Boxing Day, on the box.
Predictably, the festive season is proving a busy one, and blogging unfortunately suffers. Not that I watched it, but apparently the queen's speech yesterday was the gloomiest since "annus horribilis", 1992. It's true 05 has been a tragic and catastrophic year in many respects, although I don't really need the most privileged woman in the country to tell me that.
I never do watch the speech, I actually applauded David and Victoria Beckham's speech whatever year that was broadcast as an alternative. I didn't actually watch that, either, but in the interests of fair chance for all, I encourage alternative sources of all-knowing wisdom especially at this time of year.
Is Little Britain finished for good? I think I heard this series was the last one to be filmed. A blinding show, no doubt, but the episode I saw the other day did seem to be on a slight decline in quality from the heady days of series one.
Just one more telly related item, before I start seeming like some sort of Garry Bushell understudy (Ian Hyland would have to be demoted to under-understudy). The Green Green Grass (I think that's what it's called) was slated in a review yesterday, the forgotten critic lambasted its shoddy scriptwriting. When I first saw the show, I thought it was so obvious a spin off from Only Fools and Horses because of the funny gags so reminiscent of Del Boy and Rodney in Peckham. I actually thought it was a pretty funny show. Was the critic an ignoramous, or is it me?
Anyway, time is scarce, I just didn't want to forget how to find the letters on the keyboard that correspond with the ones in my head.
T.T.F.N
Greer gets it wrong again.
Sitting on the bus sinking deeper into my hangover I attempted reading the Guardian today and was rapidly getting nowhere with it. Try a bit of Germaine Greer, I thought. She always has something to say which provokes a reaction.
She didn't disappoint.
"If Australia had been colonised by any other nation but the British, it would be less racist."
.
Really? So, despite the fact that countries like Italy, Spain, and France have huge problems with racism, it is only the British who would leave a racist mindset as a legacy of colonialism?
.
Rubbish.
.
I don't see how Australia's white supremacists can be blamed on the British anyway, to be honest. All countries have a responsibily to address their internal problems, but Greer seems to want to push the blame elsewhere. So it is the "unshakeable conviction of British superiority" which she decides is the reason for Australia's racists.
.
It's not the first time Greer has spoken such gibberish. When the film "Bullet Boy" was released, a look into black Britain and the rising problem of gun crime, Greer argued the film "diluted" black slang, and somehow dumbed down an "impenetrable" culture and form of speech non- blacks would never understand. This was all news to the black commentator (name forgotten) she was arguing with. It must have been a surprise for the black actors and production team who previously thought they were representing themselves pretty accurately, too.
.
Like Greer, Australian PM John Howard also seems to want to shift the focus on the racism of the supremacists elsewhere. So he puts it all down to alcohol. It's the loss of inhibition which comes with drinking, he says. That's a funny euphemism. "Loss of inhibition", as in, "racist thuggery". The terms are practically inter-changeable.
America's brutal prisons.
For those who might have missed it, here's a
link to the Channel 4 programme "Torture: America's brutal prisons."
Fuck off Jane Moore.
Polly Toynbee recently called the idea of Christ dying on the cross for humanity "repugnant". Rightly, she was swiftly mauled by several bloggers for such frivolous use of the word. So it is with caution that I employ it myself now. But then again, it's not like I have a readership of 300,000 odd is it?
Jane Moore is somebody I have often found repugnant for her hard-fact-concealing drivel she has at times attempted to smear the pages of The Sun with (admittedly, she's bound to fail in such company - it's like the opposite of trying to write "clean me" with your finger on a perfectly clean white van). Her annoying appearances on tacky Channel 5 shows that purport to "dig the dirt" by telling you Robbie Williams wore the same shirt twice only add fuel to my dislike of her.
And now the opportunist would-be celebrity journalist has seen fit to concentrate her efforts towards that fame on the humble Christmas dinner.
"WHAT'S REALLY IN YOUR CHRISTMAS DINNER?" asks some faceless voice usually employed to warn of impending danger. As if we hadn't been subjected to enough televisual diet analysis already. It's as if Channel 4 have looked at the magazine shelves in the newsagents, seen the saturation-level presence of "how I lost a stone in two weeks" type features on the covers, and suddenly had an epiphany: That's what they want!
The following is a quote from the Channel 4 advanced programming schedule:
Following her investigation into supermarket foods in Dispatches: Supermarket Secrets , journalist Jane Moore now turns her attention to the once-a-year belt-busting extravaganza that is our Christmas dinner. Although the British public has never been more concerned about the food on our plates, Christmas is the one time we seem prepared to let down our guard and relax our vigilance. Dispatches analyses the nation's favourite seasonal dishes from the way they are reared and processed, to their cost and nutritional values.
