Ed West Misses the Point

I've suddenly started taking to having a moochies on the Telegraph websites blogs. Don't ask me why, curious morbidity probably. It's all a bit depressing on there really (God help us if we really do all become more right wing as we're older. Cause I don't wanna go there!) But I did come across this piece by Ed West, who is not last years winner of "Person who's name sounds a lot like the most like a famous serial killer, and could be used as a tribute act.", but a blogger on that site. His entry is 0n comments by Michael Gove (Education Secretary) about being receptive to every ones favourite God hater; Richard Dawkins - idea to set up a "free thinking" school, in response to government plans to allow groups to set up their own schools with tax payers money. The article says that he wants to set up "atheist" schools, to which the following rebuttal is issued.

"“I would prefer to call it a free-thinking free school,” he said.

"I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion.

“Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded."

There is little for me to disagree with there. One of the greatest gifts we can imbue kids with is the ability to think for themselves. To think critically and open mindedly, with a sense of independence of spirit. Youngsters have a way of looking at things, that adults sometimes lose. It must be nurtured. It is fucking criminal in my mind for kids, who are browbeaten into unquestioning compliance, their independent spirit treated as "youthful impertinence". To be hamstrung or strong armed into being taught to "think" on only the terms of what "tradition" or "religion" or "the wisdom of the elders". To swallow whole, at face value; gold standard truth, a load of opinions of other people. This educational reform would be beneficial in perhaps nurturing that independent spirit. However it is just as likely that religious groups will seize on it too, and when we learn that school texts are teaching "AIDS is the wages of sin" as truth, and that Jews are "monkeys", we must ask at what price to kids education, are better whack in ofstead league tables worth?

It seems that West (pretty right wing guy) agrees. It's sometimes good when someone from the other side of the fence has a view you hold, you see how a mutual view can form from quite different origins, expanding your philosophical scope a bit. So kudos for this:

" Once again Michael Gove proves himself to be the best classical liberal in the Government by saying he would be interested in athiest, free schools. These “free-thinking schools” – as Professor Richard Dawkins said when he suggested the idea last month, they wouldn’t indoctrinate children with atheism, just teach them to think for themselves – are in the finest tradition of liberal thought.

It could also be good news for the 20,000 or so church schools in England, since one of the main causes of resentment among parents is that often the only decent state secondary schools in their area are Catholic or Anglican, and they’re neither."

Great stuff. Although people may come from different parts of the political spectrum, it's good to see a broad support for the intellectual autonomy of youngsters. However at this point, things start to go wrong. In fact I knew they would in an article written by a conservative, with the words "Marxist indoctrination." This means it's a muck slinging article, about horrid old liberal elites being worser than Pol Pot, and taking over the universe. Marxist has become such an overused buzz word in right wing polemic, it's become an equivalent to the overuse of fascist, that George Orwell complained about. It really has lost any real meaning, just makes liberals sound a bit evil. So we get this.

"But if the New Atheists can set up a school free of religious indoctrination, can I set one up free of Marxist indoctrination, which in my experience is being far more successfully force-fed into young minds, and is a far greater menace to society?"

Religious indoctrination ain't THAT big a deal after all. I seem to have missed the rising up of the proletarian collective as well.

Yeah, education through any form of indoctrination is bad. Or is it?

"Can I set a history syllabus that focuses primarily on English history and our island story, and is told with a heroic narrative that glories in British success? Can I not have a history course entirely devoted to trans-Atlantic slavery and Nazi Germany? Can I not mention Mary Seacole since, from a purely objective point of view, she’s not even in the top 10,000 list of significant British figures?

In geography can I leave out the module about human development that teaches an entirely Marxist view of the theory of racism? Or the continually driven-home idea that the Third World’s problems are due to free trade and the West, not political corruption?
In English can we leave out the trendy patois poetry until we have mastered the classics of English poetry and literature, and not teach children that all art should be valued equally because, in fact, some art is rubbish?

There’ll be no diversity lectures, no sinister “race equality awards”, no “sex and human relationships” – it is up to parents to teach children the rights and wrongs of sexuality, rather than the biology – and no earth-worship. Teachers won’t be expected to replace parents and priests as state-appointed role models, and so all sorts of drunks, weirdos and social deviants will be allowed to work there."

Oh be open minded and free thinking, but only if it's on my terms. Bloody hypocrite. I've always suspected that some of the people who expend thousands of words on the pinko conspiracy at the heart of the BBC would soon shut up if they started putting out a right wing slant. If it's your opinions being put out, that seems fine. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

That's the problem I have with this article. I don't think there is some great Marxist agenda being taught. If their was it'd be totally out of order. Children should be allowed to think for themselves. This guy seems to think that it's only bad if it's not your ideology being taught. Missing the point. It should be a broad education, not a socialist, a monetarist, a postmodern, a Sunni, an Asda or a "The Gospel According to Chris Moyles" themed education. Let kids see the all the evidence for themselves to make their own minds up about Britain's role in history (I actually think they would come away pretty proud of it. Most teenagers are usually pretty patriotic anyway.) or the cause of third world poverty. They aren't stupid, and giving them the resources to see all the evidence for themselves, and a well rounded education, is as I said one of the most precious gifts they can obtain.

Busses Are Evil Communists (....Christ!)

As my last post was about speed cameras, and how I've always had that gnawing sensation that some of the arguments against them have more to do with the fact that they stop people driving as fast as they like, and less to do with questions about their effectiveness or money making abilities. As it sort of relates to the topic, I have decided to reprint in full, a bizarre blog entry by Peter Roberts, the founder of the preposterous right wing think tank, the TaxPayers Alliance. The TPA combines hard line free market economics, with semi-Burkean conservatism - which can often be contradictory in terms. This means they are perfect to get a suitably outraged soundbite in all the right wing press, when PC "goes mad", or when some innocuous tax raise is mentioned. There has been speculations to how much this surprisingly internally secretive think tank influences the Tories, but they are usually pretty coy on that topic. No, this post on how much Roberts hates buses, lays bare how obsessed some of these ultra laisses faire libertarians can be. I believe there are some people who are so inclined to this sort of philosophy, that they see all manifestations of statism, as universally bad, in all circumstances and contexts. This almost pathological belief permeates the entire article. So here it is in full.

