I had written a piece but then it got deleted before I could publish so this will be a little rehashing of it.
"Kerry was the wrong man. About as charismatic as a rheumatoidal filing clerk."
I never supported Kerry, I just didn't support Bush. Kerry fucked up this election like no one else could. The Democrats fucked it up.
This was always an election for Kerry to lose rather than for Bush to win. Bush has his 48 million Christian evangelical idiots to vote for him but Kerry made so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin.
"Bush was elected not on issues...Simply on gut fear."
Firstly, Kerry was the wrong man. About as charismatic as a rheumatoidal filing clerk.
Then you have all these targets he barely touched upon: The millions in lost jobs, the millions living on food handouts, the millions without healthcare, the deficit etc. He allowed Bush to hype his "war president" message. He allowed Bush to get away with consistent distortions of pretty much every issue.
"They accepted Bush (as did Kerry) declaring that the "American people know I have a plan" without stating what the damn plan IS."
Bush was elected not on issues, not on whether he's any good or not. Simply on gut fear. Fear of change, fear of terrorism and fear of the unknown. They accepted Bush (as did Kerry) declaring that the "American people know I have a plan" without stating what the damn plan is. Kerry failed to tell the voters who he was. He was insincere (pretending to be pro-gun, for instance) and just not a good match for the electorate.
Bush was perfect at speaking in general, simplistic, convicted terms. It didn't matter if he was right or wrong he knew what he thought. That was basically the only attraction to Americans.
He underused Edwards and they just weren't ruthless enough against the most ruthless election machine in history that Rove has constructed.
"He is free to select Supreme Court judges the average Brit would scarcely believe."
Kerry also massively fucked up in concentrating almost entirely on the swing states and leaving those that subsequently switched from Gore to Bush in this election to themselves. Bush, through his media friends and spinners, has bombarded the entire country with propaganda about terrorism and the like so much so that Kerry strongly underestimated how this had affected people's judgments across even formerly Democrat states. In a country so ignorant that 40% of people still think Iraq was behind 9/11, where virtually no one knows where Iraq is, where over a third of of under 25s think Italy, Japan and Germany were allies in WWII this propaganda sinks a lot deeper than it would in Britain.
Time and again, you speak to an average American and they'll spout the now stock oneliners Bush has dripped into their minds "with us or against us", "war on terror", "we are a beacon of freedom" and other complete myths.
So now Bush is free to run the country into the ground to bed the US into a virtually permanent and pointless state of war. He is free to select Supreme Court judges the average Brit would scarcely believe, and he is free to set up the nation for either a Jeb vs Clinton or Rice vs Clinton 2008 race. Or maybe we'll see some other race. But I see death, destruction, waste and further poverty for millions of Americans and the world.
If Bush is assassinated I wouldn't be surprised. After all, pretty much the only people on earth who do not wish him gone from the Whitehouse are the 60 million Americans who voted for him. Other than them basically the 6bn other people on the planet feel differently. Probably more enemies than any assassinated president ever had. Hope it doesn't happen, but then it's not up to me. I think it would be the worst outcome imaginable but, sadly, a far from impossible one. Given the unprecendented depth of hatred in certain parts of the world.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
CBS News | Even Republicans Fear Bush | October 31, 2004�14:23:31
CBS News | Even Republicans Fear Bush | October 31, 2004�14:23:31
Every American should read this article. It may then have an effect on the election in my opinion.
Every American should read this article. It may then have an effect on the election in my opinion.
Monday, November 01, 2004
FAIR MEDIA ADVISORY: If Only They Had Invented the Internet
FAIR MEDIA ADVISORY: If Only They Had Invented the Internet
This is the sort of weakness many members of the media on both sides of the Atlantic. Both parties play the game, of course. That is, Kerry and Bush. Now journalists expect to be spinned to but why do they seem so naive as to barely question if they are being outright lied to?
Answers on a postcard please...
This is the sort of weakness many members of the media on both sides of the Atlantic. Both parties play the game, of course. That is, Kerry and Bush. Now journalists expect to be spinned to but why do they seem so naive as to barely question if they are being outright lied to?
Answers on a postcard please...
Sunday, October 31, 2004
What's going on?
I intend to embark on a bit of question asking and look back over recent history to figure out why the hell has world politics (with the notable exception of some European countries) swung so far to the right?
It would be a relatively simple matter to analyse if this was purely a US phenomenon in isolation but this is not the case. If you look at where Eastern Europe is going, where France is leaning and Italy plus Australia, New Zealand, Southern America and, one might even say, China you see a definite patter of right-wing governments claiming and keeping power.
I've got say here and now that I do not consider myself left-wing - as a non-party member of any group and a non-politician I have real problems with labels like this - I certainly can put my hand on my refried heart and say I am not right-wing. To me, the right-wing world view is profoundly illogical. It struggles consistently to balance the mutually exclusive notions of liberty and conformity. They wish for near perfect social conformity but also wish for individual freedom (small government) which is an impossible mix. And those "libertarian" right-wingers have an even more illogical world view which relies largely on some phantom innate trustworthiness on behalf of profit-making companies. The simple fact is that neither of these approaches is workable in the long-term or makes much sense.
I, on the other hand, don't subscribe to a philosophy as such. I merely start from an atheist standing start and work from there. The next step is to say individuals and any institutions should treat others in the same manner they would wish to be treated themselves. Any transgression of this should be disapproved of at best and outright prevented and criminalised at worst. This social framework is what, I believe, government is designed to form and maintain on behalf of the electorate. Is this such an unworkable platform to form a world view? I don't think so.
As government is an instrument of the people's will, this fact will inevitably affect a government's policies but, frankly, I would have thought that if there was a consensus on the above stated purpose of government in society then the policies favoured would only serve to further that aim. Let's apply what I am thinking to specific instances. In terms of sexuality, in my opinion government and everyone else should continue to treat every straight, gay, bi person as they would wish to be treated themselves. Being gay does not forfeit your right to this. So, government's role in this area is to ensure that every citizen respects this right. As transgressions of this right can affect employment and profoundly affect someone's quality of life there must be legislation that ensures that no one will be treated badly simply on the basis of their sexuality. This would be the same for all forms of discrimination on the grounds of an unchosen aspect of an individual's identity.
