Why cultural tolerance cuts both ways By David Davis(Filed: 03/08/2005)
The full article is in the Telegraph here. However, these extracts seem to set a sensible agenda from the Man Who Would Be King.
Rather than setting communities against one another, the bombers' actions have united all faiths in facing down this new breed of terrorism. Political parties have also been united in their resolve to defeat the threat - a lesson learnt from Spain, where the political response to the attack on Madrid played straight into the terrorists' hands. The most important thing British politicians can do is to remain united and avoid knee-jerk responses. Any other response would be grossly irresponsible, and could easily encourage more attacks.
The Government has responded over the past month with sensible proposals to tighten existing legislation. Our task is to ensure that these new laws will be effective and workable. The Government has to get them right first time. There is no room for mistakes. But this does not exempt us from a constructive critique of some of the Government's plans. We have reservations about proposals to extend the time-scale of detention without trial, for example. Ministers should also give clearer backing to the police's policy of stop and search, which, while controversial in some quarters, is obviously sensible. Nor should the prevailing political climate stop us proposing extra measures to increase Britain's security without sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
There are five things the Government could do that would gain our support. Firstly, it must secure Britain's porous borders. A new border control police force should be set up to ensure that every major port is manned day and night, to stop people entering the country illegally. Secondly, the Government should urgently review the process by which citizenship is granted. It is totally unacceptable that one of the alleged bombers was given a British passport despite having received a jail sentence and having a long record of bad conduct. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Thirdly, the Government should allow evidence from phone-taps to be used in the courtroom, making it easier to convict would-be terrorists and stop future attacks. Fourthly, the Government should appoint a Minister for Homeland Security to deal with the terrorist threat. Finally, ministers must show they are prepared to look again at whether the Human Rights Act stops them from ensuring that Britain is as safe as possible. This should include advocating its repeal, if necessary.
But the terrorist threat will not be beaten by security measures alone. Searching questions now have to be asked about what has been happening inside Britain's Muslim communities, and how the perverted values of the suicide bomber have been allowed to take root. Britain has pursued a policy of multiculturalism - allowing people of different cultures to settle without expecting them to integrate into society. Often the authorities have seemed more concerned with encouraging distinctive identities than with promoting common values of nationhood. The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has called multiculturalism "outdated". He is right. We should learn lessons from abroad - from the United States, where pride in the nation's values is much more prevalent among minorities than here. Above all, we must speak openly of what we expect of those who settle here - and of ourselves.
Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society, and to reject the vile racism of the BNP and its like. But Muslims in turn have obligations: not simply to condemn terror, as one Labour MP put it, but to confront it.
In the past month, the vast majority of Muslims have queued up to denounce the outrages unleashed upon London. Senior Muslim leaders such as Dr Zaki Badawi, of the Muslim College, have spoken courageously and eloquently. But their thoughtful contributions are undermined by men such as Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham's central mosque, who chose to focus his anger on the Government and security services, not on the men who set out to kill Londoners. People such as Mr Naseem do no favours to the Muslim community. After all, Muslims too are in the sights of the Islamic extremists.
Al-Qa'eda's long-term ambition is to eliminate moderate Islam altogether. It is therefore in the interests of moderate Muslims to support such measures as the extension of stop and search, the closing down of websites which support terror, the barring from Britain of clerics who support terrorist activity, and the licensing of visiting clerics.
Religious leaders have a special responsibility when those who commit crimes claim to be motivated by religion. We must acknowledge that there are good imams and bad imams. Most preach the true Muslim faith in a manner consistent with the society in which they live. Others, though, do not represent Islam properly and fail to understand the conventions of British society. Indeed, their aim is to destroy it. The Government must do more to encourage good imams to train here in Britain. Muslims themselves should help root out the bad ones.
Britain has a proud history of tolerance and respect towards people of different views, faiths and backgrounds. But we should not flinch from demanding the same tolerance and respect for the British way of life.
There is another Telegraph article which directly refers to that Shadow government fool I wrote of recently.
"Even more crass was the comment by Dominic Grieve, junior home affairs spokesman for the Conservatives, on the same programme: "I have to say that I find the suicide bombings totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things." So will you commit mass murder and blow yourself up, Mr Grieve, when you reach a certain "level of anger" about a "large number of things”?
Wednesday, 3 August 2005
Broken heart
Serious consternation this morning. Went to check overnight e-mail and found pc was 'Off'. We leave it running but it sometimes confuses itself when downloading new virus signatures or Windoze updates so not great problem at that stage. Pressed right buttons and wandered off to 'ablutions'
When I got back the damned thing was demanding a password! Totally new development but I'm game for a laugh so I tapped in the usual set of letters and numbers. Rejected. Little more attention to case and finger poking but still no joy.
By this time my services were being demanded as chauffeur to The Shopping Queen. I blamed her for what had happened so that meant there was no idle conversation on the way to Haddington. No conversation of any sort actually. When we got back, full search of the disks and documentation which is where we note down any unusual passwords. Zilch found.
By now I was beginning to grasp the full significance of what might lay ahead. None of this, no e-mail, no wandering around the blogs of others, no Google Roulette. All my music was on the damned thing - how would I ship it to my iPod; I knew I should not have kept from doing this until my official birthday. Finally, phone call to #1 Son asking for help when he got home.
Then sat in front of keyboard and thought about it. Hah! Zen he say if there is no password that works, then maybe there is no password. Back to sign-on, leave pw space blank, enter. Hello nice music! End of heartbreak.
Tuesday, 2 August 2005
Can you hear me through this hat?
My family always voted Conservative. During my service life, I did not vote as I was mostly out of the country. When I was working as a civilian, the area in which I lived was excessively Tory and I did not bother to add my endorsement.
I heard much good comment on Thatcher from Americans with whom I worked and I appreciated her style, However, since she was got rid of. I have seen the party sink lower and lower. The - what can I call it - tone of the party as set by their spokespersons seems so out of touch with the way the world is organised today. An example I saw today is just the latest - this from the Shadow Attorney General:
When they live in their world, they are unconcerned about world views. My interpretation of his point is that the indigent occupants of this country should make more concessions to Islamic forces. He cannot see that multicultureism is dead and just needs burial. Even if he was just trying to make some sort of 'yah boo' party political point, he is talking rubbish. I look forward to him getting rifted by Howard but I suspect it will be shuffled under the carpet - or prayer mat.
I heard much good comment on Thatcher from Americans with whom I worked and I appreciated her style, However, since she was got rid of. I have seen the party sink lower and lower. The - what can I call it - tone of the party as set by their spokespersons seems so out of touch with the way the world is organised today. An example I saw today is just the latest - this from the Shadow Attorney General:
Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve has welcomed the plans for the
meetings, Hazel whatnot (Blears?) with Muslim leaders) but said he did not believe they would resolve the problems in Muslim communities. He told the Today programme: "I have to say that I find the suicide bombings totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things. "I don't quite see how we are going to tackle that. I don't actually think that simply by going round and visiting community leaders you are going to get to some of these underlying issues."
And he said the anger within Muslim communities stemmed from a
"tension between their world view and the world they live in". "I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all it is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim and a part of the world - the Middle East - which has a great cultural history which frankly at the moment is poorly reflected in the current state of these countries," he added.
When they live in their world, they are unconcerned about world views. My interpretation of his point is that the indigent occupants of this country should make more concessions to Islamic forces. He cannot see that multicultureism is dead and just needs burial. Even if he was just trying to make some sort of 'yah boo' party political point, he is talking rubbish. I look forward to him getting rifted by Howard but I suspect it will be shuffled under the carpet - or prayer mat.
Kiss me goodnight sergeant major
The wonders of a good sergeant major - as demonstrated in the Wonder of Life by the Monty Python team.
General: Well, of course, warfare isn't all fun. Right — stop that! It's all very well to laugh at the military, but when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself. And without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear! That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[A lightning bolt destroys the general. Cut to outside, where the Hand of God rises into the clouds. A sergeant major stands before his troops.]
Sergeant Major: DON'T STAND THERE GAWPING! LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE HAND O' GOD BEFORE!
General: Well, of course, warfare isn't all fun. Right — stop that! It's all very well to laugh at the military, but when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself. And without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear! That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[A lightning bolt destroys the general. Cut to outside, where the Hand of God rises into the clouds. A sergeant major stands before his troops.]
Sergeant Major: DON'T STAND THERE GAWPING! LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE HAND O' GOD BEFORE!
Big Ears
I think I am pretty well focussed at hearing what other people are saying as I walk amongst them. So, why is it that I do not hear things such as this?
Maybe it's because the community here is much less idiotic.
Maybe it's because the community here is much less idiotic.
I have never been able to bring myself to read the Guardian newspaper on a regular basis. Why? - I cannot say with any definable reason; just that it does not attract me. But then, neither does it cause me any heartache by it's very existence. Maybe part of my reverse-apartheid stance on things that I sense would offend me if I did associate.
However, it seems that I might have to get to read it. Things such as this going on where we see more of that conniving non-democratic way B Liar runs things. I am not so naif as to believe that all international politicking should be done at an official and accountable level, but, where some sort of undercover approaches are being made, they should be kept secret.
Perhaps their online version is some sort of Guardian Light?
However, it seems that I might have to get to read it. Things such as this going on where we see more of that conniving non-democratic way B Liar runs things. I am not so naif as to believe that all international politicking should be done at an official and accountable level, but, where some sort of undercover approaches are being made, they should be kept secret.
Perhaps their online version is some sort of Guardian Light?
Monday, 1 August 2005
Farewell
I had gone back to see what the latest was on the suicide of J Hunter Thompson. Based upon a small variance in the facts related by his wife, a small parcel of conspiracy theories had formed. He had been working on a 9/11 story and thought he had uncovered something that would get him killed. The theory, it seems, is still there; uncancelled and unimproved.
My poor old bi-polar mind then went wandering off into suicide in general. In the Army I had what is, I suppose, a fairly general young-persons attitude. What a waste, why didn’t they try and get help, what can ever get so bad as to make someone want to do such a thing. Basically though, it was the usual Army stress formulae – shit happens. Move on.
I left the Samaritans because I could not accept their way of doing things. They are non-judgemental and, unless given a lead by their telephone caller, will not intervene. They will still be talking – more listening really – until the voice at the other end fades away or there is a bang. I must have changed since my service years as I could not fit into this listening pattern. I sought to talk callers out of this very final step. I now accept completely that their way is the best answer but is not for the man in the street who is suddenly confronted by someone who might be suicidal. There is a master-class on the web. There is another useful resource here.
The aftermath of suicide amongst relatives and friends may well be guilt or self-recrimination. Did I, should I, could I? Generally, the now-deceased will have gone past seeking help or signalling distress well before the final act. Indeed, it is that 'what the hell can I do' attitude that leads them into fatal self-harm.
I've blogged this because I feel that suicide is so little understood by those who have not themselves walked near to the edge. It is increasing and will sooner or later touch very many people who have never given the subject a moments thought. Do a bit of reading. Try your theories against the research.
Oh - and NO. This is not a cry for help from me so no need to get the Samaritans SO19 abseiling through the study window thank you very much.
My poor old bi-polar mind then went wandering off into suicide in general. In the Army I had what is, I suppose, a fairly general young-persons attitude. What a waste, why didn’t they try and get help, what can ever get so bad as to make someone want to do such a thing. Basically though, it was the usual Army stress formulae – shit happens. Move on.
I left the Samaritans because I could not accept their way of doing things. They are non-judgemental and, unless given a lead by their telephone caller, will not intervene. They will still be talking – more listening really – until the voice at the other end fades away or there is a bang. I must have changed since my service years as I could not fit into this listening pattern. I sought to talk callers out of this very final step. I now accept completely that their way is the best answer but is not for the man in the street who is suddenly confronted by someone who might be suicidal. There is a master-class on the web. There is another useful resource here.
The aftermath of suicide amongst relatives and friends may well be guilt or self-recrimination. Did I, should I, could I? Generally, the now-deceased will have gone past seeking help or signalling distress well before the final act. Indeed, it is that 'what the hell can I do' attitude that leads them into fatal self-harm.
I've blogged this because I feel that suicide is so little understood by those who have not themselves walked near to the edge. It is increasing and will sooner or later touch very many people who have never given the subject a moments thought. Do a bit of reading. Try your theories against the research.
Oh - and NO. This is not a cry for help from me so no need to get the Samaritans SO19 abseiling through the study window thank you very much.
Sunday, 31 July 2005
This is from the Washington Post.
The Truth About Abu Ghraib
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A22
FOR 15 MONTHS now the Bush administration has insisted that the horrific photographs of abuse from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the result of freelance behavior by low-level personnel and had nothing to do with its policies. In this the White House has been enthusiastically supported by the Army brass, which has conducted investigations documenting hundreds of cases of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but denies that any of its senior officers are culpable. For some time these implacable positions have been glaringly at odds with the known facts. In the past few days, those facts have grown harder to ignore.
The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.
In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains -- the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards -- which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling -- were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."