"I hate buses

I hate buses, I really do hate them.

I hate them because they are so uncomfortable, I hate them because they rattle, stink and are sweat dripping hot torture chambers in the hot weather. I hate them because the driver cannot turn the heating off even when the outside temperature is 28deg and inside is 38deg plus. I hate them because they are so slow and trundle all over the place before letting you off. I really hate them because they are loved by the environmental zealots who think it is OK to cook passengers in tin with the heating on in the middle of summer and I hate them because they are an environmental catastrophe.

Buses are the biggest gas guzzlers on the roads. They burn diesel at the rate of a gallon every 3 to 4 miles and chuck out 1.8kg of C02 for every km travelled. A decent family car emits about 155g which is more than 10 times less.

Oh, but the public transport advocates will tell you a bus carries more passengers so they are good for both you and the environment, but the average number of people on a bus is just 9 and the car carries an average of 1.6. This means a bus passenger emits 200g of CO2 per km whilst a car occupant 97g.

I hate buses because the industry behind them is spinning the argument in favour of public transport over the car and using lies, damn lies and statistics to stake their claims. I hate public transport because the companies fund anti-car pressure groups to try and make cars the environmental pariah whilst claiming the bus/train is the solution to all our problems. I hate the bus because their backers conspire to remove parking spaces, increase parking charges, introduce speed cameras and reduce speed limits.

I hate buses because they hold up lines of traffic whilst stopping every few hundred yards at a stop and I hate them because I have to suffer their stink when behind them or when they pass by.

And finally I hate buses because they are the symbol of a socialist society where people rely on

the state to provide transport.

I believe we should encourage aspiration and ambition and to make our own way in life. Owning a car offers freedoms and opportunities bus passengers can only dream of and the car is the most efficient form of transport there is."

Strong stuff indeed.

This kind of bizarre right wing libertarian, conspiracy talk isn't even all that unique on the more "vocal" end of the pro motoring lobby. I once remember; on a pro roads talk board - a poster (his signature was "Speed Limits Limit Life.") who claimed that 20mph limits would be bad for suburban streets as the car would take longer to pass peoples houses! I'm not making that up. There seems a large stream of self centered libertarian sentiment focused around the car, as exemplified by Roberts closing words. I wonder if those who are tasked with road safety realise what kind of mindset they can be up against?

The car is indeed a liberating tool, but are there those who think that this liberation should not be measured against the risk of injury to others, and in this case; providing alternatives to a car orientated transport network? There seems to be quite a bit of smokescreening of opinions going on with this sort of thing.

Littlejohn and the Speed Camera Argument

Everyone knows that in some sections of the driving community; speed cameras are the luminous yellow traffic anti-Christ. These machines are used to bully the commuting community to a cowering, angst ridden road discipline. They were designed to fleece the motorist to penury, the usual spiel. With the news that the local council are going to decide whether the fixed speed cameras in Oxfordshire should be removed to shore up money for that council. All speed camera fines go into the "Road Safety Grant" set aside for that particular project. By cutting the budget for this grant, the fines will provide 40 million of surplus dosh in the pot, that would normally have been out of reach, in a closed system for road safety projects. Likewise Oxfordshire council can save money by not having to keep the cameras. It is ironic that a move to cut the very same "fleece the drivers" speed cameras, will actually for the first time ever - make some money from speeders. (Indeed the costs of putting the bloody things up in the first place, outweighed the cash put back in the coffers by fines for speeding drivers!) Thus the myth of speed cameras being used to fleece motorists is blown away. And that is the point of this post. I have a little experience with road related issues, so I want to sort of see if some of the rights arguments against them are true. It also helps that Littlejohn has touched on this issue, and as he never does any research on anything, and trots out right wing memes, and paints counter arguments as "extremist" like I don't know what. It was, in a nutshell, a good place to start from. So here we go.

" Both are likely to be disappointed. There has never been any conclusive evidence that cameras have saved thousands of lives, as their more hysterical disciples maintain."

AKA: THE ARGUMENT THAT SPEED CAMERAS DON'T EVEN PREVENT FATALITIES ANYWAY. In one sense it is difficult to gauge if speed cameras specifically prevented or stopped a fatality, as the fatality it prevented never happened, so was never reported. Just an angry blast on a horn of a driver who slowed down in time, at a driver who pulled out without looking, or a kid who ran into the road. But comparisons of fatality levels have been observed to have dropped (up to 40 percent) at blackspots, after cameras are installed. And there is also evidence here that fatalities have dropped steadily since 1994 (two years after they were introduced to the UK.) Speed is a big factor (though not always the cause as we'll see.) in fatalities, and is widespread, as we read here.


" The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Smart Motorist recommends that drivers observe our 3 second rule in everyday traffic, no matter what your speed. Most people agree that going 100 mph is foolhardy and will lead to disaster. The problem is that exceeding the speed limit by only 5 mph in the wrong place can be just as dangerous. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Fully 90% of all licensed drivers speed at some point in their driving career; 75% admit to committing this offense regularly.

Consider this example: a pedestrian walks out in front of a car. If the car is traveling at just 30 mph, and the driver brakes when the pedestrian is 45 feet away, there will be enough space in which to stop without hitting the pedestrian. Increase the vehicle speed by just 5 mph and the situation changes dramatically. At 35 mph, with the pedestrian 45 feet away and the driver braking at the same point, the car will be traveling at 18 mph when it hits the pedestrian. An impact at 18 mph can seriously injure or even kill the pedestrian."


The exponential increase in physical impact even a few mph over the limit, really needs highlighting to those who say that 5 mph over it isn't a big deal.


Littlejohn however goes on.


"Independent research attributes just 7 per cent of accidents to excessive speed."