.
Well exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself. "Christmas is the one time we seem prepared to let down our guard and relax our vigilance." So what precisely made you think we need to deny ourselves that one little respite as well? It's not exactly in the spirit of the season.
Livingstone part 6: the anti-Semite.
Nice to see
somebody else thinks the whole Ken Livingstone 'anti-Semite' issue is a nonsense.
Yep, he's an idiot.
Yep, I'd love to see him out of office.
But not if it means being chased out of the village by a bunch of torch-waving witch hunters high on the fumes of politically correct madness.
This is the man who
seeks to appease Islamo-facists, the man who has condemned Londoners to foot an ever increasing bill for the Olympics, the man who continues to patronise the population at every opportunity.
And inspite of all that, the only time any mention of a "disciplinary hearing" is heard is when some ill advised comment just happened to be directed at a Jewish journalist. Does anybody really believe there was any anti-semitic intent?
Hell, if you're finding it
that hard to find a reason to kick him out, kick him out for
going back on his word and removing the Routemaster from service.
So cheers, Scribbles, for reminding me of how dumb this whole thing is.
Tookie Williams executed.
Seem to be stuck in a busy period right now, trying to sandwich this blog in between various other commitments, but I won't be leaving it alone though, it's more interesting than the other stuff.
I remember reading about Stanley "Tookie" Williams years ago, about the early days of the Crip gang, and about Tookie's reluctance to follow suit when gang bangers were picking up guns and shooting to settle feuds in favour of fistfights. He has become known throughout his years on death row for his anti-gang work, speaking out against the culture and even writing children's books, advising them of the perils of becoming involved with gangs.
All this is nice to hear, and certainly seems to indicate some degree of rehabilitation, although a friend's observation this morning that "anybody on death row long enough will be rehabilited, so do you have to let them all off after a certain amount of time?" made me think.
In truth, it doesn't matter now whether Tookie Williams deserved to be let off of not, because he's dead, it didn't happen. What matters now are the reasons for refusal of clemency.
Again, I do not want to get into the death penalty argument too deeply, as I believe each individual case merits an individual analysis and I have neither the time nor the inclination to state a case for or against abolition here. But a couple of things struck me as odd when reading about Williams' appeal.
Schwarzenegger has written that the "continued pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams' message." So, whether you feel Williams has been "redeemed" or not, he's got no chance. I'd only let him off if he was any use to us, if he could wave the magic wand that expels violence from LA streets.
This idea was reflected by LA district attorney Steve Cooley, who implied that as Williams had been a founder of the Crips, he was responsible for countless murders, not just the ones he was actually accused of. Do these men honestly believe that Williams was solely responsible for the gang violence? What about the countless others involved, I wonder.
On Monday, in response to Williams' lawyer's requests for a stay of execution, three judges argued there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." Well, that must be where I'm going wrong, and I thought I'd just about figured how this justice thing works. See, I thought you needed clear and convincing evidence of actual
guilt before you sentenced a man to death.
Williams' consistent denial of guilt is one of the reasons Schwarzenegger gave for refusing to grant clemency. However, I don't think we could have expected anything different from a man who declared:
"If you gave these blacks a country to run, they would run it down the tubes."
Got any bog roll?
Bush on the US constitution: "it's just a goddamn piece of paper!"
Jackson "not the father".
Heard something about the 'news' that Jackson isn't the real father of his kids, that his other half of the time underwent artificial insemination. I've always found it strange that Jackson, a black man with a skin condition that has paled his own skin pigment, would have white children. It just seemed odd that the disease would mean his children were born with no trace of black heritage. Even if the condition is hereditary, surely the kiddies would be born darker and change later in life, like Jackson himself?
The Last Ride.
"A part of England is dying."
It was, perhaps, a little melodramatic.
The voice was that of one of the many camera-wielding enthusiasts crammed on the lower deck of the 159 this morning. Living in Streatham, south London, provided the opportunity to grab a ride on the last of the Routemaster buses.
Accompanying the air of nostalgia that was so tangible was the fog. This I entered upon leaving my house, thinking how reminiscent it was of the "pea souper's" that still blanketed London streets in the early days of the beloved Routemaster.
Along the route there were hundreds of photographers, and people waving; for a brief moment it felt like an insight into the world of the chauffeur driven celebrity.