The White House and Pentagon have gotten away with their stonewalling largely because of Republican control of Congress. When the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, GOP leaders such as Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) loudly vowed to get to the bottom of the matter -- but once the bottom started to come into view late last year, Mr. Warner's demands for accountability ceased. Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior officials have never been the subject of an independent investigation. A recommendation by the latest Army probe that Gen. Miller be reprimanded for his role in the Qahtani interrogation was rejected by Gen. Bantz Craddock of Southern Command.
The only good news in this shameful story is that a group of Republican senators, though resisting justified Democratic demands for an independent investigation, are attempting to reform the policy of abuse to which the administration still adheres. Six GOP senators led by John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) have backed an amendment to the defense operations bill that would exclude exceptional interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and ban the use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment for all prisoners held by the United States. The administration contends that detainees held abroad may be subject to such abuse. Attempts by the White House and Mr. Warner to block or gut the legislation failed, and on Tuesday the GOP leadership pulled the defense bill from the floor rather than allow a vote. The administration probably will spend the next month trying to quell this rebellion of conscience and good sense. The nation would be better served if President Bush instead accepted, at last, the truth about Abu Ghraib.
Now, it is not for me to comment on the truth of these reports. What does strike me is the difference between the way the US goes about things and the way our politicians treat British army personnel. If there were these alleged transgressions in a UK military setting, all concerned would be guaranteed a first class seat to the International Criminal Court. Obviously, the Yanks knew what they were doing when they exempted their forces from international war crime legislation.
The Truth About Abu Ghraib
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A22
FOR 15 MONTHS now the Bush administration has insisted that the horrific photographs of abuse from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the result of freelance behavior by low-level personnel and had nothing to do with its policies. In this the White House has been enthusiastically supported by the Army brass, which has conducted investigations documenting hundreds of cases of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but denies that any of its senior officers are culpable. For some time these implacable positions have been glaringly at odds with the known facts. In the past few days, those facts have grown harder to ignore.
The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.
In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains -- the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards -- which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling -- were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."
The White House and Pentagon have gotten away with their stonewalling largely because of Republican control of Congress. When the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, GOP leaders such as Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) loudly vowed to get to the bottom of the matter -- but once the bottom started to come into view late last year, Mr. Warner's demands for accountability ceased. Mr. Rumsfeld and other senior officials have never been the subject of an independent investigation. A recommendation by the latest Army probe that Gen. Miller be reprimanded for his role in the Qahtani interrogation was rejected by Gen. Bantz Craddock of Southern Command.
The only good news in this shameful story is that a group of Republican senators, though resisting justified Democratic demands for an independent investigation, are attempting to reform the policy of abuse to which the administration still adheres. Six GOP senators led by John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) have backed an amendment to the defense operations bill that would exclude exceptional interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and ban the use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment for all prisoners held by the United States. The administration contends that detainees held abroad may be subject to such abuse. Attempts by the White House and Mr. Warner to block or gut the legislation failed, and on Tuesday the GOP leadership pulled the defense bill from the floor rather than allow a vote. The administration probably will spend the next month trying to quell this rebellion of conscience and good sense. The nation would be better served if President Bush instead accepted, at last, the truth about Abu Ghraib.
Now, it is not for me to comment on the truth of these reports. What does strike me is the difference between the way the US goes about things and the way our politicians treat British army personnel. If there were these alleged transgressions in a UK military setting, all concerned would be guaranteed a first class seat to the International Criminal Court. Obviously, the Yanks knew what they were doing when they exempted their forces from international war crime legislation.
Cats on a hot tin roof
I've heard the sayings that 'love is blind' and 'opposites attract' but just what got these two together in the manner described cannot be imagined. Looking at the woman in the case, I would have thought he should have been charged with 'driving while under the influence'.
Mamma mia!!
Just promise me that if I am ever in Rome and need a lawyer, I will get this lady - with her nighty over her bra just like this.
What is it about these terrorists? Maybe it is a plot to show him what he missed by messing up his bomb - no 72 virgins for him then!
Cherie Booth QC 0
Antonietta Sonnessa 15
Better than MeMe
Sitting here, waiting for dawn as one does, I put a quickly dreamed up phrase into Google. The words I used were "politically correct version". I've put extracts of some of the results below but it occurs to me that this might be an alternative to the MeMe syndrome. Find your own phrase and see what comes up. If it works we could call it Google Roulette?
Red Riding Hood
"Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were in fact intolerable competitors. Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that in a truly classless society all marginalized peoples would be able to "come out" of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models
Answer phone
I can't come to the phone now because I have amnesia and I feel stupid talking to people I don't remember. I'd appreciate it if you could help me out by leaving my name and telling me something about myself. Thanks.
Sleeping Persun of Better-Than-Average Attractiveness
Long, long ago, there lived a king and a queen, two equal partners in life who shared everything-- including the fervent wish to have a baby. (This was much easier for the king, of course, since he would never have to endure the upheavals of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and the miseries of postpartum depression. You could rightly call his wish more vicarious than hers.) But as many times as the king would inflict his baser instincts on the queen, they (or, more accurately, she) remained childless.
One day, as the queen bathed in a nearby river, a frog leaped onto the lily pad next to her. Then, to her amazement, the frog cleared its throat and spoke.
"Although it's probably not a good idea to bring another human being into the world," said the amphibious messenger, "I know of your conception problems and would like to help. If you follow my advice, you will soon be with child."
"Oh, such joyous news!" trilled the queen. "What must I do to prepare myself, frog?! What must I do?! Tell me!!"
"Your best bet is to go the natural route, and for pity's sake, learn to relax! Get some regular exercise, eat more greens and grains, and eliminate animal fat from your diet. later, if you need one, i can recommend a good lactation consultant."
So the queen did as the frog directed, and on the next full cycle of the moon, her body was colonized by the seed of the exploitative monarchy.
Nine months later (not to minimize the physical strain on the queen in the interim), a healthy pink pre-wommon was welcomed into the castle. Many gender-neutral names were considered for her, such as Connor, Tucker, and Taylor, that might have lessened any sexual discrimination she would encounter on her career path (for, while she was born a princess, her parents would never presume to limit her future to one of mindless leisure and privilege). After talking to a few image consultants, they decided to give her the name Rosamond.
The Nativity
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them. "I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of 10 child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character
Oh yeah - I've found a neat definition for MeMe:
meme: (pron. 'meem') A contagious idea that replicates like a virus, passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact between people. The root of the word "memetics," a field of study which postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases.
Red Riding Hood
"Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were in fact intolerable competitors. Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that in a truly classless society all marginalized peoples would be able to "come out" of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models
Answer phone
I can't come to the phone now because I have amnesia and I feel stupid talking to people I don't remember. I'd appreciate it if you could help me out by leaving my name and telling me something about myself. Thanks.
Sleeping Persun of Better-Than-Average Attractiveness
Long, long ago, there lived a king and a queen, two equal partners in life who shared everything-- including the fervent wish to have a baby. (This was much easier for the king, of course, since he would never have to endure the upheavals of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and the miseries of postpartum depression. You could rightly call his wish more vicarious than hers.) But as many times as the king would inflict his baser instincts on the queen, they (or, more accurately, she) remained childless.
One day, as the queen bathed in a nearby river, a frog leaped onto the lily pad next to her. Then, to her amazement, the frog cleared its throat and spoke.
"Although it's probably not a good idea to bring another human being into the world," said the amphibious messenger, "I know of your conception problems and would like to help. If you follow my advice, you will soon be with child."
"Oh, such joyous news!" trilled the queen. "What must I do to prepare myself, frog?! What must I do?! Tell me!!"
"Your best bet is to go the natural route, and for pity's sake, learn to relax! Get some regular exercise, eat more greens and grains, and eliminate animal fat from your diet. later, if you need one, i can recommend a good lactation consultant."
So the queen did as the frog directed, and on the next full cycle of the moon, her body was colonized by the seed of the exploitative monarchy.
Nine months later (not to minimize the physical strain on the queen in the interim), a healthy pink pre-wommon was welcomed into the castle. Many gender-neutral names were considered for her, such as Connor, Tucker, and Taylor, that might have lessened any sexual discrimination she would encounter on her career path (for, while she was born a princess, her parents would never presume to limit her future to one of mindless leisure and privilege). After talking to a few image consultants, they decided to give her the name Rosamond.
The Nativity
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them. "I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of 10 child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character
Oh yeah - I've found a neat definition for MeMe:
meme: (pron. 'meem') A contagious idea that replicates like a virus, passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact between people. The root of the word "memetics," a field of study which postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases.
Can we say "White cliffs of Dover"?
Have to admit that it was the name of this guy's blog that drew me to him. However, after reading his stuff I can see he is a man after my own heart - critical in a nice easy-reading sort of way. Maybe if I study hard I could rite like wot he duz.
Saturday, 30 July 2005
I second that!
Crutch flossing is not something that attracts or interests me - even when said thong is just below a natty tattoo.
Those who have eyes to see....
It really does seem as if one positive thing that has come out of the attacks is realisation that the reasons/excuses advanced for the traitorous attacks launched by those within our society are just not tenable. Look at this which is fairly typical of those who have dropped the scales from their eyes.
I spent the first 10 minutes of last night’s Question Time Special believing I had been transported back to the post-9/11 edition of the same program, a program so utterly beyond the pale that it made me feel ashamed to be British.
The way we started, one could have been forgiven for thinking that everybody, but everybody was responsible for the 7/7 atrocity, apart from the fanatics who actually carried bombs onto trains. “We need to understand why these young men felt so detached, blah, blah…” Self-hating Brits, I’d call them. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m just your ordinary Joe: wife and kids, mortgaged up to the hilt, unfulfilling job, not enough money, etc., etc.. It’s a hard enough slog as it is without some one-step-removed apologist insisting that I take partial responsibility for the irrational actions of people I’ve never met, never hurt, but who would, given half the chance, slaughter me and everyone else I love. Its not my fault, see, and I resent being asked to contemplate the possibility it might be. In fact, it makes me quite angry.
Which is my problem in these sorts of public meetings. I tend to spend more time with my head in my hands than I do with my hand in the air. So when I hear people whose most important decisions each day are what to play on the iPod lecturing the country’s most senior policeman about the rules of engagement for suicide bombers, telling him how his men are “executioners” (these being the officers who ran towards, not away from, a man they suspected of being half a second from committing mass-murder), I want to be sick, have a shower, scream……do anything in fact, but speak.
The media are now gathering together some good accounts of all the factors and events. Obviously, the thick Sunday papers will be big on analysis and opinion so they will go into the bundle I have of contemporaneous media – alongside Diana’s death, 9/11, tsunami and other odds and sods of events.
I spent the first 10 minutes of last night’s Question Time Special believing I had been transported back to the post-9/11 edition of the same program, a program so utterly beyond the pale that it made me feel ashamed to be British.
The way we started, one could have been forgiven for thinking that everybody, but everybody was responsible for the 7/7 atrocity, apart from the fanatics who actually carried bombs onto trains. “We need to understand why these young men felt so detached, blah, blah…” Self-hating Brits, I’d call them. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m just your ordinary Joe: wife and kids, mortgaged up to the hilt, unfulfilling job, not enough money, etc., etc.. It’s a hard enough slog as it is without some one-step-removed apologist insisting that I take partial responsibility for the irrational actions of people I’ve never met, never hurt, but who would, given half the chance, slaughter me and everyone else I love. Its not my fault, see, and I resent being asked to contemplate the possibility it might be. In fact, it makes me quite angry.
Which is my problem in these sorts of public meetings. I tend to spend more time with my head in my hands than I do with my hand in the air. So when I hear people whose most important decisions each day are what to play on the iPod lecturing the country’s most senior policeman about the rules of engagement for suicide bombers, telling him how his men are “executioners” (these being the officers who ran towards, not away from, a man they suspected of being half a second from committing mass-murder), I want to be sick, have a shower, scream……do anything in fact, but speak.
The media are now gathering together some good accounts of all the factors and events. Obviously, the thick Sunday papers will be big on analysis and opinion so they will go into the bundle I have of contemporaneous media – alongside Diana’s death, 9/11, tsunami and other odds and sods of events.
Left over
This is left over from the shoot where I got the owl. Didn't post it to the photo blog as that would have overloaded things with bird pictures. Had intended to spend time at the show but the weather was just no good at all. Funny thing is that I have noticed another personal change there. I used to be perfectly happy out in the worst weather the Lord could throw at us. Out in the hills and dales with no worries; I had proper kit, good navigational toys and was fit enough for what I did. Now, even a misty rain makes me want to scuttle for cover. I know that I'll end up with aches and pains I suppose and that is what makes me chicken out - I think. I've still got the kit and the toys so it must be the fit bit that has gone tits up.
MeMe but not Me
I got stuck with this by Gemmak. It is one of those things that I regard as chain letters or pyramid calls. I did once think of one where you sent your wife to the guy at the top of the list and, in due course if the pyramid were not broken, you would get 5,227 wives sent to you. Problem was that I was happy with the one I had and the problem after dividing 5,227 by - on average - 28 days left me totally disenchanted by my 'reward'.
I will always respond to those sent me but retain discretion as to further spreading of the virus. I know, I am just an anti-social old git only slightly better than the Victor Meldrew guy but that is it.
