about Cuba? I looked it up:

"And through our democratic example, we must continue to stand with the brave people of Cuba, who for nearly half a century have endured the tyrannies and repression. Dictatorship has no place in the Americas. We must all work for a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Together we will succeed, because the spirit of liberty still thrives, even in the darkest corners of Castro's prisons".

Controversial stuff, eh? Well I suppose Bush could have said that the Cubans were a bunch of cowards who clearly enjoyed being tyrannised and repressed; that dictatorship was a wonderful thing and that, if there really had to be a transition to democracy in Cuba, it would be far preferable that as much blood was spilled in the process, and that it took a long time too; and that Cuban prisons are in fact full of people totally uninterested in being free - in fact, truth be told, they've kind of got used to it. But then no doubt that would have been ill-informed and self-serving too, wouldn't it?

Watch out for biogtry and prejudice, folks!

"Revolt is in the air in the backyard. Yet this is not simply about right versus left. It is about right versus wrong".

Yes, but which is which, and who is who?

|

I reckon she's suffered enough, don't you? Mind, what with Shippers topping himself, and Maxine heading for plastic surgery, a twenty-four armed guard, and a nice little villa in Spain, there's hardly going to be anybody left in our prisons. Who's Mr. Huntley going to play table tennis with? Might as well crowd'em out with foxhunters, I guess.

|

This is what we pay our licence fee for. I suppose some would say it was somewhat lacking in taste, but I found the map very useful.

( link stolen from angelo, who also links to a fiendish plot by some of our German friends. No wonder they lost two world wars).

|

There's only one solution to this problem. Raise taxes now, eh, Poll?

|

No more Seaman, then? Not quite. This guy's still got lead in his pencil.

|

Tomorrow's Guardian today:

WE ARE ALL DIMINISHED BY THIS MAN'S DEATH

The sad news of Harold Shipman's death yesterday should bring neither joy nor happiness to anyone hearing it. Certainly, he was a very bad man, and it is not being overtly judgmental to say so.
The murder of over two hundred pensioners should never be glossed over. Yet perhaps it is time to put this all in perspective. During the time period Dr. Shipman was busy acting - as he no doubt saw it - as an Angel of Mercy, over twenty women and children were being killed on the streets every hour, by drivers, alcoholics, and husbands. The combined total of Shipman's victims could be crammed into a small one bedroom flat in Glasgow.
In no way does this diminish what Shipman did, but it is worth thinking about the next time you hear some right-wing commentator describe Dr. Shipman as evil. It is also worth bearing in mind all the people Shipman did save. As a hard-working doctor, there are, even now, many people still alive who would not be here if it hadn't been for his own heroic acts.
Nonetheless, questions must be asked about the role of the prison service in all of this. What moves were made to try and prevent this? Perhaps a Suicides Charter should be instigated. And does Britain need a Suicide Czar? As Polly Toynbee has often had cause to point out within these pages, such a minister has already been appointed in Sweden. Suicide rates have declined by as much as twenty percent. We still have much to learn from our Nordic brethren.
This brings us to another matter. While Rupert Murdoch and his lickspittles in the tabloid press will try and use the example of Dr. Shipman as yet another hammer to batter the NHS, it is worth considering the causes that forced Dr. Shipman to act as he did. The stresses and strains of being a general practitioner have been much documented. It is a thankless task, not helped by 18 years of Tory underfunding, and no doubt these were all contributory factors in the rise of Dr. Shipman.
And as for the theological question as to whether Shipman is evil: we leave that sort of language to those simplistic neoconservatives, people like George W. Bush and his minion Paul Wolfowitz. They like to bandy about these kinds of words with gleeful insouciance. We, here, at the Guardian, are far more circumspect. We also feel that Tony Blair knows this. If only he could mention this to his gun-toting Texan pal the next time he saw him, the world be a far better, and safer, place.

|

We shall never see his like again.

|

Or can it? Here's another quote from another Guardian leader. It's almost two years since Dubya made his Axis of Evil speech, and the tranzis are not in a celebratory mood. Okay, there have been some successes:

"North Korea, for example, has just opened its nuclear facilities to an unprecedented US inspection; it repeats that it is ready to abandon its weapons, if various conditions are met. Iran, likewise, has agreed to additional nuclear safeguards. Libya, an associate member of the axis of evil, has executed a volte-face on WMD. States linked to proliferation and terror, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan, are now focused instead on building regional peace. Others, such as Syria, are under intensifying diplomatic pressure to change tack. In all these cases, Mr Bush can argue that his uncompromising stance is bearing fruit two years on".

Indeed he can.

"The president and his supporters will argue, too, that all these developments have been positively encouraged by the US invasion of Iraq - and again, such a view should not be dismissed out of hand".

How very broadminded.

"Even those passionately opposed to the war should acknowledge that it concentrated minds in the Middle East and beyond. As one analyst noted, it has become necessary to take Uncle Sam a bit more seriously than in the past".

I know. One minute Uncle Sam is a coke-swilling ham-burger-chewing bozo ripe for a laugh, the next he's out killing the bad guys. It's all so serious, isn't it?

"This may be deplored as a bully's triumph; but lesser bully boys everywhere have taken note of it and thus to a limited, probably temporary extent, it has worked".

As opposed to the White Flag policy encouraged by the Guardian, which was working a treat until Dubya stole the 2000 election, eh?