The right-wing mentality has it that we should dictate as little as possible to companies what they can and can't do yet individuals should be brow-beaten into living a 2.4 children nuclear family lifestyle as closely as possible. Individuals should be prevented from having sex at 16 if they're gay but not if they're straight. Huh? This is not the actions or policy of a government treating people like they would wish to be treated.
So onto this phenomenon which has crept up on us across the world. Now, of course, a large part of the blame has to be laid at the Socialists' doors. They have failed in many countries to run the nation properly. And this fact cannot be ducked. As I am not a socialist I think socialism, too, is lacking in logic in swathes of their thinking. Nationalising everything is not the panacea they claim, for one.
But in large part, the Right has risen of its own accord. It has, almost simultaneously, found a way of shaping the public's minds to their world view by, in many cases, hijacking truth and beating into such a pulp you only see small traces of it beneath the damage inflicted on it by spin and lies. For evidence of this, witness the credit for election wins by right-wing or right-leaning politicians being heaped upon their spin-masters. Karl Rove, Alastair Campbell, Lynton Crosby (Oz prime minister John Howard's Karl Rove) and the like are the real forces behind the rise of the right and the shaping of people's increasing tendency to spray right-wing deodorant over the stench of societies' problems.
As these people, by definition, have tentacles deep within the media machinery they can plant stories, influence vocabulary and the agenda of the press in such a way that the people simply don't realise their opinions are being changed. A fantastic example of this is the staggering number of US citizens (over a third) that still think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. That fact really says it all, as far as I'm concerned.
Another example of this is the increasing use of the phrase "tax relief" - a phrase the right always uses - which even anti-tax cut people find themselves being suckered into using. Now you don't need to tell me that that phrase has very significant connotations. You also have this interesting notion that rights are held to ransom with the prices being "responsibility". This is the phenomenon where politicians say "we aren't going to let you fully realise a basic right until you start taking some responsibility". If it is a right then "taking responsibility" in a related area should not be a pre-requisite for receiving this right. It is a right, not something earned from lawmakers if we're "good" people. What they are referring to is a privilege not a right.
Then again, the whole "war on terror" thing is completely and entirely a concoction of spin. It is an utter fantasy. When they could have approached 9/11 with an air that these are sad and desperate religious fanatics who are not a formal organisation nor a threat that can ever even dint western society, they decided to actually legitimise these idiots by giving them the "war" they so wanted. They are an fully fledged "enemy", rather than simply some nasty mosquitos to be swatted by the twin tools of the FBI and CIA. This is utter madness and far exceeds the real life situation. Thousands of per cent the number of those who have and will die from terrorism this decade die every year from violent crime and drunk driving in America alone. Are tens of billions spent on combating this? No.
And this is why so many people think there has to be another reason for this "war on terror". When you look, you see the neo-cons with their Straussian myth-making history (witness the non-existent threat from the Soviets hyped by them in the 70s to being an "evil empire") and you see the vested interests blanketing the pentagon and White House. Look at Dick Cheney's wife -a board member of Lockheed Martin from 1997 until 2001. Look at George Bush's dad, an employee of the Carlyle Group - a company heavily involved in the arms industry - until only about 6 months ago. This has never happened before, where so many conflicts of interest have been allowed without an outcry and barely any reporting. I haven't even mentioned Cheney's Halliburton connections - Halliburton apparently traded with Iraq during the sanctions period - http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm .
So what's going on? Of course, it's not like these countries have never been right-wing before. They have had conservative/Conservative governments and so on. But these have previously been of a notably different flavour. They have been somewhat less coated in a snooker-ball hard veneer of ideology that countenances no moderation. Even Thatcher had Hesletine, Clarke and Hurd in her cabinet. In Labour in the UK, the noted left-wingers have slowly left of their own accord as the government has gone on. Short, Meacher, Field, Robin Cook all left for numerous reasons. This cabinet is now full of Blairites with a sprinkling of Brownites.
Of course, I'm no expert in world politics but I know when I see a trend. In Italy, you have a very different political system and culture - and, of course, history - which has seen dictatorship and wild swings from virtual communism through to virtual fascism within a few years. Now we have a person who practically owns the nation's media and is the richest Italian in the country now also prime minister of the country. Despite this, due to the old footbrake of proportional representation, he has to share power with a ragbag of right-wing parties, each with some frightening and some moderate views. But Berlusconi's initial offering of a gay-hating, woman suppressing man as EU Justice Commissioner - where he must oversee human rights implementation - kinda shows where he's coming from. Yet he has been the most long-serving premier the country has seen since Mussolini. Italy went through a long neutered period of constantly changing prime ministers and deadlocked government which allowed the Mafia to thrive. Then years of ridding the country of such corruption (at least as far as Italy's concerned, it certainly wouldn't meet British standards of a corruption free system) has finally resulted in relatively stable government, though a far from blistering economy. Still, as the selling of the defence part of an Italian government-owned engineering company to Carlyle shows, there are real ties to the US administration which suggests why Berlusconi went into Iraq with them.
I'm afraid that I can't really go much further than to say that it does appear to be a mixture of interconnected interests, tactics and aims that have brought nations round to a right-wing angle but I must say I have not forgotten that Bush lost the popular vote and that there are still many millions of people in each country who have not been seduced. I can only hope that more people see through the right-wing folly and begin to throw them out. A good place to start, of course, would be Bush.
It would be a relatively simple matter to analyse if this was purely a US phenomenon in isolation but this is not the case. If you look at where Eastern Europe is going, where France is leaning and Italy plus Australia, New Zealand, Southern America and, one might even say, China you see a definite patter of right-wing governments claiming and keeping power.
I've got say here and now that I do not consider myself left-wing - as a non-party member of any group and a non-politician I have real problems with labels like this - I certainly can put my hand on my refried heart and say I am not right-wing. To me, the right-wing world view is profoundly illogical. It struggles consistently to balance the mutually exclusive notions of liberty and conformity. They wish for near perfect social conformity but also wish for individual freedom (small government) which is an impossible mix. And those "libertarian" right-wingers have an even more illogical world view which relies largely on some phantom innate trustworthiness on behalf of profit-making companies. The simple fact is that neither of these approaches is workable in the long-term or makes much sense.