List ten songs that you are currently digging ... it doesn't matter what genre they are from, whether they have words, or even if they're no good, but they must be songs you're really enjoying right now. Post these instructions, the artists, and the ten songs in your blog. Then tag five other people to see what they're listening to.And the answers in no particular order.......
Ten songs is a bit of a problem. I do not have sessions where I listen to music. It is generally playing in the background so it is mostly artists rather than tracks. That said, here goes:-
1 Mahler's 9th Symphony. Berlin Philarmoniker conducted by Von Karajan.
The last 15 minutes get listened to properly. Von K. is a particular favourite of mine and I have a lot of his interpretations.
2 Angel flying too close to the Ground - Willie Nelson. Again, this is the best of Willie and again I have loads of his work. It is just his nature of doing his own thing that gets me with him.
3 It wasn't God that made Honky Tonk angels - Kitty Wells. Takes me back to time spent in Austin checking out what made honky tonks so attractive. (Yes m'Lud. It was the Angels!)
4 He stopped loving her today - George Jones. Just the 'over the top' of it. I like those 'wife has left me, dog's died. pick-ups busted and horse is lame' sort of songs. What Tammy went through with this bloke gets to me.
5 That ex-Army guy Blunt. Don't know why as he is quite new to me but I find myself humming his tunes. Don't like his BGs style all the time so he may drop out.
6 Johnny Cash. Don't know the name of the song and it is just one line that gets to me. He is thinking of leaving home and sings, "You can give my other suit to the Salvation Army" Had I ever walked away, that would be my finale, encore and all that. It is the sense of freedom - just one suit going with him.
7 Me and Bobby Mgee by Kris K - I cannot spell it. Again, the idea that one can just drop out and do it on the thumb really appeals to me as a way of life. Also, that something good hardly ever lasts and can get on another road just like that.
8 When you are in love with a beautiful woman by Dr Hook. Takes me back to a time when I was really really happy - in my life, friends and work. Anything from these guys gets me that way.
9 Scotland the Brave by anyone who plays bagpipes. Norma and I started our courting on a troopship that took 9 weeks to get to Singapore when the Suez Canal was closed. There was a soldier on board and all he could play was this damned song - all day, all evening and all night. I was the ship's policeman but very nearly paid some of the crims on board to toss him over the side. All those nights under the stars were the only things that calmed a savage breast.
10 A very obscene Army song about the harlot of Jerusalem. Not recorded - I hope - but I know almost all of the 30-odd verses anyway and I sing it - under my breath - as it soothes me. Four kids were brought up with this as the ultimate sleep-inducer even after the warm milk and brandy failed. Yes - I know there is a version on the web but that is the Rugby version and much tamer than that sung by the brutal and licentious.
I will always respond to those sent me but retain discretion as to further spreading of the virus. I know, I am just an anti-social old git only slightly better than the Victor Meldrew guy but that is it.
List ten songs that you are currently digging ... it doesn't matter what genre they are from, whether they have words, or even if they're no good, but they must be songs you're really enjoying right now. Post these instructions, the artists, and the ten songs in your blog. Then tag five other people to see what they're listening to.And the answers in no particular order.......
Ten songs is a bit of a problem. I do not have sessions where I listen to music. It is generally playing in the background so it is mostly artists rather than tracks. That said, here goes:-
1 Mahler's 9th Symphony. Berlin Philarmoniker conducted by Von Karajan.
The last 15 minutes get listened to properly. Von K. is a particular favourite of mine and I have a lot of his interpretations.
2 Angel flying too close to the Ground - Willie Nelson. Again, this is the best of Willie and again I have loads of his work. It is just his nature of doing his own thing that gets me with him.
3 It wasn't God that made Honky Tonk angels - Kitty Wells. Takes me back to time spent in Austin checking out what made honky tonks so attractive. (Yes m'Lud. It was the Angels!)
4 He stopped loving her today - George Jones. Just the 'over the top' of it. I like those 'wife has left me, dog's died. pick-ups busted and horse is lame' sort of songs. What Tammy went through with this bloke gets to me.
5 That ex-Army guy Blunt. Don't know why as he is quite new to me but I find myself humming his tunes. Don't like his BGs style all the time so he may drop out.
6 Johnny Cash. Don't know the name of the song and it is just one line that gets to me. He is thinking of leaving home and sings, "You can give my other suit to the Salvation Army" Had I ever walked away, that would be my finale, encore and all that. It is the sense of freedom - just one suit going with him.
7 Me and Bobby Mgee by Kris K - I cannot spell it. Again, the idea that one can just drop out and do it on the thumb really appeals to me as a way of life. Also, that something good hardly ever lasts and can get on another road just like that.
8 When you are in love with a beautiful woman by Dr Hook. Takes me back to a time when I was really really happy - in my life, friends and work. Anything from these guys gets me that way.
9 Scotland the Brave by anyone who plays bagpipes. Norma and I started our courting on a troopship that took 9 weeks to get to Singapore when the Suez Canal was closed. There was a soldier on board and all he could play was this damned song - all day, all evening and all night. I was the ship's policeman but very nearly paid some of the crims on board to toss him over the side. All those nights under the stars were the only things that calmed a savage breast.
10 A very obscene Army song about the harlot of Jerusalem. Not recorded - I hope - but I know almost all of the 30-odd verses anyway and I sing it - under my breath - as it soothes me. Four kids were brought up with this as the ultimate sleep-inducer even after the warm milk and brandy failed. Yes - I know there is a version on the web but that is the Rugby version and much tamer than that sung by the brutal and licentious.
Happy Days
With sites like this one around, who can fail to be just a little, teensy-weensy, bit depressed?
Friday, 29 July 2005
Anyone for a hero?
My very able blog technical hero writes about heroes on 28 July posting. Sparked off by a programme about how well the London emergency services acted in the face of the latest attacks. I don’t meet/don’t know many 100% civilians but it was reading her entry that brought home to me just what professionalism and discipline mean. Whilst my experience of these qualities was predominantly in a military context, I worked alongside police and emergency services enough times to see how they performed under stress and I also had close contact with medical professionals.
My translation of professional is someone who is not content with just the basics of their job. A professional goes much deeper with the desire to be the very best at what he does. This attitude and knowledge gives them the attitude and ability to confront any problem that confronts them. “I’m better than this challenge”.
Again, in my alternative wikki, discipline means sticking to the task despite many good and valid reasons to give up. One has signed on to do something and has been well taught how to do it so that it becomes almost impossible to give up. One does not need to be an Old Soldier; even relatively inexperienced individuals can exceed everything one might expect from them. I only ever had good knowledge of one person who was decorated for gallantry. The citation was along the lines that despite working for long hours and in dangerous situations, he kept on doing his job time and time again. Even when he was very well aware of the risks, he faced them over a long period of time. That was someone whose professionalism supported him – along with family joke that his mother had not raised him just to die in Ireland and his discipline meant that he got on with the task and role he had signed up to.
As the average civilian has never been exposed to the training and situations that create discipline and professionalism, it is unfair to expect them to be much other than headless chickens in an emergency. Fire drill in IKEA, B & Q or some such does not equate.
None of my ramblings here should be interpreted as taking anything away from those people Gemmak commented upon. Rather, I aimed to show that, given the training and opportunity, almost any one of us could turn out to be a hero. Perhaps that is what differentiates one race from another?
My translation of professional is someone who is not content with just the basics of their job. A professional goes much deeper with the desire to be the very best at what he does. This attitude and knowledge gives them the attitude and ability to confront any problem that confronts them. “I’m better than this challenge”.
Again, in my alternative wikki, discipline means sticking to the task despite many good and valid reasons to give up. One has signed on to do something and has been well taught how to do it so that it becomes almost impossible to give up. One does not need to be an Old Soldier; even relatively inexperienced individuals can exceed everything one might expect from them. I only ever had good knowledge of one person who was decorated for gallantry. The citation was along the lines that despite working for long hours and in dangerous situations, he kept on doing his job time and time again. Even when he was very well aware of the risks, he faced them over a long period of time. That was someone whose professionalism supported him – along with family joke that his mother had not raised him just to die in Ireland and his discipline meant that he got on with the task and role he had signed up to.
As the average civilian has never been exposed to the training and situations that create discipline and professionalism, it is unfair to expect them to be much other than headless chickens in an emergency. Fire drill in IKEA, B & Q or some such does not equate.
None of my ramblings here should be interpreted as taking anything away from those people Gemmak commented upon. Rather, I aimed to show that, given the training and opportunity, almost any one of us could turn out to be a hero. Perhaps that is what differentiates one race from another?
Stop this sort of thing
Well, that is the easy bit over. Excellent work by the police has garnered all four known would-be bombers from the 21st effort. I say police as I cannot think that the intelligence resource did an awful lot given how flat-footed they were caught on the killings of the 7th July. I imagine that the police have found information as they raid houses that leads them onto the next house. What has to be done now is to tie up all the loose ends but that will require long hours of interviewing and statement recording. Documenting the forensic stuff will keep a small team going for a good while. The coppers get a shafting in normal times from smart alecs going on about speed cameras and arrests for saying police horses are gay but when push gets to shove they are better than most. Well done the lads!
New player to the table
We seem to be having a bit of a problem in UK understanding how someone who has a fine set of religious instructions (the Koran), can end up - literally - killing other human beings. One of the themes of Islam is that the death of one is the death of us all.
So I was interested to find this blog. I've had to cut and paste as there is a problem with the URL and I cannot do it as an imbedded link (if that is the sort of thing I mean anyway). See if it helps.......
So I was interested to find this blog. I've had to cut and paste as there is a problem with the URL and I cannot do it as an imbedded link (if that is the sort of thing I mean anyway). See if it helps.......