AKA: SPEEDING DOESN'T EVEN CAUSE MOST ACCIDENTS! WHY SINGLE THAT OUT? THEY'RE JUST BEING LIKE 1984 OR SOMETHING. He doesn't cite where he got this figure from. But surprisingly it is probably about right, roughly in the one in twenty range. Most accidents happen in slower traffic, such as rear ending, not stopping in time at a queue, not looking where you are going etc. So there are few fatalities here, whiplash and stuff. But for fatal accidents the number rises to about 12 percent. (Speeding was defined as the CAUSE of the accident. Not a contributing factor, and not accounting for inappropriate speed for the conditions.) It is still a lowish number, and some may ask, why focus on this so much, and not drink drivers, people pulling out without looking and other stuff that is statistically accounted for the cause of more accidents than speeding alone? The real truth is that traffic enforcement really works best when road users enforce it. External enforcements can be difficult. For all their cynicism of people like police chiefs and politicians. These pundits often fail to understand that these individuals often have less influence to act on stuff like this, than they would like to have. The simple fact is that speed cameras are one of the only real deterrents (and they are more sticking plaster than the deterrent they should be.) to bad driving, and one of the few options the transport police have to prevent (or damage limit) accidents to any large degree. (the Highways Agency redesigning dangerous junctions is another.) Spotting drunk / drugged / ear glued to a mobile / drivers in a squad car owes so much to being in the right place at the right time, that it is really difficult to curb it as much as they would like. As for drivers not paying attention, it's an even worse story, the cops can't drive the cars for them. A static camera can at least secure a higher "hit" rate. Speeding may not be the biggest cause of fatalities, but it is the easiest (and it isn't easy) to attempt to tackle. The increase in police patrols Littlejohn suggests has problems too. Firstly officers are diverted from trying to catch the other types of offender. Secondly when booking one person, they can miss others doing the same. Thirdly they'll just be accused of not "catching real criminals" and time wasting in "persecuting" motorists. So it's swings and roundabouts really.

I'll have to finish on my own feelings as to why speed cameras are so opposed by so many, and my own personal opinion of them (I hope backed up with evidence!). The simple fact about why they are so disliked is neither a surprise, nor a new phenomena. Practically every method introduced to cut down fatalities on our roads was condemned as A) "Won't work." and B) "Infringement of rights." Everything from introducing a 70mph speed limit on the then new M1, to seatbelts, even crash barriers in the central reservation, were vigorously condemned as "a war on drivers". Breathalysers were singled out in particular, and were predicted to close down just about every pub everywhere. A bit of this mentality survived even today, with a small upwelling of hostility, to the proposal to make the permitted blood alcohol level much more rigorous, as - yes "a war on drivers". Cars bring out a swelling of libertarian mentality, being cocooned in your own metal space and all. It is unsurprising when some take umbrage at methods designed to curtail personal freedoms in that space. (and cameras seem a particularly intrusive as well.)

So my own feelings on whether arguments A) and B) have merit. B) is the easiest for me to tackle. On one level they are an infringement of someones right to speed (you get fined obviously.), but peoples right to do stuff is relative to other rights. And the right to drive very fast, wherever you feel like it, doesn't count for much with the right not to be maimed in an accident. So on that score personal safety wins. As for A). Well there is evidence they do prevent accidents, especially at blackspots. But they don't stop speeding, and have limited success in doing so. Traffic will only tend to slow down near them, and then continue. So they only take some of the sting out of the speed problem, and for this reason, I support their use, and think that there are people still here because of those unpopular yellow boxes. But although they will never exclusively stop speeding completely; alone, there is room for optimism. In 1966 there were 8000 fatalities on the road, in 2007 there were 2940, and there were far fewer cars on the road back then. (the original fatality projections for 2000, from the 60's was half a million per year.) So unpopular moves to prevent deaths do work (as well as more robust cars), and perhaps do subconsciously start to be enforced from the drivers themselves (especially in regards to drink driving), not from pressures to enforce them (exclusively enforced by police and cameras.). Education on the issue of speeding can also play its part. It's a long haul, for something as endemic as speeding, but the drops in fatalities is a good sign.

As for taking the static cameras out of Oxfordshire. Well Oxfordshire has lots of long and fast trunk roads to service Oxford, form its rather remote location to the M4, M40 and M5 motorways, so there are some roads that are tempting for speed breakers. But on the plus side the city centre itself is a pain to drive in, so pedestrians are safer than other towns. And cutting speed where pedestrians are most vulnerable is really where the cameras work best. I have no doubt it will be popular with many residents in the area, and the people who want to pass the ban on static cameras know this.

Time will tell.

There is tons of info on speed cameras, and the causes of accidents at the URLs below.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/speed-camera-questions-answers.html


http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html

Grand Theft Bullshit

Although this story is a day or two old, it ties in with the complete bullshit that the Star is passing off as news. It regards proposals for a film, book and a supposed GTA version of Raul Moats killing spree in Rothbury. Now I thought that savvy journalists would have taken one look at the badly photoshopped "cover art" shown in the article, and deduced it was the work of a spotty teenager trying to impress his stupid mates on 4chan, NOT a real game development. Hell I should think anyone who has the mental ability to open a door would have heard the sound of a penny dropping when confronted with the picture above. It really begs the question? Who is letting this stuff through?

As even Forrest Gump could figure out that GTA Rothbury was a hoax, I assume that the hacks did too. So I was appalled to read the following quote from the Grandmother of Samantha Stobbart, the poor women who was Moats ex lover, and was shot by him (her new boyfriend of course was tragically killed). She has obviously told of the existence of this "game" second hand so she will give the appropriate "outraged relative" quote that the press love.

"I can't believe someone wants to make money out of people who have been killed. It's sick. -It's blood money. The GAME is beyond belief."

So there we go. To get a few choosy outrage soundbites (tabloids love demonising video games.), the Star has approached a member of the family; of a direct victim of a horrific affair, and have compounded their grief with tales of a video game (admittedly the book and possibly the film were inevitable, and will likely be produced. A publisher sheepishly admits that it [book] is really a given.) that doesn't even exist! Which anyone could have figured out had they bothered to check. Let me repeat that, a genuine victim of a terrible human tragedy was informed about a non existent game, in order to get the emotive soundbites for a headline.

Is this considered acceptable journalism by Desmond?

The article was pulled quicker than achy wisdom teeth from the Stars website so here is a larger version of the cached article above.

Article here.