I, on the other hand, don't subscribe to a philosophy as such. I merely start from an atheist standing start and work from there. The next step is to say individuals and any institutions should treat others in the same manner they would wish to be treated themselves. Any transgression of this should be disapproved of at best and outright prevented and criminalised at worst. This social framework is what, I believe, government is designed to form and maintain on behalf of the electorate. Is this such an unworkable platform to form a world view? I don't think so.
As government is an instrument of the people's will, this fact will inevitably affect a government's policies but, frankly, I would have thought that if there was a consensus on the above stated purpose of government in society then the policies favoured would only serve to further that aim. Let's apply what I am thinking to specific instances. In terms of sexuality, in my opinion government and everyone else should continue to treat every straight, gay, bi person as they would wish to be treated themselves. Being gay does not forfeit your right to this. So, government's role in this area is to ensure that every citizen respects this right. As transgressions of this right can affect employment and profoundly affect someone's quality of life there must be legislation that ensures that no one will be treated badly simply on the basis of their sexuality. This would be the same for all forms of discrimination on the grounds of an unchosen aspect of an individual's identity.
The right-wing mentality has it that we should dictate as little as possible to companies what they can and can't do yet individuals should be brow-beaten into living a 2.4 children nuclear family lifestyle as closely as possible. Individuals should be prevented from having sex at 16 if they're gay but not if they're straight. Huh? This is not the actions or policy of a government treating people like they would wish to be treated.
So onto this phenomenon which has crept up on us across the world. Now, of course, a large part of the blame has to be laid at the Socialists' doors. They have failed in many countries to run the nation properly. And this fact cannot be ducked. As I am not a socialist I think socialism, too, is lacking in logic in swathes of their thinking. Nationalising everything is not the panacea they claim, for one.
But in large part, the Right has risen of its own accord. It has, almost simultaneously, found a way of shaping the public's minds to their world view by, in many cases, hijacking truth and beating into such a pulp you only see small traces of it beneath the damage inflicted on it by spin and lies. For evidence of this, witness the credit for election wins by right-wing or right-leaning politicians being heaped upon their spin-masters. Karl Rove, Alastair Campbell, Lynton Crosby (Oz prime minister John Howard's Karl Rove) and the like are the real forces behind the rise of the right and the shaping of people's increasing tendency to spray right-wing deodorant over the stench of societies' problems.
As these people, by definition, have tentacles deep within the media machinery they can plant stories, influence vocabulary and the agenda of the press in such a way that the people simply don't realise their opinions are being changed. A fantastic example of this is the staggering number of US citizens (over a third) that still think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. That fact really says it all, as far as I'm concerned.
Another example of this is the increasing use of the phrase "tax relief" - a phrase the right always uses - which even anti-tax cut people find themselves being suckered into using. Now you don't need to tell me that that phrase has very significant connotations. You also have this interesting notion that rights are held to ransom with the prices being "responsibility". This is the phenomenon where politicians say "we aren't going to let you fully realise a basic right until you start taking some responsibility". If it is a right then "taking responsibility" in a related area should not be a pre-requisite for receiving this right. It is a right, not something earned from lawmakers if we're "good" people. What they are referring to is a privilege not a right.
Then again, the whole "war on terror" thing is completely and entirely a concoction of spin. It is an utter fantasy. When they could have approached 9/11 with an air that these are sad and desperate religious fanatics who are not a formal organisation nor a threat that can ever even dint western society, they decided to actually legitimise these idiots by giving them the "war" they so wanted. They are an fully fledged "enemy", rather than simply some nasty mosquitos to be swatted by the twin tools of the FBI and CIA. This is utter madness and far exceeds the real life situation. Thousands of per cent the number of those who have and will die from terrorism this decade die every year from violent crime and drunk driving in America alone. Are tens of billions spent on combating this? No.
And this is why so many people think there has to be another reason for this "war on terror". When you look, you see the neo-cons with their Straussian myth-making history (witness the non-existent threat from the Soviets hyped by them in the 70s to being an "evil empire") and you see the vested interests blanketing the pentagon and White House. Look at Dick Cheney's wife -a board member of Lockheed Martin from 1997 until 2001. Look at George Bush's dad, an employee of the Carlyle Group - a company heavily involved in the arms industry - until only about 6 months ago. This has never happened before, where so many conflicts of interest have been allowed without an outcry and barely any reporting. I haven't even mentioned Cheney's Halliburton connections - Halliburton apparently traded with Iraq during the sanctions period - http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm .
So what's going on? Of course, it's not like these countries have never been right-wing before. They have had conservative/Conservative governments and so on. But these have previously been of a notably different flavour. They have been somewhat less coated in a snooker-ball hard veneer of ideology that countenances no moderation. Even Thatcher had Hesletine, Clarke and Hurd in her cabinet. In Labour in the UK, the noted left-wingers have slowly left of their own accord as the government has gone on. Short, Meacher, Field, Robin Cook all left for numerous reasons. This cabinet is now full of Blairites with a sprinkling of Brownites.
Of course, I'm no expert in world politics but I know when I see a trend. In Italy, you have a very different political system and culture - and, of course, history - which has seen dictatorship and wild swings from virtual communism through to virtual fascism within a few years. Now we have a person who practically owns the nation's media and is the richest Italian in the country now also prime minister of the country. Despite this, due to the old footbrake of proportional representation, he has to share power with a ragbag of right-wing parties, each with some frightening and some moderate views. But Berlusconi's initial offering of a gay-hating, woman suppressing man as EU Justice Commissioner - where he must oversee human rights implementation - kinda shows where he's coming from. Yet he has been the most long-serving premier the country has seen since Mussolini. Italy went through a long neutered period of constantly changing prime ministers and deadlocked government which allowed the Mafia to thrive. Then years of ridding the country of such corruption (at least as far as Italy's concerned, it certainly wouldn't meet British standards of a corruption free system) has finally resulted in relatively stable government, though a far from blistering economy. Still, as the selling of the defence part of an Italian government-owned engineering company to Carlyle shows, there are real ties to the US administration which suggests why Berlusconi went into Iraq with them.
