A Zero Sum Game

If you haven't yet seen it, I advise watching last night's Question Time with first ever BNP panellist Nick Griffin.

I have always supported this move. I have no sympathy for Griffin, or ANYONE who voted for the BNP for whatever reason, it is simply inexcusable. But having these views and policies clarified, exposed to informed and rigorous public debate and eventually shown for the toss that they are is the best way to undermine movements like this. Anyone who, after such an examination, still supports them is beyond help, and quite frankly can fuck off out of the political system. Sadly, we didn't get such an examination tonight, certainly not in an undiluted form. The show cannot be said to have been a resounding success for several reasons:

• Griffin was all too often shouted down or heckled instead of being calmly and logically dismantled, as would have been easy to do on more or less every occasion.
• There was still far too much political point scoring by all three of the major parties, in the vein of "Oooo, it was the Tories who started this" and "Errr, it's Labour's fault that..."
• When directly questioned about the reason for the BNP's rise in power and popularity, not one of the MPs, especially not Jack Straw, put their hands up and said "Well, we ALL dropped the ball. That's how this happened. Our people feel disenfranchised and disconnected from politics and that is everyone's fault, government and not."
• The audience were bordering on loutish at times - stupidities like the "Dick Griffin" comment are not only childish and facile, but such vacuous and emotional attacks can only help to foster the "man under seige" image which will empower, rather than weaken, the BNP.
• The protestors outside were ironically trying to curtail freedom of speech by preventing a democratically elected politician from appearing, by invitation, on the show. The irony comes because they did this under the banner of "Unite Against Fascism". What is more fascistic than using fear and intimidation to censor and silence those with whom you don't agree?Griffin was absolutely right when said that they were "attacking the rights of millions of people to listen to what I've got to say and listen to me being called to account by other politicians". That is, after all, the point of Question Time.

Furthermore, the protest and the subsequent fallout has brought various idiots out of the woodwork, as you can see in this BBC article here:

"Also in the crowd was Lia Deyal, 62, who works with immigrants and asylum seekers.

She was clear that a Question Time appearance gave Mr Griffin a new political status she was unhappy with.

"Question Time is a very legitimate programme and the BBC represents the British people," she said. "So by having him on it's making his voice legitimate and that's exactly what he wants."

I totally reject arguments about an appearance on Question Time "giving legitimacy" to the BNP, as peddled by Lia Deyal and the frankly absurd Peter Hain - if the British public really are that malleable and stupid, then we're all fucked anyway, so what's the point in fighting it? As Bonnie Greer said, the public have more common sense than to be so easily swayed, or so one would hope.

Obviously, there were good things to come out of tonight. Griffin was exposed as a slimy, manipulative, homophobic, paranoid bigot. He barely put an argument together in response to any question or allegation; some of those he did were logically undercut. He clarified some of the beliefs of the party, or attempted to, but was shown to be flip-flopping like a motherfucker, especially with regards to previous quotations. Some of the things he said were outright laughable, such as defending former KKK leader David Duke on the grounds that his chapter had been "non-violent". Bonnie Greer's presence helped enforce the point that you don't have to be in politics to recognise this guy as a fraud and a cunt.

One of the biggest problems of the night though was the audience. This was a West London audience, which is fair enough - London is the capital of the UK, and undoubtedly the most important city within it. Any argument against is simply deluding oneself. But the problem with a London audience is that they are, almost by definition, the sort of multicultural that Griffin is seeking to eradicate. They were never really going to give him a fair cop, because they feel threatened, and the two obviously sympathetic blokes in the audience were swiftly hushed by the overwhelmingly aggressive majority.

I appreciate that it's an issue people get emotional about - I was shaking with adrenaline and anger for much of the show. But we cannot allow emotional responses to rule what should be logical debate. Politics can benefit from passion, but it should never be based upon it. We should always seek to engage people on a primarily intellectual level - granted, there are a great many supporters of the BNP (who knows the precise number) with whom this is not the style to which they are accustomed, and some who are simply incapable of such engagement. Much like the portrayal of the rednecks in South Park, their politics are entirely reactionary, based on primitive and immediate responses to stimuli. Such people we probably have to discount - I can't imagine they are anywhere near numerous enough to be a significant section of the voting populace, or that the time it would take to reeducate them as to how to engage with the world around them would be politically justifiable, though it would almost certainly be worthwhile on a humanitarian level.

The upshot, and the downside, of letting emotion get the better of you is that the audience, and, indeed, some of the panellists, were basically attacking Nick Griffin. Which makes him the underdog. And boy, do we Brits love an underdog! Here are some of the top voted comments by readers about this topic on the BBC Have Your Say forums:

I'm afraid I can't hear you Mr Griffin, the BBC appear to have 'inadvertantly' allowed in a whole bus load of Guardian reading social workers to shout you down from the audience!

Martin, Leeds (approximately 650 recommendations at the time of writing)
______________

If I could get a word in above the howls of protest from idiots in the audience I would ask how he is going to tackle the out of control population problem in the UK, how to curb young idiots in too powerful cars endangering everyone else and how he'll deal with antisocial behaviour. In all cases I would expect a straighforward answer unlike the other main parties who seem happy to watch this country go down the drain happily aided by the PC brigade. The silent majority are fed up!

solomondogs (approximately 550 recommendations at the time of writing)
______________

Would you stop immigration immedietly,because as a normal member of society who is sick of seeing immigrants who have not paid one penny into our once great country,getting every benefit going,and seeing our pensioners struggle to survive.I say this as a proud Briton,who now fears for his childrens future because it is now clear that none of the 3 main parties just dont get it,what problems immigration is doing to to society.

Grumpysleepless, Newcastle (approximately 300 recommendations at the time of writing)

Now these are sad and disturbing, not least because it could lead me to believe, if I had a worse opinion of humanity, that the minority I identified above as basically being beyond help might not be so small. But years of frequenting the BBC forums has both inured me to the idiocy of man and taught me that a good many more people will complain about something than praise it, whatever actual support for something may be. These forums are very much the haunt of the right, so much so that I sometimes suspect the Daily Mail has a link to the BBC on its homepage.

Let me set out my stall right now - I do not read the Guardian or the Independent, they are often stiflingly and cloyingly left, and sometimes filled with an air of smug self-righteousness I cannot abide. Nor do I read the Daily Mail, hate-filled diatribe that it is - it's not fit to wipe my arse with. The Sun caters to such a low common denominator that the presence of any nuance of impartiality, journalistic integrity or skilled writing is like finding a diamond in your cereal - not fucking likely. In fact, I avoid almost all newspapers, and plump for the BBC website. Even if true impartiality is impossible in the relation of any news story, I'd rather read an account that tries to give the facts undiluted by opinion than what is essentially propaganda. If I have to read a paper, I take the Metro, because it's free, or the Times, because it's well written, and its politics do not far deviate from my own.