Let's Talk Toilets.

It must be a bloggers highlight, a posting devoted to the khazi. But then I don't write Daily Star headlines, so there we go. The headline above refers to the installation of two "Nile Pans" (one for the ladies, one for the gents loos.) at the Rochdale Exchange shopping centre (Rochdale has a large Muslim community.) These are squat toilets, popular in Asia, parts of France and Italy, instead of the good old British throne set up. I don't really give a shiny shit about shitter setups, but I was taken aback by the Stars take on this. It seems that quite a few facts have been flushed away like turds too! So let's have a look at the some floaters that refuse to budge shall we (No more toilet metaphors!)

"Muslim Toilets."

They aren't just Muslim toilets. These loos exist in all sorts of places. I have it on good word that they are the norm in Korea, and very common in Japan too. They were never "Muslim Only" either, anyone is free to use them. This is purely an attempt to imply that Muslims receive special treatment. In this case no.

" Middle East-style squat holes."

Nice choice of words there. I'll leave it at that.

"PLANS for Muslim-only loos at a major shopping centre are going down the pan."

There is a vague implication that" "normal" loos are being phased out. Not true, there is only one per sex.

"But wasting public money on stupid ideas like this cannot be allowed."

It's a private business. No public money is being used.

"We get hole in the ground toilets banned"

The vague report only says they are considering it.

Truly truly a new nadir in Desmond journalism.

ADDENDUM.

There are two sort of funny additions to this story. The first is a soundbite from Shipley MP Philip Davis, quite possibly - after stiff competition, the stupidest man in parliament. Seems Davis is keen to preserve the sensibilities of Christian crapping, with this unintentionally brilliant quote:

"'This strikes me as a classic case of excessive pandering to a politically correct minority,' said Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley.

'We in Britain are rightly proud of our toilets, and the onus is on people who come to this country to appreciate them for what they are.

'It's absolutely ludicrous - Thomas Crapper would be turning in his grave!"

Proctology defined! Oh yeah! Thomas Crapper didn't patent the flush toilet either!

All joking aside, it is pretty bad when the Star is printing blatantly false anti-Muslim sentiment on the front page. Stuff that could be corrected with even cursory research. This strikes me as material deliberately designed to incite racial conflict, and it's staring us in the faces of news stands all over the country. Hmmm.

The Fine Line Between Wheely Bins and Tyranny (Huh!)

In my July 20th post I looked at a Mail story and the subsequent editorial comment on a council survey done on the refuse of 10'000 households in varying demographic areas, to see who and what is recycled/recycling and chucked/chucking, and where it is being done. (NOT specifically logging waste to individual houses, which is downplayed) The piece has been spun into a preposterous tale of Stasi councils rifling through the spied on and reviled Middle England's dustbins to dig dirt on them. Any legitimate issues with the councils behaviour and spending are tossed aside in a hugely exaggerated story. And that, in my opinion was the real point of the non stories hyper coverage. That this kind of thing is designed to simultaneously piss off the target audience it is intended for, and to paradoxically play to some of their egos. We all have our bins emptied, and have recycling ones, so the story could have potentially affected you. But this conspiracy against Middle England really only exists in the editorials of overzealous Mail / Express articles. Perhaps on some level it is comforting for the sort of bombastic person who would get irked about this tale to feel that they are considered dangerous rebels who must be slapped down (presumably tyranny by recycling.), and that the powers that be lie awake at night worrying about them. These are the sort of people who write those staggeringly pompous; love notes to their own smug profundity, "Straight to the point" letters to the Mail. I actually feel sorry for these people, they are so lacking in self awareness and perspective that they probably never realise that the editors of the letters page will be laughing themselves stupid at the authors of them as they quickly composite them on, and that is not because they are any good. Better to think you matter a lot, than realise you matter quite a little in the great scheme of things. Dacre knows this and that is why we get articles like: Are the race Stasi rifling through your bin, by Leo McKinstry, who pulls no punches in knitting together right wing memes on just about everything from Marxism, to race, to PC, to apartheid, to stealing bills, to communism. It's pure Mail propaganda of linking the most arbitrary things to bizarre conclusions, and turning the hyperbole squarely up to eleven. Check this out.

"Emptying the bins used to be a straightforward municipal task, perhaps the most basic but universally valuable job carried out by local councils.

But thanks to the malign culture of political correctness, which has swept through the public sector over the past two decades, refuse collection has been transformed into a weapon of ideological bullying.

In the hands of the commissars who have come to predominate in British official life, the bin service is now used as an instrument not just for enforcing the fashionable green agenda, but also for encouraging an authoritarian mix of state intrusion and race-fixated social engineering.
Putting out our rubbish is becoming like something out of George Orwell’s epic novel 1984, where all the private activities of British citizens were ruthlessly monitored to ensure compliance with the state’s dogma."

That ticks every fucking box!

"Hidden cameras have also been deployed by some councils to spy on what people are throwing away."

Bollocks.

"Are they going to send any financial information they find to HM Revenue and Customs? Will they examine private letters for any potentially homophobic or racist content?"

Nope

"When Sir William Macpherson, the chairman of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, notoriously urged in 1999 that racially prejudiced remarks, even within the privacy of the family home, should be prosecuted, the proposal was condemned as paving the way for the introduction of Orwellian ‘thought crimes’ into our society.

Now the bin snoopers could have made this a reality.Such a fear is not nearly as outlandish as it might seem."

Oh come of it Leo.

"It is absurd that this destructive approach should be extended to bin collections. If the commissars are going to act on the information they clandestinely acquire, then the only result can be more racial divisions, more pointless labelling of people by race, more irrelevant campaigns and more suspicions among neighbours."

Huh?

The other half of this ridiculous article focuses on the councils obsession with race, even though it's only a broad demographic study into refuse trends. Anyway many people are interested in demographic habits. TV likes to chase the youth market, and the "urban" market (aka; Black people), they all aren't into cultural engineering McKinstry lays into the usual right wing spiel about cultural Marxism, and white guilt, and pandering to minorities, cultural engineering -the usual. None of which has any relevance to the article it spawned from. He concludes with this:

"We should all unite, black and white, to throw out this ludicrous, Big Brother intervention in our lives, and demand that councils do what we pay them to do: empty our bins weekly."