I'm afraid that I can't really go much further than to say that it does appear to be a mixture of interconnected interests, tactics and aims that have brought nations round to a right-wing angle but I must say I have not forgotten that Bush lost the popular vote and that there are still many millions of people in each country who have not been seduced. I can only hope that more people see through the right-wing folly and begin to throw them out. A good place to start, of course, would be Bush.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Afghan vote boycott creates turmoil
BBC NEWS World South Asia Afghan vote boycott creates turmoil
So we see how hard it really is to force democracy on a never democratic country. A democracy invades a tyranny and we get this complete and utter mess. Deaths daily, a country so unstable the unelected president can only venture outside the capital once to campaign and then the election process itself brings about a massive candidate boycott. Let's hear Bush brag about this.
So we see how hard it really is to force democracy on a never democratic country. A democracy invades a tyranny and we get this complete and utter mess. Deaths daily, a country so unstable the unelected president can only venture outside the capital once to campaign and then the election process itself brings about a massive candidate boycott. Let's hear Bush brag about this.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
About bloody time he said this. I think if any does know then he should! I've been saying this since the invasion began.
About bloody time he said this. I think if any does know then he should! I've been saying this since the invasion began.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Things better for me, God knows about the rest.
Well, at last I get broadband and I also get a laptop and digital camera. And a job. And a car. And prospects and I start writing scripts again. It's all going on.
That said. Into the world, which this blog is more about than anything else, and things are getting worse. The media constantly banging on about rapist lottery winners and dodgy vaccinations and the like. Then look at the state of Iraq and Blair suggesting they treat the unelected Prime Minister of Iraq (who was put into power after an illegal invasion) as guest of honour at the Labour party conference!
Utterly astonishing. The good news in the US is that there appears to be a growing groundswell of people trying their damndest to stop Bush getting elected. Michael Moore, of course, pulling out all the stops. Releasing the DVD of Farenheit 9/11 and a book of supportive letters from US servicemen just before the election cannot fail but have an effect. Plus, the other campaign groups involved quite diverse public figures provides some hope.
Make no mistake, this Bush administration (especially a certain Karl Rove ) is a dark and ruthless one. Hence the very suspicious anti-Kerry ads causing Kerry to file a complaint. Problem is, once they're out, they're out.
More consistent enrichment of the oil companies in the $49 barrel. They are making obscene profits on this. The value of which sometimes equates to several countries' entire government budgets.
Here is more dodginess: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6776.htm
Never mind the collosal amounts of book cooking going on in the Pentagon anyway: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL
Sheesh.
It's late...Bed for me.
That said. Into the world, which this blog is more about than anything else, and things are getting worse. The media constantly banging on about rapist lottery winners and dodgy vaccinations and the like. Then look at the state of Iraq and Blair suggesting they treat the unelected Prime Minister of Iraq (who was put into power after an illegal invasion) as guest of honour at the Labour party conference!
Utterly astonishing. The good news in the US is that there appears to be a growing groundswell of people trying their damndest to stop Bush getting elected. Michael Moore, of course, pulling out all the stops. Releasing the DVD of Farenheit 9/11 and a book of supportive letters from US servicemen just before the election cannot fail but have an effect. Plus, the other campaign groups involved quite diverse public figures provides some hope.
Make no mistake, this Bush administration (especially a certain Karl Rove ) is a dark and ruthless one. Hence the very suspicious anti-Kerry ads causing Kerry to file a complaint. Problem is, once they're out, they're out.
More consistent enrichment of the oil companies in the $49 barrel. They are making obscene profits on this. The value of which sometimes equates to several countries' entire government budgets.
Here is more dodginess: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6776.htm
Never mind the collosal amounts of book cooking going on in the Pentagon anyway: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL
Sheesh.
It's late...Bed for me.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
So Blair has not only sexed up the WMD claims "in good faith" but also the known and provable atrocities. Can we get just one straight fact about Iraq from this man?
The spinning of truth, the hyping of third-hand estimates and "evidence" continues so that Blair can cling on to some figleaf of "justification" for this illegal and still deadly invasion.
Also, you may have missed it that the provisional Iraqi PM has allegedly shot 6 prisoners with his own gun "to prove a point". Nice.
Go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info to find a link to the story and further background on Allawi.
So Blair has not only sexed up the WMD claims "in good faith" but also the known and provable atrocities. Can we get just one straight fact about Iraq from this man?
The spinning of truth, the hyping of third-hand estimates and "evidence" continues so that Blair can cling on to some figleaf of "justification" for this illegal and still deadly invasion.
Also, you may have missed it that the provisional Iraqi PM has allegedly shot 6 prisoners with his own gun "to prove a point". Nice.
Go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info to find a link to the story and further background on Allawi.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
The Happy Coat
A mad, nonsense (in the Lewis Carroll sense) rhyming story I wrote
when bored at work a few months back. For any US readers who may not
have come across the phrase "Am Dram", it means Amateur Dramatics -
i.e. amateur theater.
--------------------
The Happy Coat
Pam the Am Dram fan who did plays about spam walked past a shop for
fops with chopped poptarts in the window. She sighed as she spied her
dyed hair (a colour shared with Cher and the hair bear bunch)
reflected in the window. She hated that her mate had over rated the
stuff when she stated she'd bought a crate if it.
She was feeling down, looking down at her brown shoes, which cost a
pound and made her feet bark like hounds. Then she saw a store with
more than she bargained for. A big coat with a note, on which was
wrote "Stoat lovers should gloat wearing this dead cheap coat". I love
stoats and weasels squealed Pam who's mind reeled at the deal.
She went in and binned the thin tin shinguard she was wearing and
spinned her yarn about farms, barns and stoats. She got the coat and
she did gloat like a boat with a new coat of paint. She was happy.
Time went by in units I can't rhyme and by the time she was in her
prime her mime act had got her sacked and the odds were stacked
against her. The fact was the coat she backed was lacking the knack to
help her crack a smile. So she sold the old coat, folded in a jelly
mould, to a bold soldier with a cold. He was Stan, a man with a Gran
who ran an african bran shop in Oman. His cold began when another man
sneezed on his flan and ran away. He was miffed that he'd felt iffy
and had sniffed and coughed for days. But the coat made him happy.