But to return to the point, these comments are seriously unsettling. Firstly, anyone who claims to represent the silent majority is either a) an idiot, b) being ironic, or c) to be watched very carefully. Coupled with the use of the phrase PC brigade, it would be all too easy to discount this opinion as the solitary rantings of option a). But just shy of 600 people agree with this. It is the second most popular comment about Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, as voted by readers of the BBC forums. So it is not an isolated opinion.

Nor is the most recommended comment, and it's clear, blinkered distaste for the left. Now I consider myself centre-right, or, more precisely, a classically liberal social meritocrat. I have a healthy scepticism for both sides of the fence, as well as the idea of the fence itself. But this comment clearly goes beyond scepticism - it pours scorn on social workers, for Christ's sake, people who dedicate their lives to helping others. And yet 650 people saw fit to agree with this comment. That's 5 times the number of friends the average Facebook user has. This comment leapfrogs scepticism and sublimes right into hatred and contempt, abandoning respect on the way. There are some views not worthy of respect. But to write off the entirety of one's opposition, as is implied here, simply by virtue of their not agreeing with you is sheer madness. It assumes and promotes a self-righteousness that again recalls fascism. It negates the possibilty of proper debate, through which one's own beliefs are tested, and either hold fast, become stronger or are shown to be flawed. Without respect by and for both sides, any chance of growth is lost.

The comment from Newcastle is just as disturbing. Identifying themself as a "normal member of society", whatever that means (presumably 'indigenous' white male), they then propagate the frankly bewildering myth that immigrants are coming here and somehow sliding right into the benefits system unnoticed, rather than doing the jobs most British people feel are beneath them, paying their taxes and contributing hugely to our section of the global economy. There is no evidence to suggest migration has led to an increase in benefit claims. Bottom line, we need immigration, controlled or not. To suggest otherwise is folly.

But for the comments, the worst is yet to come:

Having watched questiontime for many years i am still shocked and disguisted at the obvious prejudice from both panel & audience to Nick Griffin, BNP.
Having viewed this programme i only NOW realise my vote is best spent on the BNP as they have clear ideas on race as this is the only issue discussed and i agree with Nicks views on all points.

Thank you BBC for highlighting what good policies the BNP stand for & believe in!

The argument that the elect voted in frustration is unfounded

GRJ, DERBYSHIRE, UK (170)
______________

Having watched question just now, if ever I needed a reason to vote for Nick Griffin I just got it. I have never before witnessed such hatred directed at one panelist. I was shocked at the lack of control exerted by Dimblebly who seemed to gloat at trying to embaress Nick Griffin. I was hoping to hear contributions from Mr Griffin on a wide range of subjects, all I heard was hate directed at one individual for his non conformist views. Ill vote BNP now for sure.

A Connolly, Manchester (130)

Honestly, I was shocked on first seeing these two comments. But if you read through the reader's recommended pages of the BBC forums, a worrying trend begins to emerge. That love for the underdog I mentioned before is actual turning some people towards the BNP. You might argue that these are the people failing to engage intellectually with the subject matter, and you might be right. You might argue that such people are beyond help. Again, you might be right. You might say it's not a representative sample, that, as I admitted, the BBC forums have an unsettling historical bias to the right. Again, you could well be right. But this doesn't undermine my point - attacking Griffin from an emotional, rather than a logical standpoint is counterproductive. Passion should only complement politics, it should never drive it.

Ultimately, tonight was a missed opportunity. Much has been accomplished, but mistakes have also been made. Ammunition has been handed round to everyone, not least both the BNP and those who would deny them a platform. The BBC took a brave and bold move with this programme, and I believe it was the right one, for the right reasons. But if this is to be repeated, and I hope that it will, lessons will have to be learnt. We cannot allow emotion to rule either the panellists or the audience, or even the chairman, as Dimbleby was often visibly compromised by his feelings on the subjects at hand. The audience must be a more representative sample, and the venue more neutral - London, whilst apparently sensible, was, in some respects, a poor and partisan choice of location for a debate which arguably highlights England's age old North South divide. Dimbleby must also better control the audience, who ran riot a little, and clearly intimdated both the panellists and those among their own number who expressed any dissenting views (see the sharp looks round against the applause for Griffin). The Question Time format must hold strong - too many times tonight the focus swung to Griffin, either as a man under seige or as a slippery and dangerous demagogue. It is such focus, if anything, which will provide him with the much vaunted and sought-after legitimacy.

Some of these problems were foreseeable, some weren't. The BBC will know better next time. And, for the sake of freedom of speech, democracy, intellectual rigour and debate, and, most importantly, for the sake of all those million misguided souls who turned to Nick Griffin as their best option,let us hope that there IS a next time.

I no longer trust the BBC Trust

Mock The Week in trouble

The clip in question

Now I'm not sure whether the BBC Trust watch Mock The Week often, but its humour almost always fulls under the category of "humiliating" and "risked offending the audience". There's nothing really in the clip above which isn't in keeping with the rest of the show.

The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.

They added that the makers of Mock The Week, who allowed sexual innuendo and comments about Adlington's appearance to be included, failed to have an editorial reason for including them

It's true she hasn't courted publicity directly, but neither have many people who are still celebrities. I'm thinking the more private musicians and actors. If you enter a public sphere, and, let's face it, sports are a public sphere, then you're fair game. It's hardly as if they tore her to pieces. Also, the editorial reason for including these comments is that THEY'RE FUCKING HILARIOUS. That's all the reason a comedy show ever really needs.

This is just more of the same bullshit fallout from the Brand/Ross thing - they weren't funny, but the reaction was totally overblown. Some people like edgy humour. People that don't can fuck off, rather than trying to abolish that which isn't intended to appeal to them. Unless there's an actual crime being committed, we should realise allowances need to be made for comedy. People's right to offend is greater than people's right to not be offended.

Now compare that to some of these brilliant outtakes

Butt the fuck out of it

This advert made me so angry I could barely speak or type.

It's entirely the manipulation that makes it disgusting. It's partly the manipulation of the children, who will largely see things in black and white, simplistic terms, and don't appreciate the nuances of such situations. like choice and addiction. It's partly the manipulation of adults who have the legal, social and arguably moral right to choose whether to smoke or not - their body, their decision. You don't see "mum, don't eat so much, I don't want you to die of heart problems" or "mum, don't have so much unprotected sex, I don't your uterus to explode" adverts. So why are smokers villified? It's manipulative because it hinges on an emotional response, rather than a logical or factual one.

It's not the place of adverts to make people want to stop smoking. It's their place to offer help to those who do want to quit.

Right, that's the legacy posts out of the way. Time to bring down the Unions

Anger at Mail plan to hire temps

OK, the thing that really got my blood boiling in this article was this little revelation:

"Employing extra people to do the work of staff who are on strike is illegal under employment law."

I'm sorry, WHAT? That is fucking ridiculous. Obviously I am fundamentally biased, considering I hate strikes of pretty much any description and for any reason, especially financial ones. The only exceptions are general strikes, because that falls more under the line of civil disobedience. But why the fuck should it be illegal to replace the douchebags taking time off, especially temporarily? If their job is so fucking easy that temps can do it for at least minimum wage, then what right do they have to their job?