It's not just that fact that stuff like this is used ostensibly to high handedly condemn "dodgy practices", but is really just indulging egos. It is that this stuff always elicits a lot of righteous emotion for such low grade causes. Why not expend collective energy on a really worthwhile objective? Something a bit more noble than bloody bins.

Moron Gets Bitchslapped on Mail Website Comments

The Mails Websites comments board are the most tangible proof ever in the whole of our entire existence that stupidity is the second most abundant thing in the universe after Hydrogen. But every so often there is a commentator who dares raise their heads above the pulpit of idiocy, to metaphorically bitch slap a prize pillock squarely back to their stupid zone. So without further ado, here's Alan from Birmingham giving a thicko some helpful information on gay marriage, and that Pee Cee stuff thats gone mad:

It is time for the UK to stop being dictataed to by minority groups of whatever cause and looked to what benifits the majority. The above was one of the prime reasons for abandoning the UK for Spain. - T Jones, Alicante,Spain, 20/7/2010 10:23

So one of the "prime reasons" for abandoning Britain was gay marriage? You do realise you left Britain for a country that was the third in the world to give gay couples the right to marry? Long before we did. Maybe you should learn some Spanish and pick up a paper now and then?- Alan, Birmingham, 20/7/2010 15:38

Genius!

More Bin Nonsense in the Mail (Again!!)

Wheelie bin stories / Bin collection stories are one of the more perennial and odd Daily Mail obsessions. They seem to deliberately single out stories like this one about councils checking whats been binned at selected regions as part of a survey into recycling. The story isn't very interesting so I'll boil it down. Some councils have continued to survey varying demographics to see who bins what, and who recycles / doesn't, by inspecting the contents of about 10'000 peoples trash. Thus they can see if the poor are recycling more, or do ethnic minorities throw more away. A survey. In order not to prejucdice results (people might change thier recycling habits if they are told beforehand ), the residents whose waste got checked were not informed before hand. That is the Mails gripe on the story. (it even gets an editorial comment piece.) Yet again the "Dustbin Nazis" and "Big Brother" councils are victimising taxpayers by the tyranny of dustbin collections... or something like that, it's the usual spiel you get. My interest in the story isn't the story itself, I really have bigger things to worry about. I suppose it could be considered a waste of tax payers money or invasive. Many private companies can pass on customer details. That is how cold callers obtain your number. But this affair is to look at general trends, not to trace specific waste habits of individuals. No my focus is on why bin stories like these are so popular in the Mail, and I think it is for two separate reasons.

Paul Dacre has an instinct for giving his core readers stories they want to hear, and he usually has a good success rate for doing so. There are many readers of that paper who are retirees, and are bored and chippy retirees at that. Everybody has their bins emptied, it affects everyone. Providing a narrative about Orwellian councils picking fights with householders over putting a garden pea in the paper bin, or sticking microchips in the wheely bins of Middle England (the headline is worded to imply the reader is being targeted) brings out that frustrated low level libertarian ire. Getting worked up about stuff like this, is a game for those with time on their hands. It gives bored; irked at life, and frustrated people something external (and accessible;- vis a vis; to their own lives) to focus on, and something to do. Think of having to write all those angry letters.

The second is related to the first, but distinct too. A large minority of that papers target grassroots audience are habitual complainers, and habitual complainers as I said; on a certain level enjoy complaining. Habitual complainers also have that unusual mix of being at odds with the world, but simultaneously self centred about their perceived role in it. There are practical objections to this kind of council action, and to the motives of councillors and people in authority. I think good cases (though IMHO this story is really not a big deal) can be made for both. But these concerns aren't REALLY why this kind of thing is prominent in the Mail. The overall narrative of this emphasis on "bin spies" is that the tyrannical councils really are spying on the rubbish contents of Middle England. (or Dacres interpretation) You are right to think that they are watching you. They do consider you a mortal danger. In short you matter to the powers that be. I don't think it is too much of an exaggeration to say that there are those who would secretly pleased to have been "spied on". Better to think that the secret police are sifting through your bin bags, what with you being a dissident and all, than just a random demographic survey of recycling habits. It's tough to think that your opinions and promenance may count for little in the greater scheme of things. And if you are going to be the next Rob Roy, you should decide is it about a cause, or about making yourself feel good?

I'm not green lighting cynical inaction due to larger disinterest at a cause. I've never believed that at all. Complacent certainties can be challenged, and sometimes should be. You can make a difference in your own way (but you may not get much credit for it. Doing it for that is the wrong reason to partake in this kind of thing in the first place) But let us separate righting legitimate grievances, or genuine injustices, from just indulging an ego trip as some kind of latter day Robin Hood thing.

BP Stops My Postings (And Oil Leaks... Or Not.)

In regards to the Deepwater Horizon Oil leek in the Gulf of Mexico, I was going to write an entry saying that President Obama should perhaps give some consideration to the views of scientists who proposed using a nuclear charge to seal the borehole that was seeping out the huge volumes of oil (a shy 4 million barrel fulls), which was caking itself all over the sea and coast of that region, doing awful damage. The nuke -in theory; should have melted the hole, sealing it off. This would have been a pathetic attempt on my part to look all controversial. Dropping nukes on the US coast? What next? Although the USSR (when it existed of course) did use nukes to seal gas leaks. The gist of my argument was if an environmental disaster like this one couldn't really be abated after two months, after several attempts to seal it failed, and they were forced to put a big metal box over the leak and try to gather up the oil collected to surface tankers (a sticking plaster solution), whilst the black stuff was tarring up such a vast region. How far would a democracy in peace time situations go in order to combat such a catastrophe. The nuclear option would have been REALLY unpopular, but it may have had a decent chance of actually sealing the borehole. (although the geological nature of the well seems not clear, which some have contributed to causing the blast) It really was down to how receptive to "novel" (an understatement) solutions were the White House going to be.