BABY, I DON'T CAIR
A caller to the Hewitt show said that the silence and inaction of mainstream Muslims towards Islamic-inspired terror was “the elephant in the room,” and my immediate thought: elephant? More like a mule. It just looks like an elephant because it’s wearing a bulky coat.Hugh had on Hussam Ayloush, a California CAIR spokesman. Others have taken him to task for the
first interview, which I too thought was somewhat . . . credulous. Hussam was reasonable and mild for the most part, but he choked when it came to simple questions like the right of Israel to exist. Then he sounded like someone trying to gargle a Mozart aria while choking on a fishbone, thinking that everyone would merely think he had a sore throat. Schooled and prepped in the job of PR, it was as if he still could not grasp the importance of covering up his true feelings on this issue. He was incapable of quality dissembling.It made me realize something, but I didn't quite know how to put it. Yet.Hussam came back the next day, matched with Frank Gaffney, who knows the subject well. Many telling moments, but the one that made me sigh in despair was Hussam’s response to Gaffney’s recitation of an FBI intercept of a meeting of CAIR’s founders. (Details and a transcript will, no doubt, show up at radioblogger.com; say a rosary for Duane’s
blistered fingers) Hussam defaulted to the grievance posture, complaining that all Muslims had to be tarred with this brush, be profiled as terrorists, etc. In the end, you came away with three or four swords embedded in a sea of honey pudding. If, in the end, he cannot say “Of course” when asked if Israel has the
right to exist, cannot condemn the ‘48 and ‘73 wars, and retreats to victim status when confronted about the questionable actions of CAIR members, well, are we required to shrug and point out that at least he brought a nice dessert? Not to say that CAIR represents all Muslims in America. Not to say most Muslims
oppose Israel. Not to say not to say not to say etc., and all rest of the interminable disclaimers one is required to offer while approaching the elephant. Not to say many haven’t spoken up and denounced terrorism – although when the denunciation is followed by “whether it is committed by one side or by the Israelis,” I am less inclined to put that one in the “Condemn” column. And when one lists the numbers of Islamicist attacks over the last few years and is met with “Timothy McVeigh” and “Eric Rudolph” (or Hitler, for Odin's sake) one suspects your interlocutor lacks perspective. As well as facts. Or perhaps there
something else at work. Could it be the old problem of is harmonious fact-sets. Noncontiguous information streams. At the heart of the matter, we may simply lack the terms to forge consensus. a different set of facts . . . and a different understanding of the value of a fact. This isn’t a pleasant thought, because it might mean that rapprochment isn’t likely, and confused, mistrustful coexistance is all we can hope for. (As if most of human history has been different, but that’s another story.) From the comments section of Froggy uminations:Hugh Hewitt is one of the finest talk show hosts on the air today. I love his show. However, like all "respectable" main stream conservatives (Dubya included) he is so desperate to find "moderate" Muslim leaders to display that he had to pull CAIR's wacko spokesman out of the gutter.I wouldn’t go so far with the gutter comment; CAIR is board-room penthouse material, smooth and polished. But I understand what the commenter
meant; there’s a deep and almost anguished desire to find moderate Muslims who are indistinguishable from Unitarians. And find them by the millions. But alas.When defenders like Hussam make the standard dismissal – they are not acting in the name of Islam, because Islam forbids such things – they makes a strategic mistake. No one really believes him. Islam may forbid it here, but it may well permit it over here. A preacher may forbid it in Michigan mosque, but he may well demand it in a Saudi one. In short: the denials ring false. Most of them, anyway. When I hear the spokesmen and apologists I cannot shake the feeling that they’re holding something back. Not telling the whole story. Not saying something that might be true but is inconvenient to admit to the occupants to the House of War.What might that be?Googling around tonight, I found this simple description of Islam: at submission.org1. What is Islam?That is the most misunderstood Word. It simply means submission. Anyone submitting to the one God is practicing Islam and is a Muslim or a Submitter. (Quran 3:19, 3:85, 21:92)2. One God? Which God? Allah?Yes, but Allah is simply an Arabic word meaning 'The One God', that being the Creator of the Universe. (Quran 2:255). Arab Christians and Jews also use the same word (Allah) for God.A verse in The Quran says "Such is God your Lord, there is no god except He, The Creator of all
things. You shall worship Him alone..." (Quran 6:102). This is The same God that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad worshipped.3. So anyone who submits to Allah or God is a Muslim?Yes. Again Islam means submission. Anyone
who submits to the One God, believes in the Hereafter and leads a righteous life is called a Muslim or Submitter. (Quran 2:62)By this logical construction, all Christians are Muslims. Of course the hardcore death-cult sects believe that you have to be a Muslim to be right with Allah, you have to pray five times a day,
you have to accept shar’ia, and you have to ululate with joy when the head of a Jew gets sawed off on general principle. Leave them aside for a moment, if you can. What if the heart of moderate Islam consists of a frustration with the stubborn refusal of the People of the Book to realize that they are really
Muslims, and just don’t know it yet?Before we all got into the big messy incoherent debate about Islam – before the Towers thundered down, in other words – most Christians regarded Islam as another path to God. Mistaken, of course, what with their ideas about Christ getting off the cross and all that. But the devil’s in the details; nobody here but us monotheists, and we all in the end yearn towards the same God. If some wanted to move Muslims to Christianity, though, it involved a change in fundamental attitudes, to say the least; it meant a different channel to God. Dial back, forget about Mo, dig this dude from
Bethlelem. Christianity is the proper route; Islam is a latter detour.That’s different from believing that Christianity is a rutted road running parallel to Islam, which after all came later and thus filled in the gaps, answered the questions, nailed it down. The final prophet has spoken. Imagine you’re a spokesman for a religion, and you have to appeal to the People of the Book, set their minds at ease. You could never tell them that they’re already Muslims. It would be impolitic and counterproductive to tell them what they so dearly need
to know, because you suspect that when you tell a Christian that he’s really a Muslim, he might not react well. O the frustration. But what do I know. I had long conversations about Islam and Christianity with cabbies in DC, and they always ended with happy faces and salaam and go in peace. I’ve no doubt millions
and millions of Muslims are content to let the Christians go about their errant path, content that in the end a just God will say okay, you crazy lug, you’re in. Just as millions of Christians are willing to say Koran, Shmoran, you’re just and upright and believe in the One Big Guy, meet you at the Old Country
Buffet in the sky. Bacon bits on my side, hummus on yours, whatever. But when you have your Clash of Civilizations, people retreat. MOOOON GODDDD! Oh yeah? Cough up the dhimmi tax, kaffir! The point is not to get to that point. We are
seriously need in live-and-let-live juice applied globally by aerosol spray, the sort of thing that makes people swallow big chunky doctrinal differences and concentrate simply on the idea of a God who is out of the smiting business for the time being. Take that as your daily verse: smite not. And the first one who
says “but” gets sent howling down to hell? Smite not. Tomorrow, smite we might. After a day of not smiting we might actually refocus and agree who is smite-worthy, who truly profanes God’s gifts. But today? Smite-free.It was a good start when President Bush had a revered Imam speak at the National
Cathedral after 9/11. Now it would be nice for the Saudis to invite the Pope to speak at Mecca. Ball’s in your court, guys.
Thursday, 28 July 2005
A few words create a picture
As a natural (I think) follow-on to the last post, I came across this
(“No To State-Organised Racist Attacks!” Statement of Revolutionary Communist PartyI'm not going to link to it - I didn't even go there myself but just those few words led me to create an image of what it might be. I think I could even write a TV comedy using just the title of the organisation.
of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), July 14, 2005)
Picture worth 1000 words
My old Lab was a bitch but in every other respect this could have been her.
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
Police shoot another foreigner
A suspect Peruvian wearing a bulky coat and carrying a suspect package has been shot and killed at Paddington Station.The bear was sitting "all alone on a suitcase, behind a pile of mailbags, close to the lost property office" and did not respond to the officers' commands.Chief Constable Knacker said "the fact that the suspect was brown and wearing a bulky coat meant we could take no chances. We bitterly regret this tragedy but other bears may end up getting shot in these dangerous times."The unnamed bear is believed to have entered Britain illegally from Darkest Peru where he leaves behind an aged relative, Aunt Lucy, in a Home for Retired Bears. She is said to be "distraught".The shooting was witnessed by Mr and Mrs Brown, who were waiting at the station for their daughter Judy. Mr Brown said "the officers issued a challenge but the bear did not hear as he was eating a marmalade sandwich.
Sherry Blair's birth control
So, no more five times a night for him then?
Blair's Attack On Terrorists' 'Warped Logic'
The Prime Minister has said Iraq is just an excuse for terrorists, insisting there is no justification for what they do.And he said he wants to "expose the obscenity" of the terrorists' "warped logic".Speaking passionately at his monthly news briefing, he said the roots of terrorism go much deeper than Iraq or Afghanistan."Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism. "If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them? "Why are they every day in Iraq trying to kill people whose only desire is for their country to become a democracy?" And he asked why they are killing people in Afghanistan, Turkey and Egypt and wrecking hopes of a peace deal in the Middle East. "They will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic as to what they do or that they don't use these things to try and recruit people. "But I do say we shouldn't compromise with it. I'm not saying anyone says any of these things justify it but we shouldn't even allow them the vestige of an excuse for what they do."
Mr Blair also accused the world of going back to sleep on terrorism since 9/11. He said: "September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again. "We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. "And not just their methods but their ideas." He added: "It is time we stopped saying, 'Okay, we abhor their methods but we kind of see something in their ideas of maybe they have got a sliver of excuse or justification'. They have got no justification for it." Mr Blair also gave an update on the anti-terror Bill being put together by the Home Office, which will create a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. He said that an increase in the length of pre-charge detention is a possibility as well as a specific offence of attending a terrorist training camp. And he said the terms of the Bill are being fine tuned and he expects it to be before the Commons in the Autumn.
2.30pm update
Blairs at odds over anti-terror measures Matthew Tempest, political correspondentWednesday July 27, 2005 Cherie Booth, the prime minister's wife, last night warned Britain must not "cheapen" its reputation for civil liberties in response to the London bombings, while her husband called for tougher judicial attitudes. In a speech in Malaysia, Ms Booth told an audience it would be "all too easy" to undermine Britain's "deeply held values" with an unduly hasty response to the attacks. The remarks could be interpreted as a shot across the government's bows as it drafts emergency anti-terrorism measures. Last night in a speech to 1,000 lawyers, diplomats and civil servants in Malaysia, Ms Booth - who uses her maiden name when appearing in her professional capacity as a barrister - said: "It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation." However, she prefaced her remarks by saying: "Nothing I say here could possibly be construed as making light of those horrible acts of violence" - the London bombings - "or of the responsibility imposed on the UK and other governments to keep the public safe, or of the difficult and dangerous task performed by the police and intelligence services." Ms Booth said judges made rulings in a way that taught citizens and government about the "ethical responsibilities" of participating in a true democracy committed to "universal human rights standards". She went on to praise the way the House of Lords blocked recent anti-terror legislation which could have seen foreign suspects detained without trial. "What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law," she said.
Blair's Attack On Terrorists' 'Warped Logic'
The Prime Minister has said Iraq is just an excuse for terrorists, insisting there is no justification for what they do.And he said he wants to "expose the obscenity" of the terrorists' "warped logic".Speaking passionately at his monthly news briefing, he said the roots of terrorism go much deeper than Iraq or Afghanistan."Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism. "If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them? "Why are they every day in Iraq trying to kill people whose only desire is for their country to become a democracy?" And he asked why they are killing people in Afghanistan, Turkey and Egypt and wrecking hopes of a peace deal in the Middle East. "They will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic as to what they do or that they don't use these things to try and recruit people. "But I do say we shouldn't compromise with it. I'm not saying anyone says any of these things justify it but we shouldn't even allow them the vestige of an excuse for what they do."
Mr Blair also accused the world of going back to sleep on terrorism since 9/11. He said: "September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again. "We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. "And not just their methods but their ideas." He added: "It is time we stopped saying, 'Okay, we abhor their methods but we kind of see something in their ideas of maybe they have got a sliver of excuse or justification'. They have got no justification for it." Mr Blair also gave an update on the anti-terror Bill being put together by the Home Office, which will create a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. He said that an increase in the length of pre-charge detention is a possibility as well as a specific offence of attending a terrorist training camp. And he said the terms of the Bill are being fine tuned and he expects it to be before the Commons in the Autumn.
2.30pm update
Blairs at odds over anti-terror measures Matthew Tempest, political correspondentWednesday July 27, 2005 Cherie Booth, the prime minister's wife, last night warned Britain must not "cheapen" its reputation for civil liberties in response to the London bombings, while her husband called for tougher judicial attitudes. In a speech in Malaysia, Ms Booth told an audience it would be "all too easy" to undermine Britain's "deeply held values" with an unduly hasty response to the attacks. The remarks could be interpreted as a shot across the government's bows as it drafts emergency anti-terrorism measures. Last night in a speech to 1,000 lawyers, diplomats and civil servants in Malaysia, Ms Booth - who uses her maiden name when appearing in her professional capacity as a barrister - said: "It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation." However, she prefaced her remarks by saying: "Nothing I say here could possibly be construed as making light of those horrible acts of violence" - the London bombings - "or of the responsibility imposed on the UK and other governments to keep the public safe, or of the difficult and dangerous task performed by the police and intelligence services." Ms Booth said judges made rulings in a way that taught citizens and government about the "ethical responsibilities" of participating in a true democracy committed to "universal human rights standards". She went on to praise the way the House of Lords blocked recent anti-terror legislation which could have seen foreign suspects detained without trial. "What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law," she said.
I've got a song to sing.
Well, glad that is over. I’ve just finished uploading all my CDs to the machine ready for the day when I can connect to the iPod. Yes – even though I know where the gift I bought for myself is hidden, I’ll not use it until the dread day. Seems I’ve got just over 3,500 songs that would last 9.2 days and they take up 18.95GB. Get that lot loaded and I’ll be set for life I reckon. Now means that when I’ve been two or three days on no nourishment or artificial rehydration, I can get Norma to select the genre Military Music and plug me in so I can fade out in a proper military manner. I’d better get a necklace plaque with that on otherwise she will put me on the rock programme and I will just jump about with staccato movements like a crab on speed.
To Alnwick today to offload a large number of books to the bookshop. Things I would have thrown out were taken in for £80 or so – you know it makes sense. Well, not a lot as I came away with some £45 of stuff to read. Included T E Lawrence’s 7 Pillars of Wisdom which will be interesting in the light of where we are with the Muslim ‘situation’ just now.
The Met are still pulling plums on thumbs out of pies on a daily basis. Well done to them and I can imagine that this is one recent investigation that is not being tied down with political correctness and racial awareness.
Damned dog gets smarter every day. I gave her a leg stretch in Alnwick. Left the car at the bulk fish place and walked down to some waste ground. Sent her in to check it out while I followed. The weeds and grass were shoulder high for me and we lost track of each other. I got back out of the wild patch and waited. No sign of her so I called. No sign. After ten minutes or so, I decided to go back and bring the car to where I lost sight of her. As I turned the corner, there was a pointy-nosed dog sitting alongside the car. Much mutual appreciation ensued.
To Alnwick today to offload a large number of books to the bookshop. Things I would have thrown out were taken in for £80 or so – you know it makes sense. Well, not a lot as I came away with some £45 of stuff to read. Included T E Lawrence’s 7 Pillars of Wisdom which will be interesting in the light of where we are with the Muslim ‘situation’ just now.
The Met are still pulling plums on thumbs out of pies on a daily basis. Well done to them and I can imagine that this is one recent investigation that is not being tied down with political correctness and racial awareness.
Damned dog gets smarter every day. I gave her a leg stretch in Alnwick. Left the car at the bulk fish place and walked down to some waste ground. Sent her in to check it out while I followed. The weeds and grass were shoulder high for me and we lost track of each other. I got back out of the wild patch and waited. No sign of her so I called. No sign. After ten minutes or so, I decided to go back and bring the car to where I lost sight of her. As I turned the corner, there was a pointy-nosed dog sitting alongside the car. Much mutual appreciation ensued.
Tuesday, 26 July 2005
Foiled!
I was going to write this when I had settled down a bit but this says what I would have produced anyway. So, retire in sulk.
With one bound....
This is something written over three hundred year ago by William Wordsworth. I first came across it just over fifty years ago but read it again last night in an anthology. Yes - a sad life is being led. Poetry at bedtime - it will be Ovaltine next!