He loved his coat so much it shoved Doves off the number one spot
(second was crop tops on top popstars). His coat made him feel blest
and he tested how rested he would feel if he nested in bed in it. It
made him smile, feeling nine miles high but then he got piles.
Out of work and realising he'd been a berk he had to shirk the coat.
Thrown away, the coat swayed an amazed radio ham (who wrote plays
about spam) who was passing and was a massive bluegrass fan. As it was
Christmas he passed it off as a crass present for Cass, his last
girlfriend. She was depressed cause she'd messed up a dress in a
trouser press with excess pressure. She took the coat cause it looked
like one in a book. A crooked duke in this book had worn it to spook
his cook, who's cooking was puke, but died in a fluke hook accident.
Cass was happy.
Later, she dated and estate agent and his mate in a spate of dates she
hated. She wasn't well, she felt like hell and felt like she'd been
pelted by melted egg shells. She put the coat on Ebay, saying it was a
ray of light, in spite of the way she hated it. And there it stays to
this day waiting until they want it. Constantly reposted on Ebay for
days and days and days.
If you're sad or feeling bad because of some cad or lad you had the
hots for, this coat might make you happy. But not for long.
when bored at work a few months back. For any US readers who may not
have come across the phrase "Am Dram", it means Amateur Dramatics -
i.e. amateur theater.
--------------------
The Happy Coat
Pam the Am Dram fan who did plays about spam walked past a shop for
fops with chopped poptarts in the window. She sighed as she spied her
dyed hair (a colour shared with Cher and the hair bear bunch)
reflected in the window. She hated that her mate had over rated the
stuff when she stated she'd bought a crate if it.
She was feeling down, looking down at her brown shoes, which cost a
pound and made her feet bark like hounds. Then she saw a store with
more than she bargained for. A big coat with a note, on which was
wrote "Stoat lovers should gloat wearing this dead cheap coat". I love
stoats and weasels squealed Pam who's mind reeled at the deal.
She went in and binned the thin tin shinguard she was wearing and
spinned her yarn about farms, barns and stoats. She got the coat and
she did gloat like a boat with a new coat of paint. She was happy.
Time went by in units I can't rhyme and by the time she was in her
prime her mime act had got her sacked and the odds were stacked
against her. The fact was the coat she backed was lacking the knack to
help her crack a smile. So she sold the old coat, folded in a jelly
mould, to a bold soldier with a cold. He was Stan, a man with a Gran
who ran an african bran shop in Oman. His cold began when another man
sneezed on his flan and ran away. He was miffed that he'd felt iffy
and had sniffed and coughed for days. But the coat made him happy.
He loved his coat so much it shoved Doves off the number one spot
(second was crop tops on top popstars). His coat made him feel blest
and he tested how rested he would feel if he nested in bed in it. It
made him smile, feeling nine miles high but then he got piles.
Out of work and realising he'd been a berk he had to shirk the coat.
Thrown away, the coat swayed an amazed radio ham (who wrote plays
about spam) who was passing and was a massive bluegrass fan. As it was
Christmas he passed it off as a crass present for Cass, his last
girlfriend. She was depressed cause she'd messed up a dress in a
trouser press with excess pressure. She took the coat cause it looked
like one in a book. A crooked duke in this book had worn it to spook
his cook, who's cooking was puke, but died in a fluke hook accident.
Cass was happy.
Later, she dated and estate agent and his mate in a spate of dates she
hated. She wasn't well, she felt like hell and felt like she'd been
pelted by melted egg shells. She put the coat on Ebay, saying it was a
ray of light, in spite of the way she hated it. And there it stays to
this day waiting until they want it. Constantly reposted on Ebay for
days and days and days.
If you're sad or feeling bad because of some cad or lad you had the
hots for, this coat might make you happy. But not for long.
Farenheit 9/11
OK, so I finally got to see Michael Moore's latest opus and it was, as a
film, not quite as good as Bowling for Columbine but the content and the
power was definitely there.
I have researched Bush quite a bit and can confidently vouch for every fact
presented in F9/11. Few facts presented were not already known to me but it
is important that a film, or some other mainstream media channel, clearly
bound them all together to show people why Bush has got to go and the
methods he'll use to stop himself from being kicked out.
I'm not one to post my flag on a commentators like Michael Moore. I only
link to his site because it is accessible and full of facts and stories
worth knowing. Moore the man does not interest me in the least. His approach
is a little too overtly manipulative but his points are very valid. I'm and
atheist and find it gratifying that a committed Catholic can come to very
similar world view conclusions to mine using a wholly different route.
If you want some sober, even more well researched and even more cogent
arguments try Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and their ilk.
If you want to see what many Republicans think of Bush, try reading some
Republican internet magazines, you'll find senior Republicans are very
worried about what Bush is doing.
Look at the many former US and UK diplomats vocally and jointly protesting,
the former CIA, military and FBI men screaming until they're hoarse about
the shocking, appalling things the administration has done, both policywise
and in how they run the government.
What was important in F9/11 was in how he demonstrated that the Patriot Act
and the massive military budget increases and the illegal wars Bush has
started are not and never were to do with safeguarding the American in the
street. National Security does not need the Patriot Act.
The cutbacks on policing and border patrol, the cutbacks on veteran and
serving military personnel benefits and pay that Bush wanted - and sometimes
pushed through - shows you this. The fact that the Bush administration
reportedly wants to collapse Iran's government shows how expansive their
ambitions are. They don't want to set up a friendly government for the "sake
of the Iranians", they want to secure the oil and make sure the Middles East
as far as possible, toes the US line under threat of their now substantial
military presence.
We cannot allow Bush to continue this way. His Neo-con slimeballs are going
to wreck not only America but huge swathes of the world (and that's not
counting the suicidal environmental policies) if they are allowed to
continue for another 5 years. I urge you to see F9/11 if only to see a good
film. But it must have some affect on you. My girlfriend felt physically
sick with fear and anger after seeing it.