But as of the 16th July, those tasked with stopping it, seem to have put a cap on the leak that has contained it. Put those nukes away then, we don't need them. The tests on the caps integrity over 48 hours seemed to show the leak is contained, however there are some tentative reports that gas and oil has been detected seeping out of this cap too, so it may not be over yet. The plan is to settle the flow of the well, so that the water above it keeps the oil in it by the use of relief wells extracting the oil, where the cap can then be removed and mud and cement will plug the well, like a kind of dental filling for the rockbed. So fingers crossed this is; at last - the beginning of the end.

The whole affair is as messy as the oil it dumped on the beaches and the creatures that got in the way, by having the misfortune of living around it. When we hear that the crew of the Deepwater Horizon had concerns for the safety of the rig. That the amounts of methane in the well was not known. That the rig had reportedly felt unstable during drilling. And most importantly eleven men never returned from the Horizon, which is now a lump of burnt metal on the sea floor. Then there is the financial costs, three and a half billion dollars of BP's money in stopping the leak and cleanup fees. The lowest company share values in 14 years. The fact that BP will have to sell off petrol stations (and the jobs of people who had nothing to do with the leak.) and other things to meet the costs. The compensation to the people who live in the area and the victims families (who deserve every penny). The fall out between the U.S and a company with British in the title. And the ecological damage. Oiled creatures, and the fact that lots of the oil is on the sea bed where it is harder for nature to degrade it. (though there is little British about it these days.) A truly horrible situation, hopefully coming to an end.

Gillian McKeith Exposed By Twitter

Anyone familiar with Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" will know about his concerns about "Dr" Gillian McKeith (since 2007 she cannot use the "Dr", in advertisements for her stuff, after she "volunteered to take it off after complaints to the regulators about the validity of her doctorate.) His research into the correspondence course in the US where she got her PhD, and Goldacre got his dead cat made a professional member for 60 pounds. (non accredited college) which can't be read in the public domain like ones from credited colleges. To her propensity to threaten legal action against pretty much anyone who questions her methods and qualifications. That is not even taking into account the iffy science she uses (she was once challenged by a scientist, who has a doctorate from a college which DOESN'T make small mammals professional members - about her research methods, and would she be willing to reproduce them under scientific conditions with him. She threatened to sue him.) in her nutrition advice, some of it even dangerous; -such as putting very obese people on crash diets. (In depth analysis of her "methods" on her wikipedia article here.) And the fact that her show largely seems to consist of her prodding fat peoples turds in a lab with tweezers (why she is known as the poo lady.) and bollocking the overweight to tears by telling them, unless they submit to her regimen, they will absolutely die in two months by bursting, because that's her scientific opinion.)

Yes it seems there is a school of thought that the poo lady is nothing more than a showbiz quack, bullying the fat for entertainment. A women who claims to be a "scientist" but is totally wrong to do so. Who just uses some commonsense nutrition guides, with a huge dollop of bullshit to promote herself as an expert. And who hides behind the threat of litigation, if you point this out.

However she seems to have come unstuck on twitter as this transcript of a run in with Goldacre on that networking site shows. I won't quote any here, but just post the link. It is much better to see it all on glorious display. It is a rare display of the poo lady exposed, without that shield of lawyers. Her ridiculous straw man about her American based pretend degree, being just anti Americanism, in response to a critic. She then calls Goldacre a liar and "in the pay of big pharma" (who else of course!). These are genuinely serious claims, and Goldacre takes her up on asking her to provide evidence of this. But how can the poo lady be not seen as anything full of shit, when she pretends that she isn't really the real McKeith by starting to write in the third person, and deleting stuff (badly) that could prove that she set up the original account. This has just so spectacularly backfired on her. Worse than that X factor performance.

Hopefully it will become a bit of a twitter legend and dent the profile of a woman who has made a lot of cash riding on the coat tails of a discipline she doesn't understand, but pretended she was at the forefront of. Even if it doesn't, (there seems an unending market for this kind of bunk, in the face of a lot more sturdy evidence.) it made my day.

Michael McIntyre is Overrated

I'd never seen any of Michael McIntyres stand up routines before the end of last week. I knew about him of course;- his meteoric rise to success in the last few years. Endless coverage on "Live at the Apollo", well perhaps not as much now. But perhaps most intriguing of all was his controversial status amongst other stand ups, from Frankie Boyle, to Vic and Bob, to Stewart Lee. Was it sour grapes on their behalf? Were they justified in saying that his act was bland and always playing it safe? Or was McIntyre a true popular comedy talent who was the victim of sneering snobbery? (nb, I don't think any of the detractors I have named are comedy snobs. Lee is perhaps my favourite stand up of all. I too follow the values of the Carphone Warehouse.) Well I watched some of his "Apollo" stuff, and his tour thingy, and he .. just .. isn't funny. I couldn't laugh at any of it. His line about a sin bin sounding like a Catholic skip was about his funniest, and that wasn't even funny really.

Now I'm not a comedy snob. I approached with an open mind. I saw how popular he seems to be with the comments he has. I got bollocked on facebook for saying he wasn't any good. But I just don't get why this guy is so popular. At first I thought is it the "Live at the Apollo" itself. LATA guarantees a friendly audience. Some of the best and most electric stand up can come from a comedian who is under pain of things going badly from the audience, they have to play to win, and even up their game. But his other tour was the same kind of stuff. His observation comedy is just that, observing and responding to everyday stuff, and being all jolly and skippy and jumpy about it. But apart from cheery observations about how the Scots name eggs and tape and stuff after them, or how everyone never judges where tube train doors will stop when preparing to board, where is the depth to his stuff. It aint there.

I know observation comedy is considered "lazy" comedy in some circles. I don't agree. Observational comedy can be more prone to being lazy comedy, but when it is done with a bit of panache, and if the comedian can run with the observation and dissect it to really get under the skin of why it is funny, you have the stuff of classics. Peter Kay may have flaws as a comedian, but he is good at highlighting the hilarious nature of a lot of Lancashire idioms (years of being boxed in from civilisation by the Pennines and Peak District!) and tells it with a genuinely witty verve. Some of his stuff looks pretty shit on paper, but he pulls it off with great flair and humour to make it rise above the script. McIntyres observations seem to be designed just to be taken entirely at face value. The sort of "have you ever noticed" stuff of crappy comedy. There is no depth to his stuff at all, no real analysis of why the observations are funny and in many cases the observations don't really seem to even hold true.