INTIMATIONS OF IMMORTALITY FROM RECOLLECTIONS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD
William Wordsworth
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
This reminded me that I was obsessed at the time by this thought - how could I avoid this shading of the prison-house? As was the custom of those times, the ode was dissected out to the smallest detail and I discovered that it was not a literal fate but rather that the joys of childhood soon gave way to the facts of life as a middle aged adult and then an old person. This did not bother me too much as I accepted - indeed, sought, that maturity had to come but I was still aware of my first scare about the shades of the prison-house being opressive and limiting. How long was one in the prison? How did one escape?
I determined that I would be a growing boy who proved that prison-house was not inevitable. If this needed some Peter Pan syndrome, OK by me. So far as I am concerned, the most serious rigours of adulthood passed me by. I had a considerable degree of autonomy in what I did all through my working life and I was not afraid to stretch the rubber band where necessary.
All that seems to me to have changed. I have as much liberty now as ever I had but I feel the anology of the prison-house. Much of what I enjoyed by expressing my Peter Pan attitude is lost to me by age and nagging infirmity. Even some of the desire to play 'young boy' has left me. So, old William was right after all. All I have done is redefine 'young boy' so I suppose that is something to hold onto.
The same work includes another idea that I also endorse -
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;--
Turn wheresoe'er I may, By night or day,
The things which I have seen
I now can see no more
And that has nothing to do with eye-tests!!
INTIMATIONS OF IMMORTALITY FROM RECOLLECTIONS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD
William Wordsworth
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
This reminded me that I was obsessed at the time by this thought - how could I avoid this shading of the prison-house? As was the custom of those times, the ode was dissected out to the smallest detail and I discovered that it was not a literal fate but rather that the joys of childhood soon gave way to the facts of life as a middle aged adult and then an old person. This did not bother me too much as I accepted - indeed, sought, that maturity had to come but I was still aware of my first scare about the shades of the prison-house being opressive and limiting. How long was one in the prison? How did one escape?
I determined that I would be a growing boy who proved that prison-house was not inevitable. If this needed some Peter Pan syndrome, OK by me. So far as I am concerned, the most serious rigours of adulthood passed me by. I had a considerable degree of autonomy in what I did all through my working life and I was not afraid to stretch the rubber band where necessary.
All that seems to me to have changed. I have as much liberty now as ever I had but I feel the anology of the prison-house. Much of what I enjoyed by expressing my Peter Pan attitude is lost to me by age and nagging infirmity. Even some of the desire to play 'young boy' has left me. So, old William was right after all. All I have done is redefine 'young boy' so I suppose that is something to hold onto.
The same work includes another idea that I also endorse -
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;--
Turn wheresoe'er I may, By night or day,
The things which I have seen
I now can see no more
And that has nothing to do with eye-tests!!
Now there's a thing.
A new poll has shown that nearly two thirds of British Muslims, 63 per cent, are considering leaving the UK for fear of a backlash against them following the London bombings. The ICM poll in the Guardian also finds that 50 per cent of the public as a whole do not think Muslims are doing enough to prevent extremists infiltrating their community. Four out of 10 felt that the Muslim community needs to do more to integrate in mainstream British culture.
Monday, 25 July 2005
Useless information
Tea for Two?
At the north end of the eastbound Underground platform at Arsenal station, Piccadilly Line, a small staff room, which was formerly the signal cabin, had a kettle on a gas ring for brewing tea. The local station staff kept the kettle full of hot water for the convenience of train drivers, who would run in and fill their tea cans with hot water from time to time. Unfortunately, the room was closed to trainmen many years ago after a celebrated incident in which a driver dashed into the room to fill his can with hot water, only to discover the station foreman and one of the lady ticket collectors "in flagrante" across the mess room table. The driver kept his cool sufficiently to fill his can but the couple were somewhat upset at the interruption and the room was henceforth closed and remained closed forever after.
At the north end of the eastbound Underground platform at Arsenal station, Piccadilly Line, a small staff room, which was formerly the signal cabin, had a kettle on a gas ring for brewing tea. The local station staff kept the kettle full of hot water for the convenience of train drivers, who would run in and fill their tea cans with hot water from time to time. Unfortunately, the room was closed to trainmen many years ago after a celebrated incident in which a driver dashed into the room to fill his can with hot water, only to discover the station foreman and one of the lady ticket collectors "in flagrante" across the mess room table. The driver kept his cool sufficiently to fill his can but the couple were somewhat upset at the interruption and the room was henceforth closed and remained closed forever after.
They are not all bad
Advice from the nice parking attendant.
Now, if I could just find the appropriate advice from the nice man who deals with speeding offences!
Now, if I could just find the appropriate advice from the nice man who deals with speeding offences!
Start a new business?
Maybe start a new business selling these to Brazilian tourists to UK. Make them safe with shooters and scare away bombers.
Deeds not words
My posting yesterday included something to the effect that talking serves no purpose in the current internal action against terrorism and its eradication. Given that, it was nice to see an article about this very matter in todays Daily Telegraph. Very ego boosting!
The Met have come back slightly on their shooting incident. They upheld my opinion that they have all the Cockney drives when they reported that the guy they shot was here on an expired visa. "See, told you he was a crook"
The Met have come back slightly on their shooting incident. They upheld my opinion that they have all the Cockney drives when they reported that the guy they shot was here on an expired visa. "See, told you he was a crook"
Still valid today
This is a World War II poster we bought from Barter Books at Alnwick.I think it just about sums up what we need to do today and in the future. As in any major project, the investigation will have setbacks but we need to focus on what we are trying to achieve and not get sidetracked on if, why and but. That can be done later; right now there is a much higher priority.
So - stand up straight you lot. Keep Calm and Carry On.
Sunday, 24 July 2005
Britannia regained - by John
I said yesterday that I would be looking at what we might do about the Muslim/Islamic situation. This overlooked the fact that the Sunday papers would all be doing the same. I’ve read the Times & Telegraph on paper and cruised the others on electronic editions. There is a range of opinion and solution to suit everyone from humanist to Satanist, all the way from Right to Left by way of liberal and Nazi-clone.
Never the less, I’m going to add my 2P worth.
First thing is that we need to recognise certain facts.
There is no international solution. We still have North and South Korea at loggerheads, we were not really able to do much in Bosnia until too many had been slaughtered and Darfur is just a disgrace on the term ‘international action’. Our route to salvation lies in this country.
It is not going to be pretty. We have gone down a very long road to get to the situation now called Londistan. The multi-everything attitude has taken root in the consciousness of many people. Broad brush methods will be needed as there is no real way to identify and isolate the hotheads and activists from those who are as like as two peas in appearance and ethnicity. From what we know, the families of the bombers on 7/7 were unaware of what their kids were getting up to. Even if they had suspicions, blood is thicker than water.
There will have to be compromise. In order to put into action any solution, we need people to accept what happens and not to add what we do to the imagined or real grievances that cause them to dissent and destroy. The Palestinian solution has to be found. We have plenty of politicians skilled at weasel words so as to achieve what seems to be a valid answer. Iraq was a total nonsense. We have achieved as much as we can in the regime change that has been introduced. We need to get people to cease fighting amongst themselves long enough for us to undertake an orderly withdrawal. What they do once we have gone is immaterial. Think of our leaving India when we knew what would happen between India and Pakistan or Hindu and Muslim. In Aden we got FLOSY and FANY to hold off long enough for us to ship out. They then fought amongst themselves to see who was boss. In Cyprus, we got some 70:30 agreement and that blew out shortly after we had withdrawn to the sovereign bases. Northern Ireland is already sorting itself out as Nationalist vs. Loyalists. If Uncle Dubya wants to stay, bless him and let him get on with it.
OK, so that is what the answer will not be. What should we do then?
Firstly, recover our national identity. Whilst we cannot be total clones we can be versions of the same set of models. Possibly our most resilient period of modern times was the 1950s. We want to regain the ideals and morals we had then. This is not a call for some Luddite review of all we have invented and developed since then but should examine everything ‘new’ and consider it’s value and worth in improving what we had in 1950. Parliament must be more responsive to what the public want. Things that enhance the 50s should be adopted and introduced with vigour. Those that do not should be recognised and abandoned.
The legal system must be revised in the light of how we wish the country to be run. Fraud trials where a jury cannot understand the evidence. Long debate about whether or not McDonalds were libelled. Compensatory culture. In addition to the laws of evidence, the technology of crime trials should be updated to take account of facilities such as word-processing and data transfer pre-trial as well as in court. Rules relating to evidence must be made simpler so that police do not have to work with one hand tied behind their backs. They should be permitted to obtain whatever they consider evidential by whatever means they choose. The Mafia have learnt not to discuss their business by telephone after many successes from phone-tap operations.
These and other measures are designed to bring us back pride in our country and to be jealous of whom we allow to share with us. Strong immigration controls must be produced and strongly monitored. Increasing numbers of countries require to know what benefit an immigrant will bring before allowing them into the country. It is too late to try to control immigration once an individual is here and wandering about amongst others. Asylum seekers should not be allowed to choose where they will end up. If someone from country A gets into country B which has no affiliation to A, that is where they stay. Those lands around despotic rulers will realise that they cannot look after all who come in and they will adopt a more questioning role. People who cause a problem in their country of origin and then run for cover should be refused entry. They knew the consequences of their dissent and should have acted accordingly. This should not include lumbering another place with their support.
Those presently here and who choose to continue their fight must be evicted. Those who seek to stir up dissent should be imprisoned if British or evicted if not. Many of those who are causing the present unrest are refugees from justice in other countries who have asked for them to be deported but we just dilly dally and let them continue their poisonous tirades.
Never the less, I’m going to add my 2P worth.
First thing is that we need to recognise certain facts.
There is no international solution. We still have North and South Korea at loggerheads, we were not really able to do much in Bosnia until too many had been slaughtered and Darfur is just a disgrace on the term ‘international action’. Our route to salvation lies in this country.
It is not going to be pretty. We have gone down a very long road to get to the situation now called Londistan. The multi-everything attitude has taken root in the consciousness of many people. Broad brush methods will be needed as there is no real way to identify and isolate the hotheads and activists from those who are as like as two peas in appearance and ethnicity. From what we know, the families of the bombers on 7/7 were unaware of what their kids were getting up to. Even if they had suspicions, blood is thicker than water.
There will have to be compromise. In order to put into action any solution, we need people to accept what happens and not to add what we do to the imagined or real grievances that cause them to dissent and destroy. The Palestinian solution has to be found. We have plenty of politicians skilled at weasel words so as to achieve what seems to be a valid answer. Iraq was a total nonsense. We have achieved as much as we can in the regime change that has been introduced. We need to get people to cease fighting amongst themselves long enough for us to undertake an orderly withdrawal. What they do once we have gone is immaterial. Think of our leaving India when we knew what would happen between India and Pakistan or Hindu and Muslim. In Aden we got FLOSY and FANY to hold off long enough for us to ship out. They then fought amongst themselves to see who was boss. In Cyprus, we got some 70:30 agreement and that blew out shortly after we had withdrawn to the sovereign bases. Northern Ireland is already sorting itself out as Nationalist vs. Loyalists. If Uncle Dubya wants to stay, bless him and let him get on with it.
OK, so that is what the answer will not be. What should we do then?
Firstly, recover our national identity. Whilst we cannot be total clones we can be versions of the same set of models. Possibly our most resilient period of modern times was the 1950s. We want to regain the ideals and morals we had then. This is not a call for some Luddite review of all we have invented and developed since then but should examine everything ‘new’ and consider it’s value and worth in improving what we had in 1950. Parliament must be more responsive to what the public want. Things that enhance the 50s should be adopted and introduced with vigour. Those that do not should be recognised and abandoned.
The legal system must be revised in the light of how we wish the country to be run. Fraud trials where a jury cannot understand the evidence. Long debate about whether or not McDonalds were libelled. Compensatory culture. In addition to the laws of evidence, the technology of crime trials should be updated to take account of facilities such as word-processing and data transfer pre-trial as well as in court. Rules relating to evidence must be made simpler so that police do not have to work with one hand tied behind their backs. They should be permitted to obtain whatever they consider evidential by whatever means they choose. The Mafia have learnt not to discuss their business by telephone after many successes from phone-tap operations.
These and other measures are designed to bring us back pride in our country and to be jealous of whom we allow to share with us. Strong immigration controls must be produced and strongly monitored. Increasing numbers of countries require to know what benefit an immigrant will bring before allowing them into the country. It is too late to try to control immigration once an individual is here and wandering about amongst others. Asylum seekers should not be allowed to choose where they will end up. If someone from country A gets into country B which has no affiliation to A, that is where they stay. Those lands around despotic rulers will realise that they cannot look after all who come in and they will adopt a more questioning role. People who cause a problem in their country of origin and then run for cover should be refused entry. They knew the consequences of their dissent and should have acted accordingly. This should not include lumbering another place with their support.
Those presently here and who choose to continue their fight must be evicted. Those who seek to stir up dissent should be imprisoned if British or evicted if not. Many of those who are causing the present unrest are refugees from justice in other countries who have asked for them to be deported but we just dilly dally and let them continue their poisonous tirades.