Rant over. :)
film, not quite as good as Bowling for Columbine but the content and the
power was definitely there.
I have researched Bush quite a bit and can confidently vouch for every fact
presented in F9/11. Few facts presented were not already known to me but it
is important that a film, or some other mainstream media channel, clearly
bound them all together to show people why Bush has got to go and the
methods he'll use to stop himself from being kicked out.
I'm not one to post my flag on a commentators like Michael Moore. I only
link to his site because it is accessible and full of facts and stories
worth knowing. Moore the man does not interest me in the least. His approach
is a little too overtly manipulative but his points are very valid. I'm and
atheist and find it gratifying that a committed Catholic can come to very
similar world view conclusions to mine using a wholly different route.
If you want some sober, even more well researched and even more cogent
arguments try Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and their ilk.
If you want to see what many Republicans think of Bush, try reading some
Republican internet magazines, you'll find senior Republicans are very
worried about what Bush is doing.
Look at the many former US and UK diplomats vocally and jointly protesting,
the former CIA, military and FBI men screaming until they're hoarse about
the shocking, appalling things the administration has done, both policywise
and in how they run the government.
What was important in F9/11 was in how he demonstrated that the Patriot Act
and the massive military budget increases and the illegal wars Bush has
started are not and never were to do with safeguarding the American in the
street. National Security does not need the Patriot Act.
The cutbacks on policing and border patrol, the cutbacks on veteran and
serving military personnel benefits and pay that Bush wanted - and sometimes
pushed through - shows you this. The fact that the Bush administration
reportedly wants to collapse Iran's government shows how expansive their
ambitions are. They don't want to set up a friendly government for the "sake
of the Iranians", they want to secure the oil and make sure the Middles East
as far as possible, toes the US line under threat of their now substantial
military presence.
We cannot allow Bush to continue this way. His Neo-con slimeballs are going
to wreck not only America but huge swathes of the world (and that's not
counting the suicidal environmental policies) if they are allowed to
continue for another 5 years. I urge you to see F9/11 if only to see a good
film. But it must have some affect on you. My girlfriend felt physically
sick with fear and anger after seeing it.
Rant over. :)
Rain, Rain go way!
This summer has been utter crap for the weather. I live in the North
East of England and it has rained more than at any time of year I have
ever known.
It makes you think about whether this is significant in regards to
climate or just a rubbish summer. Saved a fortune in car wash bills, I
can tell you!
On another note, I started listening more to Radio 4 for some reason.
I've always known it was a good service but it really is like a TV
channel on the radio. I have a feeling I'm going to be listening more
to it. Never thought I'd say that before I'm 30.
This is done by email so I think this is the best way to post entries
on this blog whilst I'm on dialup. So I should be posting a bit more
regularly very soon.
East of England and it has rained more than at any time of year I have
ever known.
It makes you think about whether this is significant in regards to
climate or just a rubbish summer. Saved a fortune in car wash bills, I
can tell you!
On another note, I started listening more to Radio 4 for some reason.
I've always known it was a good service but it really is like a TV
channel on the radio. I have a feeling I'm going to be listening more
to it. Never thought I'd say that before I'm 30.
This is done by email so I think this is the best way to post entries
on this blog whilst I'm on dialup. So I should be posting a bit more
regularly very soon.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Propaganda - let's use when it is accurate in ALL circumstances
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Mike's Latest News
Damn good article. Why don't the media label government messages propaganda? Why only critical polemic? I'm not arguing for Michael Moore, I'm just arguing the case of the article. Which, to me, makes complete sense. The media always fall into this lazy trap and it bugs the hell out of me.
Damn good article. Why don't the media label government messages propaganda? Why only critical polemic? I'm not arguing for Michael Moore, I'm just arguing the case of the article. Which, to me, makes complete sense. The media always fall into this lazy trap and it bugs the hell out of me.
Death Blamed on Mushroom
I'm a massive fan of Brass Eye - I've mentioned it at least once on this blog - and I always delight in seeing instances in the media that are pure Brass Eye. The headline above is an example. This is a real headline in the local paper from a few days ago.
I confess, it's mainly local news - TV and Papers - that fall into the B.E. trap but it's always hilarious.
I've just watched the Channel 4 show about the lives and history of camp entertainers and it really brings home to you how fortunes have constantly ebbed and flowed for gay performers and, indeed, gay people. As is usually the case, lesbians were utterly ignored. The fact that they have had to fight much harder to secure any kind of sensible response from the press and public was totally unaddressed. There is still only one lesbian performer high in the public mind, you know who I mean. A rather desultory number when you look at Paul O'Grady, Graham Norton, Dale Winton, Julian Clary, Boy George, Brian Dowling, Matt Lucas, (allegedly) Sean Hughes, etc. who can be reeled off almost subconsciously.
I just discovered Peter Ackroyd (he who authored London, a Biography) is gay. Just one of those things I didn't quite expect. Not that it matters.
But I do really admire Paul o'Grady. Partly because he embodies what TV people should be - themselves - but partly the very clever and disciplined way in which he carved his career. Writing reams of material and catering it at exactly the right level for the audience in hand. This Morning he brought the house down but never got the ITC rapping on their door. On the Big Breakfast he was great but never slipped up and got the tone right their, too, whilst still staying true to the Lilly character.
Now he is just Paul but this generally equates to Lilly sans fishnets. His travelogues are completely honest, not glossy or rye, just "what Paul did when he visited Bangkok/New York/Japan". They are riotously funny but you still don't hate him when he gets into a rant. You just admire that he doesn't give a shit about the cameras and is not ashamed to admit he can be as grumpy as any human mind can conceive at times. But who isn't, at times?
I'm not writing at all at the moment. It's horrible but I'm so full of "get a job, get a job" and "sort this out and that out and get that money" that nothing funny or particularly original can poke through. Some of my unfinished pieces have real potential but I just don't have it at the moment due to all these other pressures. Three interviews next week, so hopefully by the week after you have a new Schoolboy typing at you. Fully employed once more....
I confess, it's mainly local news - TV and Papers - that fall into the B.E. trap but it's always hilarious.