Just for a moment though, the cramped conditions of the regular public transport experience kept feet firmly on the ground (or bums firmly on seats, for the lucky ones).
Surrounded by the type of people society has condemned to be known as "anoraks", I found humour in their eager discussions of all things bus related. One of these guys stood out, as instead of taking pictures of any Routemaster that passed us on the other side of the road, he seemed more interested in snapping every person with a camera on the pavement.
Not that they all
were on the pavement. Westminster Bridge took forever to cross not just because of the traffic congestion, but because of the vast numbers of fanatics running out in front of the bus taking photo's.
There was another contingent of fanatics too. I first encountered them at Marble Arch, then back at Streatham when I returned home on the last ever bus. Waving placards that read "we demand freedom from transport apartheid" and "good riddance Routemaster", were small but
hardcore groups of disabled people, intent on dancing on the grave of London's favourite bus.
Their presence sparked conflict, as many Routemaster fans and members of the press told the banner-wavers to piss off. "You've already won, why spoil this for the rest of us?" This was one particularly angry looking man at Marble Arch, I had to agree with him.
At Trafalgar Square, among the camera happy crowds, stood Tony Blair. He waved at me. Quite a nice surprise, I thought. But alas no, closer inspection revealed a man with a Blair mask, and a whistle and flute complete with red tie.
At Brixton we passed a huge crowd of schoolkids, waving Union Jacks and smiling happy little smiles. The female London Transport member of staff sitting on the seat next to mine shed a tear, caught up in the moment.
Then I heard it.
"A part of England is dying."
Well, maybe his anorak tendencies could be forgiven on this occassion.
Pinter: bang on, or just banging on?
Unsure whether I really wanted to comment on Harold Pinter's
vitriolic attack on the US, as I felt to do it properly would require more time than I had available today. I did have a quick look around the 'blogosphere' to amuse myself with the disgust I knew it would have provoked, though was disappointed to find little mention of it. The scraps I did come across seemed to indicate a general feeling of contempt for Pinter's opinions.
Citing
Nicaragua,
Greece,
Chile, and many other examples of
US intervention in foreign affairs, Pinter argued the US "supported every rightwing dictatorship in the world since the second world war" in the ruthless pursuit of Empire. While I'm no fool, who believes the world would be just fine if the US role in international affairs was suddenly withdrawn, I do believe that most conflicts the US now seek to resolve were actually either engineered or supported by them in the first place. In fact, I think it beggars belief that an American imperialist control of the world could be denied. The US government has, as Pinter points out, used secretive methods of stirring up trouble in order to tighten its grip on world affairs. He observed:
"Direct invasion has never been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low-intensity conflict'. Low-intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death, the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say democracy has prevailed."
.
Call me fool, but I think this is a pretty accurate analysis of US foreign policy. You only need look at their blatant disregard/contempt for international law. The US government has such a firm grasp of power they no longer need to pretend to observe the lilly-livered laws of the international community which they preside over.
.
But anyway, I need to be elsewhere, I'll just leave you with a link to a discussion concerning the speech in the
Harold Pinter website forums, which is good for a laugh.
Destruction of Israel
When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced his desire to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" a few weeks ago there was outrage. It was almost as if people in the west didn't
know Arab countries hold any ill feeling towards Israel. But while the Occident expressed shock and horror at Ahmadinejad's comments, many in the Arab world will have payed them little attention, wishing for more than just empty rhetoric.
To think of the troubles in the Middle East as a conflict between just Palestine and Israel is innaccurate, and dangerously misleading. While one after another American state figure visits the region, hoping their mere presence might help facilitate that elusive "peace process", resentment towards Israel continues across the Ummah.
A quick look at some of the history does not inspire much confidence in reconcilliation.
Back in 1948 it was only the Jews who actually accepted the UN's proposed nation states, claiming the independence of the state of Israel the same year. The Jewish people only constituted 1/6 of one per cent of the Arab world. Predictably, Arab states rejected the proposals, and before 1948 had finished, five Arab armies invaded the state of Israel. Jamal Husseini, of the Arab Higher Committee, vowed to soak "the soil of our beloved country with every last drop of our blood."
This graphic statement of intent reveals much of how many still feel, even today. Fact is, between Husseini's '48 outburst and Ahmadinejad's 2005 one, there have been countless examples of similar bloodthirsty rants.
In the Six Day War of 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Nassar explained his "basic objective (was) the destruction of Israel".