Quite simply, strikers should be able to be fired. The harder a job is to do, i.e. the more skilled you have to be do it, then the less likely a striking worker is to get fired, as the harder it will be to replace him. But with an easy job, like being a postman, in a broadly free market economy, and especially given we're still in a recession, why shouldn't we be able to tell them to fuck off, and replace them for someone who's happy and willing to do the job as it is? That's free market economics, supply and demand of labour. Hell, I'd probably work as a postman. It pretty much comes down to greed - they're striking over "pay, conditions and postal reforms. " How many other avenues did they really follow before striking? It fucks me right off that we have a culture, and, apparently, a legal system that bends over fucking backwards so far to protect strikers. Granted, we're not France or Italy yet, thank God - Lord Myners, Nick Clegg and various others have both condemned the strike explicitly or otherwise - "unjustified and irresponsible" industrial action, as the BBC paraphrases the Royal Mail.

I know we can't place all the power in the hands of the employer. But even with post-industrialisation and machinery, that can never totally happen - people will always be needed. But there are no safety issues at stake here. Nothing vital. It is greed and stupidity and, dare I say, laziness.

August 20, 2009 Why Some Musical Theatre Matters More Than Others

Much like my Oscar analysis, I'm going to preface my issues with this year's Musical Theatre Matters nominations by saying I sadly did not manage to see many of the musicals on offer at the Fringe this year, certainly nowhere near as many as I'd like to have done. However, I did see A-Team, Princess Cabaret, Baby, Showstopper (8 times), Jerry Springer the Opera, Honk, Merrily We Roll Along, Porn, Gingers, and Facebook,as well as hearing the casts of or excerpts from Over the Threshold, Have A Nice Life, 6 Ways, and Barbershopera.

This is my third successive year at the Fringe, though my first as a performer and not purely a punter. I have seen a lot of good and a lot of bad since I first started seeing shows as a child, but this year, I saw hands down the two worst shows I have ever seen anywhere ever, Fringe or no. A-Team the Musical was one of these shows. I not only do not have words to describe how terrible it was, I'm pretty sure those words have yet to be invented, and will only be said once, right before causing the sudden and catastrophic apocalypse at the end of the world. So the fact that A-Team the Musical has been nominated for Best Book for a New Musical is so far beyond my comprehension that it actually makes Slumdog's Oscar victory seem sensible.

A-Team the Musical was so bad that, in a one hour show, I fell asleep twice, laughed precisely once, and toyed with the idea of leaving every 5 minutes. I only decided against it because I did not want to abandon my equally bored and horrified friend to suffer alone - no doubt he would have walked out too, but he was reviewing it. And yes, he gave it a much deserved one star, though he was tempted by refusing them even that. By contrast, Baby's and Facebook's books were outstanding, though they were by no means the only two of the shows I saw which managed to put together at least a vaguely entertaining or amusing story, something A-Team entirely failed to do.

The second bone I have to pick is with the nomination of Porn the Musical in the Best New Musical category. Now Porn is not the self-indulgent and painful extraction of one's goodwill towards musicals that A-Team is, but it was seriously underwhelming, an almost total disappointment. The music was generally poor (bar the one PHD song), the comedy hackneyed and clumsy and the show just fundamentally crap and predictable - the band, though extremely tight, sounded like a glorified midi keyboard, especially with the twee, synth-heavy arrangements they chose.

The whole show must come under the label of a missed opportunity - they chose to tell a story that coincided with the world of porn, rather than actually engaging with and satirising porn itself, either in the book, the music or the lyrics. The same is partially true of Facebook, but at least their story is engaging. Saying Porn is a contender for the best New Musical is akin to saying drinking your own urine is good for you - even if there's no other option, there's still something fundamentally wrong with it. The logical conclusion would be that there were just a load of shit musicals this year, but I know for a fact that is not the case. I saw Showstopper 8 times, and even on its worst night, it was twice the musical Porn ever was (and 100 times the musical A-Team was).

From what I saw of their Cabaret performances, Over The Threshold will rightly deserve many of these plaudits. I wish Showstopper all the best in their category, and I hope that, where appropriate, George Square is the victor. Chris Grady and the team deserve as much for their sterling work and effort. But I cannot bring myself to support Porn, and I not only wish A-team the very worst of luck, I wish it had stayed a fanboy's dream.

June 09, 2009 1 million idiots, voting for the wrong 'change'

Why they're buying the hype

A sample of the idiocy on display

Let's look at some of these, shall we?

"If somebody votes BNP, it means they are concerned about the uninvited change of the British character and society"

The uninvited change of the British character? How fucking provincial is that? If by uninvited change, you mean immigrants coming over here to do the jobs English people think they're too fucking good to do, I'd say that's an invited change. Or at least I welcome it.

"The nation has spoken in these euro elections. Well done to BNP and UKIP - parties that listen to the man on the street."

If UKIP and the BNP are representative of the man on the street, I'm glad I'm leaving. So xenophobia and barely disguised racism are the norm, are they? Fear of European integration, despite the fact that a federalised Europe is the only way the UK can really compete with the US and China.

"Immigration has changed the very face of this country and in doing so it is breaking apart the very tribal structures that have held our communities together for centuries. The biggest mistake is the labeling of Anit-Immigration people as racist. This has alienated the public even more. This is a crisis brought to us by Labours dnagerous inability to listen to the public. Britain has lost its romance and they want it back."

TRIBAL STRUCTURES!? Has this idiot listened to himself? There's a naturalistic fallacy if ever I've read one - 'oh, we've always been this way, it's tradition. If it ain't broke, why fix it?' Because there's this little thing called progress that everyone's been harping on about, don't know if you caught it mate, but apparently it's the way things GET BETTER! Not all anti-immigration people are called racist - the Tories had some reservations a couple of years ago and the word barely came up. But the US is a nation founded on immigration, and they seem to be doing alright. I agree that labour has problems listening but all this bullshit about romance is ridiculous.

"I can finally see the first signs of dissent amongst the ethnic majority of the British population. For years now the average working Brit has been treated like a second-class citizen in his/her own country."

Oh, the poor, downtrodden white man, totally powerless and can't take it any more. He wants to clean his own toilets, collect his own garbage, go through 7 years of med school to heal his own sick. Why? Not because he actually wants these things, but because when he looks out the window, or walks on the street and sees someone he judges to have not been born here, he gets jealous. That's what it boils down to, and that's why a vote for the BNP and many votes for UKIP are based on idiocy.

"the BNP only have support at all because of continued near-unrestricted immigration into this country, many being economic migrants who send their money out of the UK."