It seems to have worked though, people like this stuff. A bunch of face value stuff designed to get easy laughs (like Little Britain.) It may even be something else. I am completely in the dark as to how he became so successful.

So Much for Courageous Columnists.

I imagine columnists, Richard Littlejohn and Amanda Platell -like to think that they are "brave" and "hard hitting", "edgy" etc, when they write their stuff ragging on, often the most vulnerable people in society. People who don't have access to a high circulation newspaper to counter their claims, and the salary that comes with it either. Well I don't buy it, not one bit. I see little evidence of bravery in circulating saloon bar politics, and PC myths to an audience that has many who lap this stuff up anyway. Undercover reporting about crime barons, or foreign journalists uncovering the dictatorships crimes they live under -yes. Daft stories about people sent to prison for 60 years, for putting orange peel in the paper recycling bin, no. At the very least if you want to be edgy, bite the bullet and admit that you support something unpopular or dubious (Let me add the two are often mutually exclusive.) Don't try to lamely fence sit, cause that certainly isn't brave at all. Is it Richard Littlejohn? Who writes this about torture:

"Let them take their claims to the courts in Washington, or Islamabad, and see how It has been stressed repeatedly that no British agent has been involved directly in torture, but knew it was happening and acted on information obtained under duress.

" What are they supposed to do? If MI 5 are informed by Pakistani intelligence of a plot to blow up a shopping centre in Manchester, they would be irresponsible in the extreme if they didn't investigate and do everything in their power to prevent it."

Ooh the ticking time bomb dilemma. But then he adds.

"No, I'm not condoning torture"

You are a bit.

Then there's Amanda Platell, a women so bitchy I have to wear goggles to read her column, lest my eyes are dissolved by the acidy venom of her writing. Here she questions the competence of the women chief constable who headed the Moat standoff in Northumbria, for err... being a bit like an air hostess. But it's nothing to do with her being a women, as Amanda handily points out.

" I'm all for equality in the police force,

but is acting Chief Constable Sue Sim the right person to take charge in the Raoul Moat manhunt?

At a meeting on Thursday to quell local fears, she began the proceedings by performing a health and safety demonstration that pointed out the emergency exits.

To lighten the mood, she jokingly delivered it in the style of a trolley dolly.

I'm sure the residents of Northumbria slept more soundly in their beds that night knowing there may be an armed maniac in their midst, but at least their lady Chief Constable is a good laugh."

It won't stop pithy comparisons to "trolley dolly's" though.

These aren't perhaps the most glaring examples of the "I'm not a racist but..." comments that lead these kind of stories, they are just two in succession that stood out. I always think that kind of back peddling on supposedly condemning what your simultaneously trying to put across is a bit like a kid who says something a bit too tactless about another person and hurts their feelings, but tries to stem the damage done by passing it off as "I was only joking." Or when Bernard Manning used to claim that people shouldn't object to his racist jokes as they were only jokes, and he took the piss out of everyone anyway. Everyone - seemingly 90 percent of the time, meant Asians and Black people. It really is meaningless sentiment, and a lame attempt to distance yourself from opinion brought about by iffy reasoning. It's certainly not what I'd call brave.

No Room For Gays. That's a Real Desmond Editorial. No Really

The combination of the words Gay and Asylum Seekers, in regards to the outcome of the Supreme courts decision to allow the two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon to be granted asylum in the UK, is enough to make the tabloids go completely insane. Transferring them into foaming at the mouth loonies, running about like mad men. Well almost anyway. The editorials from the asylum bashers are what we would expect. They can't outright say that the two men should have been sent back, and that homosexuals should be left to their fate. That looks pretty shitty, even if spun well. Instead they change the subject (as tabloids are want to do with stuff like this) and invoke the slippery slope argument that if you let two gay men stay, then you open the floodgates (you have a feeling that the writer of the editorials would have wanted to use the term "back passage" instead?) I won't provide the quotes exactly it's standard "they'll all be coming here" fayre, purely speculative and impossible to substantiate. But hell, it hits all the right notes.

Depressing stuff. But as I said, the tabloids were hardly going to give it a "right on" where they? No, what did surprise me was the Stars editorial, headed "NO ROOM FOR GAYS" Homophobia and racism in one package. Desmond's papers are literally not even trying to mask their bigotry with weasel words and bad euphemisms, as the others do.


"OPENING the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness.

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.
Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to send back anyone who fears they may suffer in their home country because they’re gay.
That’s admirable ideology. But it’s not practical in the real world.
Their ruling means millions more people will now be eligible to stay in Britain.
And the resulting flood of numbers could push our creaking infrastructure over the edge.
We simply cannot afford to keep taking the world’s outcasts.
Britain is struggling with record debt and millions out of work.
We must look after our own first.
This decision must be overturned.
We cannot solve the world’s problems on our own. "

I literally think the people who write this stuff, think that the readers will imagine that from now on all immigrants will enter Britain dressed as Daffyd of Little Britain, and will keep dropping the phrases "Oooh you are awful!" and "hello ducky!", whilst doing bad impressions of John Inman. The new ruling changes some of the criteria for dealing with those fleeing from homophobic regimes that imprison or execute gays. (which dents the Stars theory that every immigrant can play the "gay card" . Wouldn't work if you were; say Chinese.) It really isn't a case of showing up at your immigration center dressed as the Village People, and saying "I'm gay can I live here." to which they will reply "Of course you can, here's a million pounds in benefits". The tabloids have also seized on a quotation by one of the judges in the case saying that gays should be free to listen to "Kylie Minogue and drink cocktails". It was taken out of its original context, saying that if straight men can pursue stereotypical "guys stuff", then gay men should be able to do vice versa, NOT that the judge literally said they were given asylum on behalf of their human rights to have the freedom to listen to Kylie Minogue CD's. This was seized on to make the judges seem ludicrous and out of touch with all the rest of us, and to trivialise what was a very serious case.