More disturbingly, Sheik Ahmad Halabaya, a vehemently anti-semitic character from Gaza, made the following outburst which was broadcast on Palestinian Authority television in October 2000:
"They (Jews) must be butchered and killed, as Allah the almighty said: fight them, Allah will torture them at your hands. Have no mercy on the Jews. Wherever you meet them, kill them."
.
Now, I'm not suggesting that every Muslim who believes the "occupied state" (PA TV) of Israel must be returned to the Muslims also goes along with the above sentiments. The majority will argue the Jews should simply be 'evicted', moved on. But it is undeniable that there are many who do agree the destruction of Israel is absolutely necessary.
.
Whether you are disgusted at the idea of the destruction of Israel or not is a matter for your conscience. But next time (and there will be a next time) a senior Arab figure expresses a desire to wipe the Jews off the map, do me a favour:
.
Don't act surprised.
Journalists aren't citizens.
Just doing a bit of research on the whole idea of "citizen journalism" and came across a post on the
J-Log site of minor relevance. Apparently the NUJ have proposed bloggers, people with video phones handy at events of interest, and anyone else who enters the public distribution/debate of news, be known by the more humble term "citizen witnesses" or "witness contributors".
Sounds like a case of precious egos to me.
Water torture.
A new dimension has been added to the rendition issue. The definition of torture has come under scrutiny, apparently, as it is suddenly unclear what actually constitutes torture. I always assumed it was reasonably straightforward.
The methods of torturing a person may be enormously diverse, granted. Anything from peeling fingernails off to positioning the head under a leaking tap. But despite the broad spectrum, there remains a fairly obvious common theme which would suggest to the curious that no, this is not a very pleasurable experience.
However, in the spirit of the naughty child caught with fingers in the sweet drawer, some US sources have thunk on their feet and changed tact. Oh alright, the gig's up. But this isn't
really torture, anyway. This is a legitimate persuasion technique, recognised by honest, hard working Americans all over as a proper and decent way to deal with prisoners.
Having one's head pushed under water and forcibly held there until consciousness is about to be lost, pulled up for a short breath, and then thrust back under to repeat the process, can't really be called legit, can it?
I don't know where it would rank in the broad spectrum of gruesome torture techniques (those interested could find out at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) but it's got to be there somewhere though.
So damn immature!
Do people ever call you immature?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4492814.stm
Women: crap at the game.
Money, as they say, is the root of all evil.
The great Bob Monkhouse used to dedicate a little time of his live show to linking words or names of people/places that were suggested at random by the audience. Bob would start off with some obscure actor from the 1940s, and within a minute he arrived at the name of one of the characters from The Simpsons, via a route involving polar bears and cans of coke.
As a schoolkid I played this game myself, although some of the links were decidedly dodgy. If it was getting too muddled, you could always point out that Dean Martin and Ross Kemp both breathed oxygen, and there was your link.
But with evil, you never have to look too far down the chain to find money, so the cop out option is never necessary.
For example, when a woman says you aren't comfortable with your sexuality unless you will wear something pink, the financial foundations are glaringly obvious.
Some time in the last decade some bright advertising spark dreamed up the concept of New Man. Yes, there are some good things to come of New Man, helping out with the nappies, feeding the kids, etc. But forget all that. The real benefit was that young men now found it acceptable, required of them even, to buy make-up products for their skin, and wear pink shirts.
Wearing pink became so cool that it almost became a measure of masculinity. Some geezer in the pub in a pink rugby shirt, for instance, might have once been called a ponce, but now he was a model of machismo. Why didn't
you have a pink shirt? Not man enough? Can't say that about
him, he's
comfortable with his sexuality. But what does that mean?
Does it mean you might be secretly worried that you're gay?
Seems a bit presumptuous; you're gay, because you're not wearing pink.
And the make-up. I was with my other half up the west end not long ago, in a Boots store, I think it was. My girlfriend wanted to buy some cosmetics. Fair enough. But the lady behind the counter didn't think it was fair enough.
"Aren't
you going to buy anything, sir?"
"Uh, no thanks."
Look of disbelief.
"But what about this moisteurizer?"
"No, I'm alright thanks."
To the missus:
"You really need to get him to buy something."
The cream, which I have lived thus far without and never noticed any problem, cost about fifteen quid.
I think I'll stick to a bar of soap, thanks. About £14.50 cheaper.
Why is it that women can't seem to find the link between the evil and the money though? I don't particularly like pink shirts, in the same way I don't like orange trousers. And I really can't see the point in slapping all these expensive 'face washes' on, the world never seemed to need them before FHM.