And that's a bad system because...? They have a right (and a duty) to support their family. So either the family comes here, and people whine aboute a strain on services and infrastructure, or they stay wherever they came from, and people whine about money leaving the country. We oughtn't to complain about money earned through hard work going to help the less fortunate, and yes, they are generally less fortunate, even if we're in the middle of our so-called recession. There are British people who are economic migrants to other countries, are we supposed to bring them all back too? What about foreign companies who set up branches here? They send money out of the country, but they still pay their taxes, and they still create jobs, and they still contribute. It's the stupid idea that the majority of immigrants coming here don't contribute, the sort of bullshit myth perpetuated by the BNP, that leads to this stupidity. Hell, we should chuck out all the 'welfare-claiming, teenage chav mothers' first - how are they contributing to Britain? Or are they an example of the traditional British character, the romance, perhaps? I was ashamed to be British when the results came out. Ashamed!

May 17, 2009 Not ageism, just common sense

66 year old mum-to-be

"I don't have to defend what I've done. It's between me, my baby and no-one else."

Sorry, Liz, but you might have to defend it to your baby. Most people cope with their mother's death past 30. By the time your child is out of his or her teenage years, you'll be 87. If you even make it to that age - fit or not, there's a plethora of things that could kill or severely disable you, and the chances are high you'll need serious medical care before the child hits 20. A mother is supposed to care for the child, not the other way round (at least until the child becomes an adult). What kind of burden is that to leave your son or daughter?

Not to mention the social stigma of growing up with a mother who's twice the age of all the other mothers around, and has a face like a man. As a divorcee, there's no father around to help out, either. This is an act of immense selfishness, and maybe she should have stopped to consider that there's a reason she doesn't have a child (like the fact that she's butt ugly).

February 23, 2009 An Oscar Review from the last 10 years, by Unesco Nobel

• 2008
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Paramount & Warner Bros. - Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, Cean Chaffin
  • Frost/Nixon - Universal - Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Eric Fellner
  • Milk - Focus Features - Dan Jinks, Bruce Cohen
  • The Reader - The Weinstein Company - Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti, Redmond Morris
  • Slumdog Millionaire - Fox Searchlight, Warner Bros., Pathe - Christian Colson

Only seen Milk and Slumdog, but Milk is 10 times the film Slumdog is.

• 2007 No Country for Old Men - Miramax & Paramount Vantage - Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
  • Atonement - Focus Features - Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Paul Webster
  • Juno - Fox Searchlight - Lianne Halfon, Mason Novick, Russell Smith
  • Michael Clayton - Warner Bros. - Jennifer Fox, Kerry Orent, Sydney Pollack
  • There Will Be Blood - Paramount Vantage & Miramax - Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Lupi, JoAnne Sellar

All four other films are worthier winners than the empty and vapid blandity of No Country For Old Men. Seen it three times, first time I fell asleep, other times I wish I had.

• 2006 The Departed - Warner Bros. - Graham King
  • Babel - Paramount Vantage - Alejandro González Iñárritu, Steve Golin, Jon Kilik
  • Letters from Iwo Jima - Warner Bros. - Clint Eastwood, Steven Spielberg, Robert Lorenz
  • Little Miss Sunshine - Fox Searchlight - David T. Friendly, Peter Saraf, Marc Turtletaub
  • The Queen - Miramax - Andy Harries, Christine Langan, Tracey Seaward

Have not seen Iwo Jima. The Queen and Babel are only solid films, but still better than the festering pile of shite that is The Departed. A 5 year old could have written that film. Little Miss Sunshine is the stand out piece of genius from that list.

• 2005 Crash - Lions Gate - Paul Haggis, Cathy Schulman
  • Brokeback Mountain - Focus Features - Diana Ossana, James Schamus
  • Capote - United Artists & Sony Pictures Classics - Caroline Baron, William Vince, Michael Ohoven
  • Good Night, and Good Luck. - Warner Bros. - Grant Heslov
  • Munich - DreamWorks & Universal - Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel

Fell asleep during Capote, and have not seen Good Night and Good Luck. That said Munich is a good movie with one of the most amazing and powerful pieces of cinematography I have ever seen (the sex/kidnap juxtaposition scene), and Brokeback mountain is an excellent film. Both tower above Crash, which suffers from the Pulp Fiction "we don't really need a story, just chuck in a load of (not at all) interesting characters and people will care" syndrome.

• 2004 Million Dollar Baby - Warner Bros. - Clint Eastwood, Albert S. Ruddy, Tom Rosenburg
  • The Aviator - Miramax & Warner Bros. - Michael Mann, Graham King
  • Finding Neverland - Miramax - Richard N. Gladstein, Nellie Bellflower
  • Ray - Universal - Taylor Hackford, Stuart Benjamin, Howard Baldwin
  • Sideways - Fox Searchlight - Michael London

It literally hurts my soul that Million Dollar Baby won an Oscar. This was the start of the malaise, the current bad streak, and what a start. I wish I had fallen asleep - oh, for the comforts of the land of nod that Capote and No Country For Old Men provided, rather than the stale and fetid turd of canned manipulative emotion and shitty, unengaging dialogue and action that characterise this film. Ray was passable, though still not Oscar worthy, and I can't claim to have seen The Aviator, Finding Neverland or Sideways, but I find it hard to believe that none of those three is better than Million Dollar Baby...

2000-2003 marked a good streak for the Academy.

• 1999 American Beauty - DreamWorks SKG - Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks
  • The Cider House Rules - Miramax - Richard N. Gladstein
  • The Green Mile - Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Bros. - Frank Darabont, David Valdes
  • The Insider - Touchstone Pictures - Pieter Jan Brugge, Michael Mann
  • The Sixth Sense - Hollywood Pictures - Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel

American Beauty is a very good film. In most years, I would not have contested its place as an Oscar winner. But the Green Mile is a work of absolute cinematic majesty, and all those involved can feel justifiedly robbed, even if by such a staunch contender as American Beauty.

• 1998 Shakespeare in Love - Miramax, Universal - David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick, Marc Norman
  • Elizabeth - PolyGram Filmed Entertainment - Shekhar Kapur, Alison Owen, Eric Fellner, Tim Bevan
  • Life Is Beautiful (La vita è bella) - Miramax - Elda Ferri, Gianluigi Braschi
  • Saving Private Ryan - DreamWorks SKG, Paramount - Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, Gary Levinsohn
  • The Thin Red Line - 20th Century Fox - Robert Michael Geisler, John Roberdeau, Grant Hill

However much love I harbour for Shakespeare, Saving Private Ryan is one of the finest war movies ever made. Shakespeare in Love is an above average rom-com. The difference in comparison to the rest of their respective genres alone should make Saving Private Ryan the clear choice, let alone the direct comparison between the films. I haven't seen La Vita E Bella all the way through, but, by reputation alone, it may well also be a challenger.

From 1998-2007, the Oscars are 4 from 10. We can only hope for better form this time round...

February 06, 2009 Oops, he did it again!

Oh look, Clarkson said something vaguely offensive. Now where's that bandwagon gone?