I've just watched the Channel 4 show about the lives and history of camp entertainers and it really brings home to you how fortunes have constantly ebbed and flowed for gay performers and, indeed, gay people. As is usually the case, lesbians were utterly ignored. The fact that they have had to fight much harder to secure any kind of sensible response from the press and public was totally unaddressed. There is still only one lesbian performer high in the public mind, you know who I mean. A rather desultory number when you look at Paul O'Grady, Graham Norton, Dale Winton, Julian Clary, Boy George, Brian Dowling, Matt Lucas, (allegedly) Sean Hughes, etc. who can be reeled off almost subconsciously.
I just discovered Peter Ackroyd (he who authored London, a Biography) is gay. Just one of those things I didn't quite expect. Not that it matters.
But I do really admire Paul o'Grady. Partly because he embodies what TV people should be - themselves - but partly the very clever and disciplined way in which he carved his career. Writing reams of material and catering it at exactly the right level for the audience in hand. This Morning he brought the house down but never got the ITC rapping on their door. On the Big Breakfast he was great but never slipped up and got the tone right their, too, whilst still staying true to the Lilly character.
Now he is just Paul but this generally equates to Lilly sans fishnets. His travelogues are completely honest, not glossy or rye, just "what Paul did when he visited Bangkok/New York/Japan". They are riotously funny but you still don't hate him when he gets into a rant. You just admire that he doesn't give a shit about the cameras and is not ashamed to admit he can be as grumpy as any human mind can conceive at times. But who isn't, at times?
I'm not writing at all at the moment. It's horrible but I'm so full of "get a job, get a job" and "sort this out and that out and get that money" that nothing funny or particularly original can poke through. Some of my unfinished pieces have real potential but I just don't have it at the moment due to all these other pressures. Three interviews next week, so hopefully by the week after you have a new Schoolboy typing at you. Fully employed once more....
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Shitty Dial-up!
Haven't blogged properly for a bit. Why? I've been forced onto dial-up. So far I don't know how long but the more I've had broadband, the more the dial-up experience is unbearable.
I'm spoiled, I know. But you just can't be arsed surfing with this sort of speed. It's all you can do to sit and wait for emails to turn up. They take over a minute in themselves!
Anyway, should my circumstances improve, I'll blog more regularly. I can't even face forums as the page load times piss me off so much.
Fingers tightly crossed that my new abode will avail me of broadband. But until then I'm suffering a much curtailed Web experience. Thank God the Internet is not my life or I'd be a gibbering wreck by now.
Of course, meanwhile, loads has happened out there in the world. Iraq is still a bit of a sow's ear and Saudi is finally finding it impossible to fend off terrorists with bribes. High oil, and many other juicy subjects. But my forum and detailed responses will just have to wait until I a) have the time to ponce about on Dial-up or b) get broadband.
I'm spoiled, I know. But you just can't be arsed surfing with this sort of speed. It's all you can do to sit and wait for emails to turn up. They take over a minute in themselves!
Anyway, should my circumstances improve, I'll blog more regularly. I can't even face forums as the page load times piss me off so much.
Fingers tightly crossed that my new abode will avail me of broadband. But until then I'm suffering a much curtailed Web experience. Thank God the Internet is not my life or I'd be a gibbering wreck by now.
Of course, meanwhile, loads has happened out there in the world. Iraq is still a bit of a sow's ear and Saudi is finally finding it impossible to fend off terrorists with bribes. High oil, and many other juicy subjects. But my forum and detailed responses will just have to wait until I a) have the time to ponce about on Dial-up or b) get broadband.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
BBC NEWS | Business | Petrol prices reach 80p a litre
BBC NEWS | Business | Petrol prices reach 80p a litre
I'm about to buy a car but don't let that worry you. This sort of price will be peanuts in comparison to the price we'll be facing in 20 years time.
You wait. I don't intend to own a car past 2010.
This is really just the start. If I had something to gain from saying this I'd hope you'd ignore this but I don't.
I got a call a few weeks ago from an American cold-caller pretending to have heard that I own shares. He asked when the last time was I had bought stock. I said never (after a second of complete confusion and wondering how to answer). He said, "Your kidding! Really?", (like I'd said I'd never circumcized my child). I said, "yes". And he quickly finished the call. This to me shows what America has become.
Even if I had the spare cash to invest in stocks, the last 24 months persuaded me never to blindly invest cash into stocks as long as I can make out colours. The fact that this "caller" thought it was barely credible that I didn't throw money at the stock market shows where America has gone and how we must think very carefully about how the country's values have been molded. Stocks are a con that the rich and the rich alone benefit from. The poor (i.e. the bottom 50%) have only lost in the last 15 years and the crashes only go to prove this.
Call me a socialist if you want. I merely think that financial advice should be regulated on both directions, not just on investment. Only investment seems to get any kind of regulation (however, half hearted) whilst borrowing (i.e. debt) gets barely a thought. Why? Because it is with debt that corporations really get their profits. It is debt that fuels the economy. That's why there is so much pressure for the ordinary American to risk his earnings and his pension on the roulette of stocks. When he loses his money he has to borrow more to get by (profits result for companies). If he doesn't lose, the money is still "owned" by the corporations for their use.
See, it all makes sense now.
I'm about to buy a car but don't let that worry you. This sort of price will be peanuts in comparison to the price we'll be facing in 20 years time.
You wait. I don't intend to own a car past 2010.
This is really just the start. If I had something to gain from saying this I'd hope you'd ignore this but I don't.
I got a call a few weeks ago from an American cold-caller pretending to have heard that I own shares. He asked when the last time was I had bought stock. I said never (after a second of complete confusion and wondering how to answer). He said, "Your kidding! Really?", (like I'd said I'd never circumcized my child). I said, "yes". And he quickly finished the call. This to me shows what America has become.
Even if I had the spare cash to invest in stocks, the last 24 months persuaded me never to blindly invest cash into stocks as long as I can make out colours. The fact that this "caller" thought it was barely credible that I didn't throw money at the stock market shows where America has gone and how we must think very carefully about how the country's values have been molded. Stocks are a con that the rich and the rich alone benefit from. The poor (i.e. the bottom 50%) have only lost in the last 15 years and the crashes only go to prove this.