It's like women are getting lost on the way to the money, and taking the cop out option: you're stuck in the closet. Notice how similar that conclusion is to one any schoolboy might arrive at when discussing pretty much anything with one of his peers.
So although this might be a bit Old Man, I'm gonna have to say it: women just can't play the game.
Those with glass houses... pt II.
I'm sure this whole issue has been on the backburner for a few weeks now, but America's practice of rendition is finally getting the attention it deserves.
Much is being made of Condoleeza Rice's visit to Europe and her likely response to Jack Straw's soft request for "clarification" on the matter. US sources have made it clear that Rice will be on the counter-offensive in response to any European criticism, telling EU leaders that we are all "in it together." The idea is that Rice will remind EU leaders of their own positions and openness to criticism.
While this approach might not in any way seek to either deny or justify the practice of rendition, it seems a good one for the US secretary of state's purposes. As much as European leaders make a fuss now, and express outrage at the idea of prisoner's human rights being violated, it is hard to believe there hasn't been some kind of tacit agreement or 'blind eye' philosophy at work here.
No doubt this will be hotly contested by all concerned. In the spirit of fairness, then, let's suspend our disbelief for a moment to consider the situation.
So hundreds of flights containing prisoners en route to the torture chamber via European soil have, since 9/11, all gone thus far unnoticed.
While denying that any secret CIA prison camps exist in Romania, Razvan Ungureanu, the country's foreign minister, suggests the US may have set up such camps without the knowledge/approval of the Romanian government.
It all seems a bit far fetched to me.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe as Rice's trip unfolds events may convince me that Europe has had no part to play (wittingly, at least) in the transportation of suspects to countries where they can be legally tortured.
I hope so.
The binary opposites of our nature.
So Michael Barton and Paul Taylor have received their sentences for the heinous murder of Anthony Walker. Barton will serve a minimum of 17 years and 8 months, Taylor a minimum 23 years and 8 months.
What pointless atrocities we are capable of.
Conversely, what heights of dignity we can reach.
Gee Verona, Anthony's mother, vowed to forgive her son's killers, in the same way Jesus forgave those who put him to the cross.
We humans are an infinitely complex bunch.
Aunty better watch out.
Al-Jazeera seem to have gone through more than most young television stations have to. I remember, when channel 5 "burst" onto our screens, (well, some of them) they faced a barrage of criticism. This criticism was mainly concerned with the channel's coverage problems, poor programming, and generally being rubbish. But all that fades into insignificance when contrasted with the minefield of opposition al-Jazeera have had to pick their way through. Actually, scratch that. They've pretty much just kept on walking their straight, determined path through it.
Greeted with suspicion in the Arab world, the station has been charged with serving an Israeli agenda, attempting to disintegrate Arab unity, and promoting western values and ideas.
In the west, al-Jazeera have fared no better. Being an Arab station run by Muslims, Washington naturally concluded that it was a propagandist tool of Osama and his allies.
With the furore over the leaked memo, al-Jazeera has found itself thrust into the spotlight once more, and have decided to come out fighting. Wadah Khanfar, head honcho at al-Jazeera, appeared in yesterday's Guardian asking Bush and Blair why they want to bomb him, and demanding the truth be revealed.
Don't Bomb Us is a blog run by al-Jazeera staff. Together with Blairwatch they have pledged to publish the memo if it becomes available to them, and have set up a list anyone also willing to risk their freedom can join.
That Blair has promised to jail anyone who publishes the memo is predictable enough, freedom of the press is a very disposable thing. Citing the Official Secrets Act the government can easily justify caging a few pesky journalists or so called "citizen journalists".
But hang on, Official Secrets Act?
What's the implication here?
Last week we were told it was all a joke.
If there is nothing to hide, why conceal the truth, I wonder. An even bigger question is why Bush would want to bomb al-Jazeera. It's not as if al-Jazeera have been spreading anti-American propaganda for the last nine years. Don't believe that? Then why has so much of the Arab world treated the station with suspicion and contempt?
The answer of course is that al-Jazeera make a deliberate effort to show the world "the opinion, and the other opinion." That is a different thing from the gung ho "saviour of the world" image Bush wants of the US. It is also a different thing, however, to acting as some kind of al-Qaida sympathizing, extremist propaganda mouthpiece.
Honestly, I just hope Bush doesn't happen to switch on News 24 and catch any coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian troubles.
Otherwise Bush's bombers could be flying over west London any day now.