Quite apart from the fact that, like Brand and Ross, Clarkson's humour and style is well-established, and you'd have to be an idiot not to know it by now, there is slightly more ammunition this time round, what with Top Gear supposedly being a family show. It's not like he swore though, and people who watch the BBC would do well to remember that a) they don't have to watch, b) the BBC is a bus, not a taxi, and c) a lot of people do find him funny. Obviously, it's hard to see how Gordon's Nelsonian tendencies are relevant to his financial and economic nous, although one might, if one were playing on stereotypes (like the prostitute-murdering lorry driver), say that, being a Scot, he's likely to spend all the countries money on booze, or something equally bland. As it is, it's a funny sounding phrase, on a purely sonic, basically linguistic level, which he almost certainly didn't think through, and has apologised for. I still laughed though.

I also have to take issue with some of the reaction, specifically this obviously ridiculous and illogical generalisation:

"But the Royal National Institute for Blind People called the comment was offensive.

"Any suggestion that equates disability with incompetence is totally unacceptable" said chief executive Lesley-Anne Alexander"

Oh really? So if I were to equate paralysis with incompetence in the field of movement, or cystic fibrosis with incompetence at physically rigorous tasks, or blindness with incompetence at driving a truck or piloting a fighter jet, or a subnormal IQ with being a teacher, that would be totally unacceptable? The clue is in the FUCKING WORD! DIS-abled. Meaning there are things which they are NOT ABLE TO DO, at least, in the normal method of doing them. Whatever moral, social or other considerations follow from that are irrelevant - it is clearly idiotic to claim that equating a disability with an incompetence to achieve something is logically coherent in various situations. It is unacceptable to say that a person with a disability would be necessarily be less competent at things not directly affected by their ability, and there are obviously ways in which some people can overcome their disabilities, perhaps even improve on the normal (e.g. Scott Rigbsy). But the statement says "any suggestion". It's almost worse than Clarkson's, because she's a chief executive and has had time to think about it, and yet still come out with a statement that is clearly, demonstrably and logically BULLSHIT!

Also, I hate snow, if you didn't know already. But even more than that, I hate wankers like Simon Fanshawe who think it's alright for kids to lob snowballs at random strangers. Errr, not it's fucking well not, nor is it your Twelfth Night style night of anarchy, your pretentious cunt. It's an invasion of my personal space, my right to choose whether to interact with the snow or not. And since I am obviously (to anyone that knows me) going to choose not to, I don't fucking think it's anyone's right to force it on me regardless, child or not. In my first year, some wankers hurled a snowball the size of my head out of a car window while doing about 30 miles per hour, which hit me between the chest and the face and knocked me on my ass. As Judi James says in the article above, "some adults feel it demeans their dignity". I'll lighten up when I choose to lighten up, before anyone throws the inevitable and tired barb of me taking everything so seriously. It's my choice when to throw what little dignity I have to the wind, not some kid I don't know with a hand full of compacted ice, and not some probably student twats in a car who, being at Warwick, should probably know better...

January 31, 2009 Today's rant is brought to you by… xenophobia

The trouble with porn is...

The trouble with protectionism is...

I am just worried by people, really. The wealth of idiocy and ignorance displayed in these articles/discussions is truly disturbing.

"British jobs for British workers"? Really? What about the free movement of capital and workforce? Maybe we need a bit of recession to bring down prices in the UK - it's in part because of how much it costs to live here that it pays so much to work here, which is why jobs are outsourced, or undercut by migrant workers in the first place. And that very same free movement of capital means the calls to stop them sending money back to their home countries/families are impossible, even if they might have some merit or justification.

As for the neighbourhood idiots, either they knew what was going on when they moved there, they didn't check the nieghbourhood thoroughly enough, or it was subtle enough that they didn't notice. Even if they've lived there before the studio came about, then there's no moral case against it, except the dodgy arguments against pornography as a whole. If it's a legal business, which poses no necessary public nuisance or threat, then he's perfectly within his rights to conduct his business. I think the absurdity of it is shown by exhibit A, Peter Kite, who I can only describe as a fucking idiot. He says:

"The police say it's legal but they don't see everything. If you've got pornography here now, you're going to have prostitution next, you're going to have drugs. In a residential area? No way - no way."

Sorry, what? Have you just crawled out of your neolithic fuckhole before your brain is done evolving? Is your upper-middle class suburbia being threatened by someone with a legitimate business model? Slippery slope much?

It really does get me angry when people are so xenophobic, so afraid of the other, be it foreign workers, or the pornographer next door. Granted, my knowledge of economics is limited, but, as far as I can see, neither case has any logical merit or value of any kind. It is simply the rantings of the small-minded, and I'm pretty sure if I spoke to them face to face, any of their arguments could be dismantled, even if they might not admit it.

January 08, 2009 Ah logic, my frequent companion

Apparently, God probably doesn't exist. Well, it's news to me. Why? Because it's not actually a justified, coherent logical stance. The ASA should in fact hold up this complaint, and you should believe this whether you are religious or not. This is because it is simply not in the power of the British Humanist Association, or any other group or individual for that matter, to assert the probability of God's existence. It's entirely acceptable to say that one does or doesn't believe in God, but to assert as objective fact the probability of the non-existence of something which is substantially outside the human remit of absolute knowledge and understanding is clearly a violation of the code that "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". Where is the documentary evidence for the non-existence of God (which is not specified as the Christian God!)? It simply doesn't exist.

January 07, 2009 You know what drives me crazy…

I've have dreams about doing this very thing, right up till I started learning to drive. Genuinely, I had dreams as young as 10 about taking a car for a joyride and getting caught by the police after hitting a parked car.

The thing that irks me about this article is that the parents are blamed. I'm not saying they're entirely blameless - the boy has obviously played enough driving games to have learnt how to drive, and that's a sad state of affairs for a 6 year old. But I could well have done this, or many of my friends. Are they supposed to hide the keys? Watch their kids 24/7? The only possible case of neglect here is in the mother still being asleep. But I fail to see how that's endangerment. Honestly, it's just a sad, unforseeable scenario. From the information given, I thinking charging the parents with endangering their children and taking the children into care is extreme...

December 06, 2008 Sue me, sue me, what harm could you do me, I'm Chris Martin!

Satriani sues Coldplay

I hope he wins, as well. From the 30 seconds of iTunes preview, there is a passing resemblance, but it's hard to tell how close or not it is. But I just want to see that fucking smug, self-satisfied smile wiped off the cunt Chris Martin's face.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/12/emi-pulls-damni.html

November 28, 2008 The balance of power

Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green arrested

I don't know the details of his contract and obligations, but, if the combined response of the Tories, Lib Dems and some Labour backbenchers is anything to go by, the mark has definitely been overstepped. It also brings to light the conflict between duties - if, as a minister, he comes by information which he truly does believe is in the public interest which has not been released, which is the greater duty, that to his contract or that to his constituents? Look at the leaks mentioned:

• The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
• The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
• A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
• A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime

The middle 2 are perhaps spiteful and risky manoeuvres, but the first and last are most definitely in the sphere of knowledge of public interest. Though it also raises the question of whether he would wish to die by the sword as well - by uncovering information this government wishes to keep secret, he (and Cameron through his endorsement) loses any right to the moral high ground should the same thing happen under a Tory government.