Saturday, 23 July 2005
Lighten up
I do not subscribe to the 'Bush is a dimwit' school of thought but some of the jokes are quite good.
Worth sharing - I think - is about the woman who was heard to say 'if he were my Bush, I'd shave him off'.
Worth sharing - I think - is about the woman who was heard to say 'if he were my Bush, I'd shave him off'.
Manna from heaven for some
Met have just announced that shooting guy dead yesterday was a mistook. Enquiry. Police Complaints. Blah. Blah. Whilst one has sympathy for the family and friends of dead bloke, my main thoughts are for the guy who did the shooting. We certainly need a more agressive police service and the new initiative regarding suicide bombers was one I saw as progress. Now what was so simple; suicide bomber = dead man, will be hedged in with more and more conditions such that any officer looking for a long career will hesitate before he gets something like this on his sheet. This delay in turn could lead to deaths if a bomber has enough time to press the tit.
Regardless of the outcome of any enquiry, the radical Islamic groups will seize upon it as another injustice, the people from Islington will say it is all wrong that the police are armed anyway and the human rights and liberty extremists will go on about the suggestion that the bloke never stood a chance because he was Asian.
Mind you - might all turn out far less dramatically if it turns out it wasn't the police after all but guys from Hereford just having an Away Day.
Regardless of the outcome of any enquiry, the radical Islamic groups will seize upon it as another injustice, the people from Islington will say it is all wrong that the police are armed anyway and the human rights and liberty extremists will go on about the suggestion that the bloke never stood a chance because he was Asian.
Mind you - might all turn out far less dramatically if it turns out it wasn't the police after all but guys from Hereford just having an Away Day.
What now and how?
Given the volume of debate as to where the origins of recent events may lie, I had a wander round the ether to see if I could find anyone else’s ideas on the matter. In general, I stayed away from those which had any Muslim-bent as there is no shortage as to what our Islamic neighbours want. It is all defined in their Koran anyway – world domination. As an aside, I’m old enough to remember the last little Shitler who sought that jewel. Maybe I was attracted by the URL of this guy but here is his take on the subject.
Much has been written in the last few days about the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain and how radical jihadis are operating with impunity in British society. In fact, London has come to be known as “Londonistan” for the wave of Muslim immigration that is changing the politics of not only England but nations on the continent as well:
Radical Muslims soon learned to ask for asylum for political persecution, to guarantee a long, taxpayer-supported vacation in Britain. London became “Londonistan,” the biggest European haven for Islamist indoctrination and recruitment. The terrorist enablers are the hard Left and its propaganda organs, notably the hallowed British Broadcasting Corporation. British ratepayers recently paid for the BBC to produce a “documentary” to peddle the bug-eyed notion that the terrorist threat was just a right-wing plot to scare people. That was pure disinformation, just one piece of a daily BBC propaganda stream that nurtures, protects, and rationalizes yesterday’s murders.
The question is what, if anything can be done about it. The howls of rage that would result in a crackdown on either immigration or radical Islamists from both Muslim “civil rights” groups and their left wing enablers in the media would seem to make any solution to the problem of inviting terrorists to take up residence in Britain – or the US for that matter – problematic. Richard Fernandez points out the dangers of doing nothing:
A politically correct policy that requires Europe not to know who is in the 5th column will inevitably force it to assume guilt in those of a certain persuasion in a moment of mortal danger. Internment and mass deportation is what governments resort to when they don’t know who the real spies are. Political correctness is the practice of requiring ignorance indefinitely against the calculation that the moment of moral danger will never come because nobody knows what the hell they are going to do then. It’s at that moment, as Steyn observes, that farce, farce and farce becomes tragedy.
As western Muslims continue their campaign to portray our War on Terror as a war against Islam, it will become more and more difficult to crack down on the radical Imams who are not only actively recruiting for al Qaeda but also poisoning the minds of other Muslims to America and the west. And until the MSM wakes up to the danger and begins to broadcast the truth about these terror apologists and fellow travelers, we’ll continue to experience more numerical nightmares like 9/11, 3/11/ and 7/7.
Well, he got the last bit right as we now know after 21/7.
Next, I think I will see what is out there as to how we can correct he situation the multi-culturists have got us into; maybe I can drag some blame to the multi-ethnic as well. There are two problems here as I see it – we have to stop any more flooding in (swamping as Blinkett said) and what to do with those already here who will not see the light.
Much has been written in the last few days about the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain and how radical jihadis are operating with impunity in British society. In fact, London has come to be known as “Londonistan” for the wave of Muslim immigration that is changing the politics of not only England but nations on the continent as well:
Radical Muslims soon learned to ask for asylum for political persecution, to guarantee a long, taxpayer-supported vacation in Britain. London became “Londonistan,” the biggest European haven for Islamist indoctrination and recruitment. The terrorist enablers are the hard Left and its propaganda organs, notably the hallowed British Broadcasting Corporation. British ratepayers recently paid for the BBC to produce a “documentary” to peddle the bug-eyed notion that the terrorist threat was just a right-wing plot to scare people. That was pure disinformation, just one piece of a daily BBC propaganda stream that nurtures, protects, and rationalizes yesterday’s murders.
The question is what, if anything can be done about it. The howls of rage that would result in a crackdown on either immigration or radical Islamists from both Muslim “civil rights” groups and their left wing enablers in the media would seem to make any solution to the problem of inviting terrorists to take up residence in Britain – or the US for that matter – problematic. Richard Fernandez points out the dangers of doing nothing:
A politically correct policy that requires Europe not to know who is in the 5th column will inevitably force it to assume guilt in those of a certain persuasion in a moment of mortal danger. Internment and mass deportation is what governments resort to when they don’t know who the real spies are. Political correctness is the practice of requiring ignorance indefinitely against the calculation that the moment of moral danger will never come because nobody knows what the hell they are going to do then. It’s at that moment, as Steyn observes, that farce, farce and farce becomes tragedy.
As western Muslims continue their campaign to portray our War on Terror as a war against Islam, it will become more and more difficult to crack down on the radical Imams who are not only actively recruiting for al Qaeda but also poisoning the minds of other Muslims to America and the west. And until the MSM wakes up to the danger and begins to broadcast the truth about these terror apologists and fellow travelers, we’ll continue to experience more numerical nightmares like 9/11, 3/11/ and 7/7.
Well, he got the last bit right as we now know after 21/7.
Next, I think I will see what is out there as to how we can correct he situation the multi-culturists have got us into; maybe I can drag some blame to the multi-ethnic as well. There are two problems here as I see it – we have to stop any more flooding in (swamping as Blinkett said) and what to do with those already here who will not see the light.
Friday, 22 July 2005
Bred to be versatile
The Germans bred short-haired pointers to be versatile at everything needed in a hunting dog. They achieved it in my example. Anything from great big birds to this
........
Well done that dog!
........Well done that dog!
Thanks but no thanks
Just got an e-mail in my spam catcher. Subject is "Viagra. $1.67 for a dose"
Tempted to reply that I'm in need of the Viagra but do not want a dose.
Tempted to reply that I'm in need of the Viagra but do not want a dose.
That's the way
Seems the events of yesterday have stirred up a real hornets nest in the police gardens. Too soon to be sure if the guy they killed was not just a non-ticket passenger but it certainly showed that the new rules of engagement in respect of suspected suicide-bombers are effective.
I suppose yesterday's events confirm my (bigoted - yes, I suppose so) ideas as to the nature of those who attack us. They are incompetant in making a proper bomb and then abandon their desire for martyrdom very quickly.
From a source likely to know but who must remain 'hush', I hear that the final stages of the shooting on the train were recorded by one of the officers on his mobile phone. Truly a 'happy slapping'. Nice to see the force using all available resources. Five rounds - must have had a stoppage?
I suppose yesterday's events confirm my (bigoted - yes, I suppose so) ideas as to the nature of those who attack us. They are incompetant in making a proper bomb and then abandon their desire for martyrdom very quickly.
From a source likely to know but who must remain 'hush', I hear that the final stages of the shooting on the train were recorded by one of the officers on his mobile phone. Truly a 'happy slapping'. Nice to see the force using all available resources. Five rounds - must have had a stoppage?
Not quite like that Mr Editor
This is from today's Daily Telegraph. Long and rather narrow in appeal but it gained second editorial in a responsible newspaper and got my liver moving towards a dangerous episode. As I said elsewhere, 'if you prick me, do I not bleed'
Who protects soldiers?(Filed: 22/07/2005)
The Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police is feared throughout the Army. No harm in that. Recently, however, it is becoming hated - and that is highly undesirable. The hatred stems from its use by the civil legal authorities to prosecute cases against soldiers serving in the field. That is not what soldiers believe to be the SIB's proper role.
Historically, the SIB concerned itself with misappropriation of public funds, theft of valuable stores, sexual predation by seniors against juniors - what the Army recognises as "crime". In recent years, however, "crime" has come to include offences against human rights legislation, as defined by the International Convention on War Crime. At present, the SIB is proceeding against several soldiers of the Irish Guards and the Parachute Regiment, and is mounting a major case against the commanding officer and several soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment for offences allegedly committed against civilians in Iraq.
Six former chiefs of the defence staff spoke in the House of Lords last week to denounce this development. As Admiral Lord Boyce put it, expressing a collective view, the motivation for the latter case appears to be subservience to political correctness. No one is suggesting that soldiers who mistreat prisoners or civilians should escape legal penalty. Equally, however, no one should suffer legal penalty because the Government seeks to demonstrate to its international partners, particularly to the legal panjandrums of the European Court, that it is marching in step with current legal fashion.
Soldiers are aggrieved by the SIB's detachment from any sense of soldierly fellowship. No one wants military law to be tempered by cronyism. What the accused are encountering, however, is a chilling loneliness. The SIB is dilatory in bringing charges and in pressing investigation, it is suddenly reviving cases that appeared to be settled, it is unfrank in its methods and secretive in its use of evidence.
Soldiers who find themselves in the toils of the SIB discover that they have no friends in high places on their side.
It is entirely characteristic of the current highly undesirable situation that it was left to retired officers to speak up. Senior serving officers have demonstrated that they think discretion the better part of valour when it comes to defending their own men. They should currently be examining their consciences. It will add to the disgrace of the spectacle of British soldiers cowering before the threat of legal penalty for bearing arms in an unpopular war if those to whom they look for protection are currently more concerned with protecting their retirement privileges than their own soldiers.
Let me declare an interest. I was a member of the SIB from 1953 until retiring as a WOI (RSM) in 1974. During that time I served in most of the places where the British army was engaged in anti-terrorist-type operations. From mid-1970 until the end of 1971 I was in charge of the unit deployed to Northern Ireland. The relationship between the SIB and the Army was often difficult. Soldiers did not want to see a career ruined by a criminal record and commanding officers were not keen in having the problems of their unit published far and wide. These attitudes were acknowledged and, in the main, SIB was able to function to meet the responsibilities allocated to them. One thing should be made clear – the Branch does not charge soldiers and does not even decide what offences may have been disclosed. Reports go to a legal authority who frame charges to be brought by the offender’s Commanding Officer. Where the editorial claims “In recent years, however, "crime" has come to include offences against human rights legislation, as defined by the International Convention on War Crime” is a touch creative. What has really happened is that someone has been unlawfully killed, injured to some physical degree or forced to undergo some humiliation. These are criminal offences well covered by the laws of the country. They may, in certain circumstances, fall within what are described as crimes against human rights because an international organisation has lumped them together in such a manner. The actual SIB investigations go to prove or disprove whether a homicide has taken place, someone has been injured or humiliated. These are perfectly normal enquiries albeit they took place within the fog of war or warlike situations.
I am quite certain that no one would be satisfied if the investigations were undertaken in anything less than a rigorous and professional manner. Think here of the criticism that police services have come under in cases such as Lawrence and the Yorkshire Ripper. There is often someone who will suggest that freemasonry has involved itself in police discipline matters. Investigators from SIB have excellent training and resources. The army has very few serious criminals within its ranks as such individuals are ejected without sympathy or the resources devoted to civilian offenders. They are fully aware of the boundary between what is self-protection and what is criminal behaviour in battle-field type circumstances. Talk of the heat of the battle is rarely appropriate when one thinks back to the circumstances surrounding those offences we know of such as Camp Breadbasket where civilians were given a taste of service discipline. Offenders have to be recognised and dealt with. To delegate such matters to some other police service would remove, even further, the investigator from any experience of military life and attitudes. Given the length of time the Iraq confrontation has been running and the large numbers of troops deployed, the few soldiers mentioned in the editorial does not suggest a major discipline problem. If the vast majority can carry out their duties in a proper manner, why should the name of the British army be desecrated by a few irresponsible soldiers?
More attention should have been given to explaining to commanders and soldiers why SIB have to do what they do and why the Whitehall warriors – who, believe me, certainly exist – engage in second-thinking and persist in flogging a near dead horse. Someone said recently that the crimes of the war in Iraq reach right up to 10 Downing Street – but that is politics and there I do not really know what I am talking about. By all means, see the SIB as the jolly Laughing Policeman or a Run Them In musical comedy parody but they never have been Svengali-like self-righteous bigots seeking or deserving hatred.