"Yet this argument, that the war has had an overall beneficial geostrategic and security effect, remains fundamentally flawed nevertheless. The reasons may be found in Iraq itself. By invading Iraq, which had no WMD, the US and its allies, bogged down there indefinitely, have been rendered less able to respond to a real "rogue" state WMD crisis. By invading Iraq, Mr Bush appears, predictably, to have exacerbated the terrorist threat - the second of the two "great objectives" of his axis of evil speech. In truth, al-Qaida's creeping menace is more pervasive than ever. By invading Iraq, Mr Bush has not advanced peace or democracy in the Middle East. The reverse may be more nearly true, given the political unrest in Iran, unresolved tensions between Israel, the Palestinians and Syria, violence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's ongoing, potentially splintering instability and the deeply paradoxical US refusal to agree to the Iraqi Shia majority's demand for free elections. In point of fact, the Libyan shift was in train well before Mr Bush went after Saddam; North Korea would likely have started talking sooner, but for bellicose US posturing".

Well, I suppose it's possible to quibble with one or two of these claims, and to do so would take all day: suffice to say, it completely undermines paragraph 2. I mean, you can believe one, or the other, but you can't believe both. Unless you write for the Guardian, of course.

"By its heavy-handed pursuit of evil, the US has undermined the western alliance, the UN, international law and civil rights - what might be called the "axis of good".

And nothing must stand in the way of the UN, after all.

|

The Guardian has a leader on the Kilroy-Silk affair:

"Some commentators wonder why, if the BBC is now so fastidious, the poet and academic Tom Paulin was not similarly treated, after telling an Egyptian newspaper that Jewish settlers in the occupied territories "should be shot dead". The answer is that Mr Paulin is a critic, paid to have views, however offensive. If he hosted a daytime talkshow called Paulin, then he would deservedly be in the same boat as Mr Kilroy-Silk".

Making up the rules as they go along, ain't it? The Guardian's own Aaro hosted a radio show on Radio 2 last week - called David Aaronovitch, no less - John Humphreys and Libby Purves of the Sunday Times and the Times regularly host shows on Radio 4, and they all opinionate like it's going out of fashion. Come on Guardian! You can do better than that.

|

"Much as I love to sound off, I consistently refuse to appear on Kilroy. One must have some standards in life",

announces the Yazzmonster to a sceptical world. Well, I myself have no such compunctions. The truth must be spread, and if that means appearing on daytime television, on the BBC no less, well that's why we have principles, isn't it, in order to break them?
But then, back in the mid-eighties it wasn't even called Kilroy. It was Day by Day. At any rate, I spotted an ad along the lines of "Want to take part in a tv debate?", and, being an opinionated chap as I then was, I rang the telephone number given and called in.
"Oh, right, well what do you think of rape, then?" I was asked by the switchboard lady. I gave a suitably disapproving response, and was invited on the next day. Freshly attired with new shirt and haircut, I was sat in the front row, a microphone attached to my lapel. Then Robert ( the production staff all called him this ), who was then even more of Greek God than he is now, descended to meet the masses. He promptly asked me where I came from. Being a sensitive semi-Mediterranean type, I assumed this was a racial reference, which, far from putting me at ease, completely disarmed me ( I'm not the first it seems ). It soon transpired that this was his standard friendly question, and what he wanted to hear was Bow, East London. But he didn't, and after my initial confusion I told him. But by then he wasn't even interested. That hasn't changed - not listening to what people are saying to him is his big weakness, and, in my humble view, makes him a hopeless tv presenter. But that is by the by.
Anyway, after the warm-up, the programme started. Robert bounded on, and announced to camera that there were some shocking new rape statistics just out, the streets weren't safe, and what should we do about it: Fred ( or something like that ) here, has some very straightforward thoughts on the subject:

"Castrate them", he proclaimed.

And Peter, turning to a bearded gentleman next to me.

"More counselling".

And another Peter. This was me. I hesitated. The whole thing was completely unnerving. Who were these people? Why was one from the far right, and another from the deranged liberal left? Was I really supposed to be the voice of moderation?

"I think... longer sentences".

There really was a pause in the middle. Which made me look thoughtful, anyway.
It was downhill from then on. We then had two former rapists wheeled on, shown in shadow for the viewers, but we the audience could see them all right. They looked pretty normal, I suppose, but were defiantly unrepentant. And the rest of the audience, those sitting behind us Three Wise Men, were a plethora of rape victims and psychiatrists. The whole show rapidly became a shouting match between the two pervs and the ladies, with Robert egging the latter on, and occasionally getting all steamed up on their behalves.

"How could you do this, supposing this was your daughter?" type stuff.

I myself kept trying to butt in and suggest that all this fulminating wasn't getting us anywhere, but that wasn't getting me anywhere either. He didn't take a blind bit of notice. About twenty minutes in, I dare say this thought had even penetrated Robert's skull, and he started asking the shrinks what they all made of it. But by then the whole pantomime had collapsed under the weight of its own righteousness, and what little of interest they had to say was lost among the catcalling that carried on behind them. And as for me? My microphone had been switched off as soon as I had uttered my four words ( as I suspect, were those of my fellow opinion-formers ). So there was a lot of crushing of dissent going on, even then. After the recording I spoke to a shrink seated next to me.

"You must find appearing on this sort of thing very frustrating," I suggested. "You get used to it", she smiled sadly.

The strange thing was, though, that the show was a lot more political back then. Now it's all transvestite dads and lesbian husbands. Things have actually got worse.
And I wiped the tape. Not something you'd ever want to show your grandkids, really. But that's my Kilroy story, and I'm sticking to it. I think you had the right to know.

|

Is Gary Younge the Guardian's worst journalist? It's a moot point.

|

Who is "perhaps the most teeth-grindingly nauseating politician ever to have been spawned by the Loony Left"?

You'll have to read I.M. Beck, Malta's answer to Hugo Young, to find out.

|