Regardless, it seems an extremely excessive and heavy-handed way to deal with the situation. The obvious overreacting comparison is 1984, and we're not there yet, but it is a step on the way...

November 08, 2008 Retaining the moral high ground

I just watched the film The Kingdom. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. But it got me thinking, not least about the very visceral reactions it caused in me. It's possible this blog will totally undermine me if someone digs it up in the future, or open me up as a target for future attacks, much as if I blogged on my feelings about internet criminals and terrorists and fraudsters (like this story of opportunist cunts, for example). So if you can't bear to see me jeopardise my career, or don't want to lose respect for me due to some unintended offence (unless you're a suicide bomber, in which case fuck you!) then stop reading now. The fact is that the issues are important, and the discussion open and current. In The Kingdom, the chief Saudi investigating officer for a particularly deadly terrorist attack talks about how he is past the point of reason - he simply wishes to kill those responsible. I think this had special resonance for me on the back of rewatching Full Metal Jacket, particularly the scene where Joker executes the sniper to save her from further suffering, despite the fact that she took out three of his friends. I always find myself criticising him for it. The bitch should bleed to death, I think every time, slowly and painfully bleed out. It is a deep betrayal of my Christianity, as it is a step further than an eye for an eye, but if you start shit, you get everything that's coming to you. Or at least, that's the gut response, and that's certainly how I've handled fights (physical ones) in the past.

Putting aside the extreme fucking cowardice of terrorism, I find myself at a hypocrisy, one which is highlighted at the end of The Kingdom (spoilers coming). The final lines are two variations on "Don't worry, we'll kill them all" delivered from either side of the conflict, poignantly undermining much of what appeared to be the ethos of the film whilst pointing out that violence begets more violence. And yet I found myself agreeing entirely with the Saudi officer. The fuckers should die. But why do I feel like that? Watching the terrorists make bombs (as in physically construct them), I wondered how anyone could be a party to something that is an indiscriminate instrument of death, something which cannot be aimed like a gun. A gun can be awful in the wrong hands, but arguably has its place in keeping peace in the world, not least because now that they have been invented and proliferated, I cannot see any path that could lead us back to a time without them. But a bomb full of marbles and nails intended for any passing 'infidel'? It's literally obscene. Their violence is predicated on a version of God who encourages the wholesale slaughter of children and the innocent (though arguably they forsake their innocence by not being Muslim?). That is no worthwhile God. I wholly denounce that God. I know I'm saying nothing new here, that this has been reiterated countless times by countless people since 9/11 etc., but that God has no business in the world. I do not believe that is Allah's wish, nor do most Muslims, or there would doubtless be far more of what we currently label extremists. You can even believe in the eventual global caliphate without recourse to the barbarism and genocide that characterise Islamic, or for that matter any form of religious or political extremism.

But it's the reaction that I want to examine. Because mine is, like the characters of the film, to say "Fuck 'em, kill 'em all!" And why? Because they want to kill me for a God they've twisted beyond all perception. But, as a Christian - granted a deist who doesn't really believe in the Bible is not the best standard bearer for common Christianity, but the basic tenets still hold - surely my desire for retribution makes me no better than them, and worse, a hypocrite! They want to kill me because I believe in a different God (or different version of God). I want to kill them because they're cowardly fucks who will kill innocent people to achieve unjustified aims, and out of anger and pre-emptive self-defence. But since all their reasons for such actions stem from the difference in our Gods, does it not logically follow that I basically want to kill them because they have a different God to me? Not only does that make our basic reasoning identical, it is as more a contradiction of my faith than it is of theirs - God, in my eyes, allows no room for killing, and I do not have the veil of ignorance, or idiotic or misguided misinterpretation to excuse or explain my reactions.

Eventually, any rational system is based on certain basic unprovable assumptions, premises and beliefs. I do not know how they came to their idea of God (though I might hazard a guess). I criticise them, and any extremists, not so much for holding their beliefs but forcing those beliefs on others, but the problem there is that a) that is the natural extension of their particular beliefs, and b) I have as little rational basis for my belief that it is wrong to infringe on personal freedom in such a way as they have for their belief that it is not wrong. There is no recourse to the fact that most people (I almost wrote civilised people there, how fucking colonial of me) don't believe in terrorism, as inter- or universally valid subjectivity does not bring one any closer to objectivity. Populism is not a justification, a million people can be just as wrong as a hundred. Illegality is not a concern either, as their personal moralities, religiously induced as they are, are such that they transcend legal obligation. Mine probably would too - if tomorrow a law was brought in saying there were too many people on the planet and we each needed to go out and kill one person, I'm pretty sure my personal morality would override the law. And since that morality is based on those fundamental subjectivitr principles, we're no closer to an answer. I suppose if there were an obvious answer, or even an unobvious one, it would have been made apparent, publicised and used in dialogue and treatise. If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.

Of course, there is the fact that the reaction is just that, a visceral, animalistic, knee-jerk response to what we perceive of as atrocities and threatening, non-socially acceptable behaviour. We can rise above it to the point where we don't want to kill everyone. Obviously, if in any measure it can be said to be a desire, it's not one I'm actively pursuing. I'm not joining the military, or hunting down terrorists. But if I were given the opportunity to kill a suicide bomber, I'm not sure I wouldn't. Vengeance is an ugly, but powerful thing. I always thought Joker (in Full Metal Jacket) should have shot or cut off each of the bitch's toes and fingers one by one, make her fucking scream in agony like she made 8 Ball, Cowboy and Doc Jay suffer. Not sure I could do it myself, but then, I've never seen my friends shot in front of me. I might feel differently, especially in the heat of the moment. But similar arguments apply for FMJ, except you replace infidels and Islamic extremists with capitalists and communists. Again, those systems, whilst almost entirely rational, are based on the same sorts of unprovable premises and assumptions as religion, like whether we have a duty to help our fellow man, and in what way etc. Perhaps because of their more obvious rational basis, we can come a little closer to objectivity, but it's still fundamentally an exercise in futility, a battle of opinions that can never be solved by logic alone. Is it acceptable to be utlititarian here? I have often said that one of the greatest problems with any great change in a political system, even if it is a perfect system, is that transition. To bring about Plato's republic, for example, one would pretty much require a revolution, probably a bloody one. But, assuming for the moment that it is a perfect system (it's not), could it not be worth it? If one can bring about a perfect system, whereby there is the chance for potentially limitless happiness or contentment from the point at which the system is fully functional, is it not worth a few deaths? A little evil for a greater good? A finite loss for an infinite gain? If that sounds at all familiar, the words Third Reich might jog your memory. Hitler thought he had a perfect system, and was willing to sacrifice to get there. But logically, aren't we obliged to?