Who protects soldiers?(Filed: 22/07/2005)
The Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police is feared throughout the Army. No harm in that. Recently, however, it is becoming hated - and that is highly undesirable. The hatred stems from its use by the civil legal authorities to prosecute cases against soldiers serving in the field. That is not what soldiers believe to be the SIB's proper role.
Historically, the SIB concerned itself with misappropriation of public funds, theft of valuable stores, sexual predation by seniors against juniors - what the Army recognises as "crime". In recent years, however, "crime" has come to include offences against human rights legislation, as defined by the International Convention on War Crime. At present, the SIB is proceeding against several soldiers of the Irish Guards and the Parachute Regiment, and is mounting a major case against the commanding officer and several soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment for offences allegedly committed against civilians in Iraq.
Six former chiefs of the defence staff spoke in the House of Lords last week to denounce this development. As Admiral Lord Boyce put it, expressing a collective view, the motivation for the latter case appears to be subservience to political correctness. No one is suggesting that soldiers who mistreat prisoners or civilians should escape legal penalty. Equally, however, no one should suffer legal penalty because the Government seeks to demonstrate to its international partners, particularly to the legal panjandrums of the European Court, that it is marching in step with current legal fashion.
Soldiers are aggrieved by the SIB's detachment from any sense of soldierly fellowship. No one wants military law to be tempered by cronyism. What the accused are encountering, however, is a chilling loneliness. The SIB is dilatory in bringing charges and in pressing investigation, it is suddenly reviving cases that appeared to be settled, it is unfrank in its methods and secretive in its use of evidence.
Soldiers who find themselves in the toils of the SIB discover that they have no friends in high places on their side.
It is entirely characteristic of the current highly undesirable situation that it was left to retired officers to speak up. Senior serving officers have demonstrated that they think discretion the better part of valour when it comes to defending their own men. They should currently be examining their consciences. It will add to the disgrace of the spectacle of British soldiers cowering before the threat of legal penalty for bearing arms in an unpopular war if those to whom they look for protection are currently more concerned with protecting their retirement privileges than their own soldiers.
Let me declare an interest. I was a member of the SIB from 1953 until retiring as a WOI (RSM) in 1974. During that time I served in most of the places where the British army was engaged in anti-terrorist-type operations. From mid-1970 until the end of 1971 I was in charge of the unit deployed to Northern Ireland. The relationship between the SIB and the Army was often difficult. Soldiers did not want to see a career ruined by a criminal record and commanding officers were not keen in having the problems of their unit published far and wide. These attitudes were acknowledged and, in the main, SIB was able to function to meet the responsibilities allocated to them. One thing should be made clear – the Branch does not charge soldiers and does not even decide what offences may have been disclosed. Reports go to a legal authority who frame charges to be brought by the offender’s Commanding Officer. Where the editorial claims “In recent years, however, "crime" has come to include offences against human rights legislation, as defined by the International Convention on War Crime” is a touch creative. What has really happened is that someone has been unlawfully killed, injured to some physical degree or forced to undergo some humiliation. These are criminal offences well covered by the laws of the country. They may, in certain circumstances, fall within what are described as crimes against human rights because an international organisation has lumped them together in such a manner. The actual SIB investigations go to prove or disprove whether a homicide has taken place, someone has been injured or humiliated. These are perfectly normal enquiries albeit they took place within the fog of war or warlike situations.
I am quite certain that no one would be satisfied if the investigations were undertaken in anything less than a rigorous and professional manner. Think here of the criticism that police services have come under in cases such as Lawrence and the Yorkshire Ripper. There is often someone who will suggest that freemasonry has involved itself in police discipline matters. Investigators from SIB have excellent training and resources. The army has very few serious criminals within its ranks as such individuals are ejected without sympathy or the resources devoted to civilian offenders. They are fully aware of the boundary between what is self-protection and what is criminal behaviour in battle-field type circumstances. Talk of the heat of the battle is rarely appropriate when one thinks back to the circumstances surrounding those offences we know of such as Camp Breadbasket where civilians were given a taste of service discipline. Offenders have to be recognised and dealt with. To delegate such matters to some other police service would remove, even further, the investigator from any experience of military life and attitudes. Given the length of time the Iraq confrontation has been running and the large numbers of troops deployed, the few soldiers mentioned in the editorial does not suggest a major discipline problem. If the vast majority can carry out their duties in a proper manner, why should the name of the British army be desecrated by a few irresponsible soldiers?
More attention should have been given to explaining to commanders and soldiers why SIB have to do what they do and why the Whitehall warriors – who, believe me, certainly exist – engage in second-thinking and persist in flogging a near dead horse. Someone said recently that the crimes of the war in Iraq reach right up to 10 Downing Street – but that is politics and there I do not really know what I am talking about. By all means, see the SIB as the jolly Laughing Policeman or a Run Them In musical comedy parody but they never have been Svengali-like self-righteous bigots seeking or deserving hatred.
Thursday, 21 July 2005
What more is there to say?
After hearing that the state of South Australia changed its opinion
and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her
face covered prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen,
published in an Australian newspaper.
He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please... you decide if you
agree.
and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her
face covered prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen,
published in an Australian newspaper.
He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please... you decide if you
agree.
Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT".
I am tired of this nation
worrying about whether we are offending some
individual or their culture.
Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have
experienced a surge in
patriotism by the majority of Australians.
However, the dust from the
attacks had barely settled when the
'politically correct' crowd began
complaining about the possibility
that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is
seeking a better life by coming to
Australia.
However, there are a
few things that those who have recently come to
our country, and apparently
some born here, need to understand. This idea
of Australia being a
multicultural community has served only to dilute
our sovereignty and our
national identity. As Australians, we have our
own culture, our own society,
our own language and our own lifestyle.
This culture has been developed
over two centuries of struggles,
trials and victories by millions of men and
women who have sought freedom We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic,
Chinese, Japanese, Russian, American or any other language. Therefore, if you
wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
'In God We
Trust' is our National Motto. This is not some Christian,
right wing,
political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men
and women, on
Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is
clearly documented.
It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of
our schools.
If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the
world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. If the Southern
Cross offends you, or you don't like (A Fair Go), then you should
seriously
consider a move to another part of this planet We are happy
with our culture
and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where
you came from.
This is OUR COUNTRY, Our Land, and Our Lifestyle, and we
will allow
you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done
complaining, whining, and griping about our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National
Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other
great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
I figure if we all keep
passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will
also, sooner or later get
back to the complainers, let's all try, please.
Steady, steady now
Some confusion on the early reports that I have seen but it looks as if the Islamic Idiot Army have had another go at terrorising us. There seem to be reports of a guy with a knapsack running away from an explosion but the questionis whether they intended a punishment raid like last time or just publicity and to warn us they are still about. "Oh look, those nice terrorists haven't blown anyone up. Give them what they want"
Whatever it is, and whoever they are and whatever they want - they can get stuffed.
Whatever it is, and whoever they are and whatever they want - they can get stuffed.
Wednesday, 20 July 2005
Hant ponders.....
Got a bit carried away with my bullfight blogs but I had wanted to mention this guy. He has a recent column dated 10 July that got me where my funny bone lives. I spent some times in Kentucky amongst the dips and hollers - bit like the very best parts of Devon. My host was a very long term resident and he knew the moonshiners so we had to go see. The story Fred writes reminds me of those times and I commend it to you - you need to look in the listing at the extreme left for 'Hant ponders....'
A los Toros
My photo-blog of yesterday sent me back in time to 1952'ish. I was stationed in Gibraltar. The town just across the Spanish border was La Linea which offered everything a young male might desire. Also on offer - desired or not - was bullfighting where the season ran from Easter to early September. There was then no resistance to the idea of what amounted to torturing dumb animals. I had no great desire to see a bull fight as such but it was obviously something that drew huge crowds and I wanted to see why.The fights are held on Sunday afternoons. The large circular bull ring dominates the town and on fight days there is a great excitement as the spectators stream in. Most are dressed en-fete; all go - grandma, grandad, little kids - everyone. As La Linea was at the extreme south end of Spain there were not many tourists. As one nears the stadium the sound of a rackety old brass band is heard playing what one imagines as typical Spanish music. The sound of this band is heard all afternoon as it is used to signal the changes in the various parts of the fight.
The photo above illustrates another aspect. One buys entry to three areas; sol (sunny), sombre (shady) or sol e sombre (yes, that's right, sun and shade because the sun moves during the afternoon) The lady supporters spread their lace shawls over the barrier in front of them and get ready to applaud their favourites. There will be three fighters and each will kill three bulls if all goes well. The music changes and the grand parade opens. All of the bullfight personnel passage from one side of the ring to the other starting with the most-basic job guys and ending with the major performers. As the front of the review gets to the far side of the ring, they break formation and just wander around. The matadors will search the shawl of their favourites and stroll over to them. I say 'stroll' but that is the wrong word - these guys are proud as pish personified and have all the swagger one can imagine. Their costumes - their 'suit of lights' are splendid with vivid colours, sparkly bits and cords all skin tight on good male figures - doubtless with the addition of a pair of spare socks down the front of the tight tights.
Another change of music and the ring clears. Lesser decorated figures come in and the first bull is released. It comes out of a dark tunnel into the bright light and it's manner of entry signifies what sort of bull it will be in the contest ahead. Some run out at high speed and attack everything in sight. Others walk slowly into the ring - heads high and smelling the new atmosphere. They will not have had this experience before. Their pedigree will have been tested from their mothers who will have shown what they can do in a ring on the breeders' farm. The peons have large capes and attract the attention of the bull. This is to allow us and the matador to see what the bull will do. Does he hook to the left, to the right or upwards? Does he stand and then bolt forward or run from a way back?
Another change of music in response to the signals from the President for the day - a local worthy. Now enter the picadors. They have long lances and are mounted on horses which have considerable padding on one side and under their belly. They get the bull to charge them and place their lances into the upper neck muscle of the bull. This is to weaken it and lower the head. There will be three lancings before another change in the music.
Now come the bandilleros. They have short canes with a barbed point. They challenge the bull and run directly at it - placing their spears into the neck muscle. Again, three darts are planted. The idea is that the darts will swing and stir the bull into charging the next human that he sees in front of him.
The music that is played this time is traditional and always the same with off-key trumpets in the main part. Now enters the star of the show - the matador. He has a smaller cape and uses this to attract the attention of the bull. As the bull goes past like an express train, he demonstrates various classical movements. The objective is closeness of the bull and the fluency from one move into another. This gradually leads to his dominating the bull.
On my first visit, it was about this time that I was getting ready to depart after the bull was killed. The spectacle was worth seeing but I did not see it really as any sort of fight. I knew there was one more music change - again traditionally the signal for the bull to be killed. Here the matador takes a much smaller cape and executes smaller and tighter turns and passes until he decides the animal is ready for a full frontal approach where the human will force a sword into the neck and down into the heart of the animal.
This stage came. The very first cape movement went somehow wrong. The bull caught the man full on the crown between his horns and sent him six or seven feet into the air. It stopped and looked up like a footballer getting ready to volley the ball into the net. As the man came down, the bull caught him in the chest with one horn and then shook him off like a loose sock. The guy was dead as he hit the ground.
There was all sorts of kerfuffle then. The band played on. Peons distracted the bull. The body was removed. Another bull-fighter was called to the ring and, after a few passes, despatched the animal cleanly and efficiently. This is what has to happen. The bull cannot live to fight another day. He knows what humans do and would be too dangerous. A team of oxen come and drag the dead bull out, blood-stains are sawdusted over and the music starts all over again. By this time, I was as hooked as the dead man had been. The idea that it was a foregone conclusion was obviously wrong. The posing and prancing of everyone seemed more daring when one saw what the bull could do if things went wrong. A whole new dimension came into play. I think that, had I not seen the death in this very first visit, I would not have gone again.
As it was, I went every time possible and even went to the stadium a little way inland at San Roque where the ring was the smallest in Spain and even more heart-in-the-mouth inducing. I had a young lady who did my washing sort of thing and we had glorious afternoons with wine and doorstep sandwiches whilst watching Hemingway's Death in The Afternoon brought to life. I saw quite a few serious injuries but not another human death - the threat was always there though.
After I left, things went downhill. The bulls were smaller, the horns were shaved to make them sensitive, the animals were kept without water - what we would today consider as nobbled. I was recently e-talking with an old friend who lives in La Linea. The bullfights continue but mainly for tourists. The Spanish now look to football for excitement. I don't think I'd go back. Maybe I'm frightened I'd see a very old laundry woman sitting in the sol e sombre somewhere.
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
Shebrain vs. Hebrain
There was a question in a comment a while back asking if I had seen a TV programme regarding differences between male and female brains. I did answer this by, more or less, saying that I did not need a TV programme to convince me of this fact.
Now we have this report circulating
Now we have this report circulating
THE HORMONE WARNING:Women's Brains Really Are Blown By Orgasms
An orgasm is literally a mind-blowing experience for a woman, scientists have revealed.Much of her brain shuts down when she reaches a sexual climax.The discovery was made during experiments in the Netherlands when couples' brains were scanned during lovemaking.