Call me a socialist if you want. I merely think that financial advice should be regulated on both directions, not just on investment. Only investment seems to get any kind of regulation (however, half hearted) whilst borrowing (i.e. debt) gets barely a thought. Why? Because it is with debt that corporations really get their profits. It is debt that fuels the economy. That's why there is so much pressure for the ordinary American to risk his earnings and his pension on the roulette of stocks. When he loses his money he has to borrow more to get by (profits result for companies). If he doesn't lose, the money is still "owned" by the corporations for their use.
See, it all makes sense now.
Friday, May 07, 2004
War war warwarwarwarwarwarwar...
So we see two wars started by a megapower continuing. We see politicians pretending things are going in a bearable fashion whilst they try to scrub the public memory of what has gone before.
Let us not forget that America failed in Korea and failed in Vietnam. America now decides to start two more illegal wars and are making a complete hash of it yet again.
Afghanistan is something that the media has generally lost interest in but it is just as hellish as ever. Sure, the Taliban are banished from Kabul (except their former foreign minister who is part of the new unelected government) but they are in control of swathes of country and the rest is largely the domain of warlords. Women are still subject to the usual discrimination over the majority of the country and Afghanistan is once more the number one grower of Westerner-killing heroin. Woo Hoo!
Now we have Rumsfeld (resign, resign) coming to Congress and saying so much rubbish you would think he had taken some form of lie serum. The abuse of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners is clearly not isolated and clearly not something they care too much about. They didn't seem to care until it was about to hit the media.
The one single positive that can be pulled from the current circumstances is that it could bring to an end Bush's frightening, failing and terrible presidency.
Believe me, my fingers are crossed.
So we see two wars started by a megapower continuing. We see politicians pretending things are going in a bearable fashion whilst they try to scrub the public memory of what has gone before.
Let us not forget that America failed in Korea and failed in Vietnam. America now decides to start two more illegal wars and are making a complete hash of it yet again.
Afghanistan is something that the media has generally lost interest in but it is just as hellish as ever. Sure, the Taliban are banished from Kabul (except their former foreign minister who is part of the new unelected government) but they are in control of swathes of country and the rest is largely the domain of warlords. Women are still subject to the usual discrimination over the majority of the country and Afghanistan is once more the number one grower of Westerner-killing heroin. Woo Hoo!
Now we have Rumsfeld (resign, resign) coming to Congress and saying so much rubbish you would think he had taken some form of lie serum. The abuse of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners is clearly not isolated and clearly not something they care too much about. They didn't seem to care until it was about to hit the media.
The one single positive that can be pulled from the current circumstances is that it could bring to an end Bush's frightening, failing and terrible presidency.
Believe me, my fingers are crossed.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
I just saw Kevin Eldon walk past me in Holborn today. I was dead chuffed. Haven't seen someone I actually like that's famous in the street for ages. The last vaguely public figure was Lord Robertson, used to run NATO, walking about. I thought it odd that he had no bodyguard but what do I know.
Still, I got a real buzz seeing Kevin wander around. In case you don't have much interest in left-field comedy performers (which will probably be most of you) Kevin Eldon is a regular on shows written by the Baby Cow/Chris Morris clique of actors. He's on normally anything Steve Coogan, Graham Linehan, Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynham, Rob Brydon, Chris Morris, Julia Davis and (when together in the early to late 90s) Lee and Herring did/do. Which, let's face it, is the most exciting set of 90s comedians in the country.
Kevin initially delighted me with the demented Simon, the hobby guy who always accompanied his adventures with a shot of "weak lemon drink". If you asked someone in the street about Kevin Eldon you'd most likely get a blank look but show him a photo and you'd probably get a flash of recognition, even if they wouldn't be able to say what show he was in (he's in so many).
I seriously admire someone who can do such varied characters as the pointlessly jolly, racist kitchen salesman in I'm Alan Partridge, the deliciously creepy Cleaner in Black Books ("Dirty" has never been spoken so well), cuckholded Terry in Nighty Night, and, of course, the innumerable sketch parts in Jam, Brasseye and Big Train. Once my private life settles down I serious hope to write something (more an ambition than anything likely - I'm not demented) that Kevin can be in.
Then I'd know I'm writing something really decent.
Still, I got a real buzz seeing Kevin wander around. In case you don't have much interest in left-field comedy performers (which will probably be most of you) Kevin Eldon is a regular on shows written by the Baby Cow/Chris Morris clique of actors. He's on normally anything Steve Coogan, Graham Linehan, Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynham, Rob Brydon, Chris Morris, Julia Davis and (when together in the early to late 90s) Lee and Herring did/do. Which, let's face it, is the most exciting set of 90s comedians in the country.
Kevin initially delighted me with the demented Simon, the hobby guy who always accompanied his adventures with a shot of "weak lemon drink". If you asked someone in the street about Kevin Eldon you'd most likely get a blank look but show him a photo and you'd probably get a flash of recognition, even if they wouldn't be able to say what show he was in (he's in so many).
I seriously admire someone who can do such varied characters as the pointlessly jolly, racist kitchen salesman in I'm Alan Partridge, the deliciously creepy Cleaner in Black Books ("Dirty" has never been spoken so well), cuckholded Terry in Nighty Night, and, of course, the innumerable sketch parts in Jam, Brasseye and Big Train. Once my private life settles down I serious hope to write something (more an ambition than anything likely - I'm not demented) that Kevin can be in.
Then I'd know I'm writing something really decent.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US air strike hits Falluja mosque
Bombing mosques now. Oh boy. The yanks really can't get anything right in the middle east, can they. I have warned for months that this sort of thing was likely and now they bomb a mosque. This will never end if one side doesn't give. The question now remains, Who will cave in and when?
Will we ever see free and fair elections in Iraq? Who can say, but it has never looked very likely.
Bombing mosques now. Oh boy. The yanks really can't get anything right in the middle east, can they. I have warned for months that this sort of thing was likely and now they bomb a mosque. This will never end if one side doesn't give. The question now remains, Who will cave in and when?
Will we ever see free and fair elections in Iraq? Who can say, but it has never looked very likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)