Perhaps it depends on the strength of one's convictions - most of us retain some sense of humility, realism or doubt regarding our beliefs, that doubt acting as an inherent check on us forcing those beliefs onto others. But if we were entirely convinced and certain, if we had indisputable knowledge, is it not a moral duty to act on that knowledge if it will benefit others? What separates 'us', then, from 'them' is not so much the type, but the strength of belief. If we all believed the things we do with full conviction, we would all be extremists. Is it arrogance that permits us the high ground, the arrogance we lack that they display? For there is simply no possibility whereby one could gain objective knowledge (except the cogito), even of God. Even a religious experience gives one certainty only for so long as one is having it - as soon as it fades, you're forced to rely on memory, which, as Russell's 5 Minute Universe Hypothesis shows, is wholly unreliable. Could they possibly live their entire lives in a state of religious experience? It seems unlikely, but it is not disprovable. Why God would choose them specifically and not others, and why he would encourage activity most of the world finds reprehensible is nigh on impossible for us to understand, but that could well be just an aspect of God's ineffability, of we as finite, imperfect beings trying to understand an infinite perfection.

So we're not exactly back where we started. We have narrowed it down to one logical possibility which would explain how they might be objectively right or justified in their actions, even if a) that possibility is entirely unprovable, and b) it gives us no definitive answer on whether we can retain the high ground, or even whether there is a high ground to maintain.

And if you read all of that and still don't want to kill me (I'm thinking of you, dad :P), you truly are a friend.

November 07, 2008 ID ID ID hi, ID ID ID ho

People "can't wait for ID cards".

Jacqui Smith:

I believe there is a demand, now, for cards - and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long.

Sorry, but I'm just going to have to call that a bare-faced fucking lie. I have never met anyone, not a single person who thinks these are anything remotely like a good idea, and believe me I have discussed the situation a fair few times. Not only do most of the security experts say they are unworkable in anything like the capacity the government intends, they actually make identity theft easier by localising and collating sensitive data; they are shockingly reminiscent of 1984; and they are an exceedingly fucking unnecessary expense at a time when we need to be cutting back spending. I would gladly rip any cretin who has actually approached Jacqui Smith a new arsehole in a debate, or just knock out the ones too thick to debate. Honestly, either she's flat out lying or there are some fucking idiots about!

November 06, 2008 Yes We Can

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voices could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him, I congratulate Governor Palin, for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the vice-president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House.

And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure. To my sister Maya, my sister Auma, all my other brothers and sisters - thank you so much for all the support you have given me. I am grateful to them.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best political campaign in the history of the United States of America. My chief strategist David Axelrod, who has been a partner with me every step of the way, and to the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; it grew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organised, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for their child's college education. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for 221 years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.

Those are values that we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: "We are not enemies, but friends… though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those who would tear the world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you.

And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the colour of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes, we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes, we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes, we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbour and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes, we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "we shall overcome". Yes, we can.

A man touched down on the Moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes, we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: yes, we can.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

First political speech I can remember in my lifetime that made me cry.

November 03, 2008 Et tu, Brute?

Councils 'ban' use of latin

Any reasonable grounds are totally undermined in that last sentence.

A Campaign spokesman said the ban might stop people confusing the Latin abbreviation e.g. with the word "egg"

I despair for this world sometimes, I really do.

October 12, 2008 He's an Arab!

I really don't know where to start with this (alternate link). McCain surprised me - after all the bullshit rhetoric and agressive swipes that have been coming out of his campaign office recently, to stand up for Barack like that took guts, and just upped his ranking on the respect charts. He's always seemed like a straight shooter, so I felt a little guilty when questioning his motivations for saying so - has he always felt that politics should be respectful and full of mutual admiration, or is he responding to the tone Obama set almost a year ago, when he talked about rising above the slings and arrows of negative politics? I'd like to think it's the former, but the cynic in me disagrees...

Perhaps more worrying is the woman who couldn't trust Obama because he is, I quote, "an Arab"... I don't even know where to start with this, and in fact, I won't unless provoked. Suffice it to say, I despair for the States sometimes.

The most amusing/distressing thing is that, once McCain realises where it is going, he takes the mic back and says "No, mam. He's a decent family man, and citizen"... Surely the implication there is that if he were an Arab, he wouldn't be a decent family man or citizen? O.O

Next week, live from Tunbridge Wells :P

October 07, 2008 It's my dad's fault, honest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7657092.stm

"She said men with primary premature ejaculation tended to be fast reactors generally.

"These men have very quick reflexes. They may be excellent at playing tennis or computer games, for example.""

Well shit... >.< Though that is affirming the consequent - being good at computer games doesn't mean you're premature... Though some people would argue it does show a lack of maturity :P

October 05, 2008 Drugs are bad, mmmkay

Ugh, idiocy on all sides. Stupid residents/gang for pressuring the girl, stupid sister for succumbing to peer pressure and overdosing, but what particularly irks me is the mother. It's not a moral stance, it's brainwashing. Drugs are not evil, and the whole mindset of acting like they are will only encourage people to take them by appeal to their taboo nature. 11 year olds are not idiots - it would be entirely possible to have some degree of logical, nuanced and most of all balanced conversation with her daughter about the positives and negatives of drug use. She could have stopped her hanging out with the other girls because they're too young to be doing drugs, and don't yet understand the consequences or importance of their actions. She could even tell her daughter to wait until she's 18, and old enough to decide for herself. But this self-righteous bullshit totally misses the mark.

"It annoys me when people start talking about kids having the choice not to fall into a gang, because there isn't much choice is there?" said Marie.

"What's the choice? Join in or we'll make your life a total misery?"

Well no. Peer pressure is just that, pressure, not necessity. It is resistable. What's more, it's highly unlikely that everyone else succumbs to it, so why not seek out those who also chose not to take drugs? And if some little brats on the estate are making life hard, then the parents need to step in, or the police if necessary. Just because the community is lax enough to allow some form of mob rule to take hold does not mean you should brainwash your children with one-dimensional, unjustified bullshit.

September 16, 2008 It's not science, and never will be

I find it so hard not to get annoyed at these idiots who drag the name of Christianity through the mud. For once, the government has it right - creationisim, if it is to be taught, belongs in an RE lesson, not in a science classroom. You literally have to be an idiot to take the bible entirely literally. I used to think it was just because there was no way I could relate to the creationist mindset that I found them quite so unsettling, but it's also profoundly uncomfortable to know that there are people so devoid of rational capacity. I'm not saying evolution is necesarily flawless or factual - it is only right and proper that inconsistencies in a theory be discussed and challenged. But criticism of evolution does not automatically lead to creationism, and it should not. If God is a non-interventionist, and I believe he is, then he is the why, not the how. The job of science is to give us the how, the mechanics of a system (not it's justification). That creationism tries to ally itself to any attack on evolution is fucking poor form - just because I might not like using Internet Explorer doesn't mean I'm stuck using fucking Safari. Creationism is simply not a scientific explanation:

Everything was created by an all-powerful being...

Perhaps, but where's your argument for the all-powerful being?

Oh, it's the beauty and complexity of the world...