Neuroscientist Dr Gert Holstege, from the University of Groningen said it appeared that shutting down the brain during orgasm ensured that obstacles such as fear and stress did not get in the way.
"When you are fearful or have a very high level of anxiety, then it's hard to have sex because during sex you really have to give yourself and let go."
Men were studied in the same way but because the male orgasm typically takes such a short time it
was difficult to obtain meaningful brain scan data.
A total of 13 women and 11 men, ranging in age from 19 to 49, took part in the experiments at Dr Holstege's laboratory.
Since it was vital to remain completely still in the
scanner, volunteers had to have their heads restrained while being stimulated.
The rest of the body was free to move.
Participants lay naked on a table with their head inside the scanner - but had to wear socks to avoid cold feet.
And there could be a connection with the aphrodisiac effect of alcohol.
"Alcohol brings down the fear level," said Dr Holstege. "Everyone knows if you give alcohol to a woman it makes things easier"This possibly explains one reason for the difference
The Hormone Hostage knows that there are days in the month when all a man has to do is open his mouth and he takes his life in his own hands! This is a handy guide that should be as common as a driver's licence in the wallet of every husband, boyfriend, or significant other
DANGEROUS: What's for dinner?SAFER: Can I help you with dinner?SAFEST: Where would you like to go for dinner?ULTRASAFE: Have some chocolate
DANGEROUS: Are you wearing that?SAFER: Wow, you look good in brown.SAFEST: WOW! Look at you!ULTRASAFE: Have some chocolate
DANGEROUS: What are you so worked up about?SAFER: Could we be overreacting?SAFEST: Here's my paycheck.ULTRASAFE: Have some chocolate
DANGEROUS: Should you be eating that?SAFER: You know, there are a lot of apples left.SAFEST: Can I get you a glass of wine with that?ULTRASAFE: Have some chocolate
DANGEROUS: What did you do all day?SAFER: I hope you didn't over-do it today.SAFEST: I've always loved you in that robe!ULTRASAFE: Have some more chocolate.
Self-inflicted injuries.
This is extracted from an article in today's Daily Telegraph. I like it because it supports what I have been saying for some while (irony) but I still think it is worth some thought. The full article is here.
A victory for multiculti over common sense
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 19/07/2005)
The London bombers were, to the naked eye, assimilated - they ate fish 'n' chips, played cricket, sported appalling leisurewear. They'd adopted so many trees we couldn't see they lacked the big overarching forest - the essence of identity, of allegiance. As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is.
So, if Islamist extremism is the genie you're trying to put back in the bottle, it doesn't help to have smashed the bottle. The 7/7 murderers are described as "Yorkshiremen", but, of course, there is no Yorkshire: Ted (Heath) abolished that, too.
Consider the Bishop of Lichfield, who at Evensong, on the night of the bombings, was at pains to assure his congregants: "Just as the IRA has nothing to do with Christianity, so this kind of terror has nothing to do with any of the world faiths." It's not so much the explicit fatuousness of the assertion so much as the broader message it conveys: we're the defeatist wimps; bomb us and we'll apologise to you. That's why in Britain the Anglican Church is in a death-spiral and Islam is the fastest-growing religion. There's no market for a faith that has no faith in itself. And as the Church goes so goes the state: why introduce identity cards for a nation with no identity?
It was the Prime Minister's wife, you'll recall, who last year won a famous court victory for Shabina Begum, as a result of which schools across the land must now permit students to wear the full "jilbab" - ie, Muslim garb that covers the entire body except the eyes and hands. Ms Booth hailed this as "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry". It seems almost too banal to observe that such an extreme preservation of Miss Begum's Muslim identity must perforce be at the expense of any British identity. Nor, incidentally, is Miss Begum "preserving" any identity: she's of Bangladeshi origin, and her adolescent adoption of the jilbab is a symbol of the Arabisation of South Asian (and African and European) Islam that's at the root of so many problems. It's no more part of her inherited identity than my five-year- old dressing up in his head-to-toe Darth Vader costume, to which at a casual glance it's not dissimilar.
Is it "bigoted" to argue that the jilbab is a barrier to acquiring the common culture necessary to any functioning society? Is it "prejudiced" to suggest that in Britain a Muslim woman ought to reach the same sartorial compromise as, say, a female doctor in Bahrain? Apparently so, according to Cherie Booth.
One of the striking features of the post-9/11 world is the minimal degree of separation between the so-called "extremists" and the establishment: Princess Haifa, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, gives $130,000 to accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists; the head of the group that certifies Muslim chaplains for the US military turns out to be a bagman for terrorists; one of the London bombers gets given a tour of the House of Commons by a Labour MP. The Guardian hires as a "trainee journalist" a member of Hizb ut Tahir, "Britain's most radical Islamic group" (as his own newspaper described them) and in his first column post-7/7 he mocks the idea that anyone could be "shocked" at a group of Yorkshiremen blowing up London: "Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks" - or the bus blows, or the Tube vaporises. Fellow Guardian employee David Foulkes, who was killed in the Edgware Road blast, would no doubt be heartened to know he'd died for the cause of Muslim "sassiness".
Oh, well. Back to business as usual. In yesterday's Independent, Dave Brown had a cartoon showing Bush and Blair as terrorists boarding the Tube to Baghdad. Ha-ha. The other day in Thailand, where 800 folks have been killed by Islamists since the start of the year, two Laotian farm workers were beheaded. I suppose that's Bush and Blair's fault, too.
But in the end Cherie Booth and Dave Brown and the Bishop of Lichfield will get you killed. Best of British, old thing.
A victory for multiculti over common sense
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 19/07/2005)
The London bombers were, to the naked eye, assimilated - they ate fish 'n' chips, played cricket, sported appalling leisurewear. They'd adopted so many trees we couldn't see they lacked the big overarching forest - the essence of identity, of allegiance. As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is.
So, if Islamist extremism is the genie you're trying to put back in the bottle, it doesn't help to have smashed the bottle. The 7/7 murderers are described as "Yorkshiremen", but, of course, there is no Yorkshire: Ted (Heath) abolished that, too.
Consider the Bishop of Lichfield, who at Evensong, on the night of the bombings, was at pains to assure his congregants: "Just as the IRA has nothing to do with Christianity, so this kind of terror has nothing to do with any of the world faiths." It's not so much the explicit fatuousness of the assertion so much as the broader message it conveys: we're the defeatist wimps; bomb us and we'll apologise to you. That's why in Britain the Anglican Church is in a death-spiral and Islam is the fastest-growing religion. There's no market for a faith that has no faith in itself. And as the Church goes so goes the state: why introduce identity cards for a nation with no identity?
It was the Prime Minister's wife, you'll recall, who last year won a famous court victory for Shabina Begum, as a result of which schools across the land must now permit students to wear the full "jilbab" - ie, Muslim garb that covers the entire body except the eyes and hands. Ms Booth hailed this as "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry". It seems almost too banal to observe that such an extreme preservation of Miss Begum's Muslim identity must perforce be at the expense of any British identity. Nor, incidentally, is Miss Begum "preserving" any identity: she's of Bangladeshi origin, and her adolescent adoption of the jilbab is a symbol of the Arabisation of South Asian (and African and European) Islam that's at the root of so many problems. It's no more part of her inherited identity than my five-year- old dressing up in his head-to-toe Darth Vader costume, to which at a casual glance it's not dissimilar.
Is it "bigoted" to argue that the jilbab is a barrier to acquiring the common culture necessary to any functioning society? Is it "prejudiced" to suggest that in Britain a Muslim woman ought to reach the same sartorial compromise as, say, a female doctor in Bahrain? Apparently so, according to Cherie Booth.
One of the striking features of the post-9/11 world is the minimal degree of separation between the so-called "extremists" and the establishment: Princess Haifa, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, gives $130,000 to accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists; the head of the group that certifies Muslim chaplains for the US military turns out to be a bagman for terrorists; one of the London bombers gets given a tour of the House of Commons by a Labour MP. The Guardian hires as a "trainee journalist" a member of Hizb ut Tahir, "Britain's most radical Islamic group" (as his own newspaper described them) and in his first column post-7/7 he mocks the idea that anyone could be "shocked" at a group of Yorkshiremen blowing up London: "Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks" - or the bus blows, or the Tube vaporises. Fellow Guardian employee David Foulkes, who was killed in the Edgware Road blast, would no doubt be heartened to know he'd died for the cause of Muslim "sassiness".
Oh, well. Back to business as usual. In yesterday's Independent, Dave Brown had a cartoon showing Bush and Blair as terrorists boarding the Tube to Baghdad. Ha-ha. The other day in Thailand, where 800 folks have been killed by Islamists since the start of the year, two Laotian farm workers were beheaded. I suppose that's Bush and Blair's fault, too.
But in the end Cherie Booth and Dave Brown and the Bishop of Lichfield will get you killed. Best of British, old thing.
Why bombs when chopsticks will do?
Well, big surprise today. Not. The Chinese with whom Rover was in 'last minute talks' when it was put into receivership have now submitted plans to resurrect some production in the UK. Lot less employees. They had previously got hold of some essential bits. So, set a company up for a fall, push it into the abyss and then get it for peanuts - or noodles. If it is this easy to knock over our industry, why bother with all that illegal stuff with explosives and knapsacks then? When you see how Chinese live in conditions where we would not be allowed to walk pigs, you can see just why the economists are forecasting big things from Asia. Plus they will be competing for the diminishing oil which will have to come from where we currently get ours.
I thought pokeynose had learnt a bit of a lesson the other day. However, whilst we were at the beach today, she started stalking a great big gull and manouvered it into a corner ready for a kill - which I stopped. She did the same to a crow the other day - about the size of a small chicken. As it took wing, she jumped up and caught it in her mouth. It lodged with its head and shoulders down her throat. Normally, the first bite down kills whatever she has hold of but I think she was surprised by the size of this bird. She had the front end in her chops but the wings were flapping ninety to the dozen and the legs were scrabbling like a gurkha going uphill. I could do little for laughing but she released it, held it down with a paw for a better grip and that was the end of the escape bid. My fear today was that Jonah gull would swallow her from the inside.
I thought pokeynose had learnt a bit of a lesson the other day. However, whilst we were at the beach today, she started stalking a great big gull and manouvered it into a corner ready for a kill - which I stopped. She did the same to a crow the other day - about the size of a small chicken. As it took wing, she jumped up and caught it in her mouth. It lodged with its head and shoulders down her throat. Normally, the first bite down kills whatever she has hold of but I think she was surprised by the size of this bird. She had the front end in her chops but the wings were flapping ninety to the dozen and the legs were scrabbling like a gurkha going uphill. I could do little for laughing but she released it, held it down with a paw for a better grip and that was the end of the escape bid. My fear today was that Jonah gull would swallow her from the inside.
Support we could well do without.
I think this is the kind of support we can well do without. Although, given what the Chatham House survey claims, this might be spin from someone at No 10?
Monday, July 18, 2005
51% of Americans want the U.S....to attack with military force: Republicans, favor attacks by a 7-to-1 margin
"51% Want Military Response to London Bombing Survey of 1,500 Adults July 15-17, 2005 July 18, 2005--In response to the terrorist bombings in London, 51% of Americans want the U.S. and its allies to attack with military force. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 25% believe the appropriate response is to withdraw US and British troops from Iraq.Just 7% believe the allies should negotiate with terrorists.As with most issues relating to the War on Terror, Republicans are largely united, while Democrats are divided.Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats share that view while 39% favor withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats favor negotiations.
There is a Pravda connection so this also could just be sweetbreads but it sounds convincing to me. Only thing not identified seems to be where this attack should be aimed. Cuba - ostensibly for high price of cigars. Argentina - finalising the Falklands thing. Possibilities - with this sort of mindset - seem limitless. Just so long as it does not have oil; I'm fed up with that conspiracy theory thread.
Don't like this?
Well, you will love this then
Monday, July 18, 2005
51% of Americans want the U.S....to attack with military force: Republicans, favor attacks by a 7-to-1 margin
"51% Want Military Response to London Bombing Survey of 1,500 Adults July 15-17, 2005 July 18, 2005--In response to the terrorist bombings in London, 51% of Americans want the U.S. and its allies to attack with military force. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 25% believe the appropriate response is to withdraw US and British troops from Iraq.Just 7% believe the allies should negotiate with terrorists.As with most issues relating to the War on Terror, Republicans are largely united, while Democrats are divided.Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats share that view while 39% favor withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats favor negotiations.
There is a Pravda connection so this also could just be sweetbreads but it sounds convincing to me. Only thing not identified seems to be where this attack should be aimed. Cuba - ostensibly for high price of cigars. Argentina - finalising the Falklands thing. Possibilities - with this sort of mindset - seem limitless. Just so long as it does not have oil; I'm fed up with that conspiracy theory thread.
Don't like this?
Well, you will love this then
From The American Conservative, 1 August 2005, p.27Philip Giraldi writes:In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office,
has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on
Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)