A classic logical flaw. A -> B, and B, therefore A (affirming the consequent). There is no internally consistent evidence for God's creation of the world, except by the big bang and letting evolution take its course. In fact, there is more evidence to the contrary. I think Neil Butcher (in the comments section) gets it spot on

The media wrongly describes this as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory. In fact, the debate is between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion

Maybe the iron age goat-herders is slightly off, but otherwise right. Criticism is good, it's how theories evolve and get closer to the truth. Wild propositions, however, are not acceptable counter-theories...

September 01, 2008 Less of that nonsense, please!

Tesco are coming to terms with a mistake that's pissed me off for a while. At least it's a step in the right direction, but what pisses me off is that there is any sort of dispute at all. 10 items or less will NEVER be grammatically correct.

"Saying up to 10 items is easy to understand and avoids any debate," said a spokesman for The Plain English Campaign.

"Fewer" should be used when you are talking about items that can be counted individually, for example, "fewer than 10 apples".

"Less" is correct when quantities cannot be individually counted in that case, e.g. "I would like less water".

Except, morons, that a quantity is always measured in some form at a supermarket, or you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a lot and a little of something and rip us off accordingly. Water is bottled, meat is sold by weight in pieces, etc. But that's not even the main point. The main point is that an item is definitively a partitive, discrete value. Therefore it must ALWAYS be 10 items or fewer, because you cannot have less items. Let's hope the other supermarkets have the balls to go the whole hog...

I have missed these rants :D

May 17, 2008 It really makes you wonder

Medieval Parking Fines

Easily the most alarming thing in this article is Nick Lester's apparent complete failure to grasp logic or basic mathematics.

Nick Lester, corporate director of services for London councils, said the system did work.

"We know that less than 1% of all penalty charge notices issued are challenged, and of those about half are upheld. That suggests that the system is 99.5% right."

Errrrm, what? I almost fell out of bed reading that. It patently suggests no such thing. If all charges were challenged, and the ratio stayed the same, then the system would be 50% right. Does Lester have any proof that those not challenged are automatically right? No, of course not. And this guy is in charge of council services for ALL OF LONDON? The world is full of morons >.<

May 17, 2008 Q.E.D.

WineMouse

I really think this proves my point. Not just the video itself, but some of the comments that follow it.

" Oh an other video with the baby of Amy's mouse ! They are so cute. The kiss between the two little mice is so cute ^^

Pete you're so handsome and Amy is so beautiful, thanks for this video !
pete you're the best ! <3"

" this is so adorable. & blake, don t let her go. u must be there to support her. no matter what.
pete, thank you loads for all these videos. they re simply amazing! cheers."

" I LOVE YOU AMY AND PETE! you guys are so hot doing what your doing!! i love you and never stop making music!!!"

Granted these are not representative of the majority of posters - the majority rightly point out the sadness of the situation, not least in the fact that the mother of these mice will probably now reject them due to their contact with humans. But the point is that, unless I have missed some incredibly well-crafted irony on the part of the above posters, there are morons out there in the world who actually idolise these people. "Can't Stand Me Now" does not excuse Pete Doherty for a life of being a fuck-up, certainly not if he's doing it out in the public eye. For me, Winehouse has never done anything worthwhile - she even took Valerie, a good song, and made it shit, surely the opposite of what a cover is supposed to do. I can grant that other people enjoy her music, but I stand by my previous claim - these idiots take far more from the world than they have ever and will ever give back, unless they either die tragically (from ODs or DUI), or completely reform and go on to live a life devoted to rehabilitating others - either way serving as an example of the dangers of unmoderated, uncontrolled drug abuse.

May 14, 2008 They could remake Se7en. Or not…

Seven new mortal sins have been announced.

• Environmental pollution
• Genetic manipulation
• Accumulating excessive wealth
• Inflicting poverty
• Drug trafficking and consumption
• Morally debatable experiments
• Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Right, let's take each of these in turn. I'd like to remind readers at this point that, while I will endeavour to deal with the objective inaccuracies and contradictions that follow, my personal dislike of organised religion, and my own Christianity will undoubtedly come into play. Just FYI.

Environmental pollution - somewhat excessive, perhaps? If you're a literal believer of the bible, this is the same God who almost wiped out all life on the planet with a flood. How damaging is that to the environment? Not to mention pillars of salt, burning bushes and the like (one of those is a joke :P). Even if you're not, it seems a disproportionate punishment. So by extension, if you ever dropped a piece of litter which you didn't confess to, you're going straight to hell... Pardon the scepticism...

Genetic manipulation - so using the intelligence God gave us (or allowed us to develop) to lessen the pain and suffering experienced around the world by those unfortunate enough to have been born with various defects is enough to be sent to hell? Unless you're one of those who believes God inflicts such things as punishments or whatever on people (a view I can't even begin to justify unless you're a moron), then surely lessening someone's suffering is only the logical outcome of the love we are all supposed to show one another?

Accumulating excessive wealth - what counts as excessive? Who defines it, the church? One of the richest organisations in the world is going to dictate how much money other people are allowed to have before they get sent to hell? Hypocritical much? Some of the richest men in the world are the biggest philanthropists, like Bill Gates. Surely what you do with your money is just as important as how much of it you have. I know there's the parable of the poor woman and the rich philistine, but I don't think that can really be applied in todays world, and it is a parable anyway. If it is supposed to be followed like that (giving everything you have, no matter how much or little it is), then we're all fucked.

Inflicting poverty - surely this is the corrollary of the above. Regardless, while the sentiment is somewhat commendable, it is lethally vague. If someone offers to buy something for me, and I accept, or offers to sell me something, and I refuse, then surely I am making them poorer. Since poverty is a relative measure, have I not inflicted poverty on them? Would this not totally undermine charity?

Drug trafficking and consumption - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The Catholic Church (CC), in trying to modernise, has shown itself to be even more stuck in the past. Unless by drugs they mean to include alcohol (which would include the wine at communion) and tobacco, it shows a woefully poor understanding of the scope of drugs, and the realities of addiction. Drugs in moderation are not evil. As for trafficking, only insofar as it is breaking the law, and the practices it is involved with and funds. So why single out one illegal act over any other?

Morally debatable experiments - sorry, what? Any intelligent person can debate the morals of any experiment. Animal rights activists will debate the morals of any experiment using animals, yet without these, countless antibiotics, treatments, vaccines and the like might not exist. By this, the CC just mean "experiments our ridiculous Draconian institution doesn't approve of", i.e. anything they falsely view as 'playing God', a phrase that should surely be banned, such is the rank stupidity of those who generally use it as the be-all and end-all of argumentation.

Violation of fundamental rights of human nature - which are? Hell, people don't even agree on the current universal declaration of human rights: I find issue with articles 5, 13, 16, 21, 25, and 26. That's one fifth of the current set of human rights. Is the CC giving its much delayed backing to the declaration? Or is it trying to bolster its own set? Regardless, without clarification, the statement is vapid and meaningless.

Then again this passage pretty much tells you all you need to know:

He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".