The editorials always claim it's about pragmatic issues with asylum, such as living space and the resources that are required to "keep" these people. I wouldn't have a problem with these being brought up. They are valid concerns and should be addressed. There is always that "Of course genuine asylum seekers should stay" spiel too. But I see no evidence that these editorials care about either. They make claims about resources that are completely unsubstantiated for one thing. The other is that they never clarify what a genuine asylum seeker is to their minds. We are talking about people who "WILL BE MURDERED OR JAILED ON PAIN OF DISCLOSURE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION". Let us not forget that the two men were both outed as well. I can't really see how the "genuineness" of that need for asylum can be topped. It's like that "better suited place" for an unpopular thing. It can't be placed, as it defeats the point. These pieces are there to fling shit, nothing more. It's pushing racism towards vulnerable people, and window dressing it as a genuine concern for the immigration question. Admittedly the windows in Desmonds empire have no glass in them. And it fucking stinks.

I Wonder Why This Made the Front Page

I came across this headline on the Express in Sainsburys this morning. Yes apparently a decision to put a bit of film on some ground level glass panels at a swimming baths in Walsall is the single most important thing to have happened in Britain this week, in Express land. I'm not surprised they went with this story, when I saw it. Firstly it's been doing the rounds from about Sunday. Secondly it's a PA story from the local papers, and since the Express long ago gave up trying to report real news, when you can just pinch it from wire agencies and stick your own take on it instead. And lastly, it can be used as a stick to beat the evil Muslims with, which gets a story a zillion star points in the Express. The paper now frequently prints headlines purely designed to stir up resentment towards Muslims, as it knows it works a treat on their more "extreme" readership.

The story is pretty boring in itself. A modern swimming baths had a fully glass fronted panel, allowing passers by, on the streets to see the bathers in the pool. Some bathers (never stated how many) objected to this, and some of the objectors were said to be Muslims. And this has brought it to prominence. The full spectrum of papers have run with it, and it has been turned into a "Muslims demand special treatment" story. The Sun even has a handy picture of a Muslim woman in a full veil (completely unrelated to the story) in case we forget what a Muslim is.... I suppose? Then they say the exterior glass panels have been replaced by opaque ones. Not true of the 250 panels, 58 have been coated with a film layer, as can be actually seen on the photos of the supposed blacked out swimming baths (sheesh.), on the bloody articles itself. Then we have all the rhetoric about outrage, and PC gone mad, and "its one rule for them." from furious pool users. The kind of soundbites that are a written substitute for "angry pose" photos, so beloved of the press. Hell even the Taxpayers Alliance got their (non taxpayer funded, I might add.) tuppenceworth in about it It was a perfect storm for this kind of shit. Editors know that the ones who get the hump about this, will allow their ire to override their ability to see it as an overblown storm in a teacup.

I don't know if the people responsible for covering the panels are overreacting. I don't really care either. It's faintly absurd for me to be blogging about the window arrangements on a provincial swimming pool in the West Midlands. But that is paradoxically the point. These non stories are being used to stir up hatred towards the Muslim population. There is no other purpose to this kind of thing, they aren't trying to say anything insightful on community relations, or integration. This story, and others like it are designed to portray all Muslims as ingrates who are privileged above everybody else, and catered to every whim they can think of by the councils / politicians. And that the press are doing this so blatantly - Lets piss off our readers off more; with the latest outrage. This kind of sentiment has been stirred up in the past to horrible ends, and it is discomforting to see it on display so much.

It might have worked a bit too well on the Express article. All the comments have been taken down. But a sample of the Suns comments, show how it went down.

" Why are we doing everything to please Muslims. if we go to their country we have to abide by their laws and yet they come here and we roll out the red carpet, give them nice big houses and pay them to live here. If they dont like our ways then don't come here. what is wrong with this bloody country. Im ashamed to be british.The english that use the pool should refuse to use the pool until it changes, that way the council wont be able to afford to stay open."

"Hate our way of life but love our benifit system!!!"

"If these women wish to swim in a public pool in privacy perhaps they would like to go back to a muslim country and do it."

These do seem to assume that all Muslims are both immigrants, and claiming benefits. No evidence that those who complained are either. But shows how blanket stereotypes take effect. Also most Muslims in the UK are British, so deporting them would be tricky.

" Why aren't hundreds of people from this borough complaining about this? If hundreds of people complain, then it will have to be put back to normal. Remember that local councillors have to be elected so if they won't fix it, vote for the opposition next time."

Because most people have better things to worry about.

6 Music Saved.

A few months back there was a plan to get rid of 6 Music. Well it seems the BBC Trust, looking at where to save a bit a dosh, have decided that 6 Music shouldn't be axed to do so. The cuts have been made to salaries, and top star casting. The Asian network however; seems to have pretty much had it's fate sealed. The report on the Trusts findings are; -like many things of this nature, more interesting for what is not said, or indeed implied, if you read between the lines, than is said out loud. Like I said in the previous article on this back in February, before the election, if we went with the tone of what was being put out about the story in the Murdoch press, that his editorials were gushing about scaling down the "monopolising BBC" (Rupert Murdoch lecturing other media organisations about "monopolising the market" Are you fucking kidding me!!) . The editorials were also "hinting" that our new PM should put pressure on the BBC to streamline as well. Well it must be that the fact he has had to seek coalition with the Lib Dems (who have less baggage in their BBC relations), which News International didn't factor back then, as well as the outpouring of anger from listeners of the station, and appeals from 6 DJ's like Jarvis Cocker and Lauren Laverne to keep the station on air, has actually bolstered the listening (I nearly wrote viewing then! Oops) figures by up to 50 percent, after the planned closure was announced. It is always good to see a bit of people power in action to save quality broadcasting with a loyal and dedicated following. I think Murdoch forgets that most people care more about this, than the desire to increase News Internationals sphere of influence. But both of these events seem to have given the trust a shot in the arm. The comments in the whole article seem to suggest that the Trust is willing to stand up to it's critics, and is self analysing it's role as a public broadcaster. This comment is especially promising:

"The BBC Trust also criticised aspects of the Corporation's flagship channel BBC1 today, saying it should be 'more ambitious and distinctive, in particular by increasing the variety of programming in pre-watershed peak time and showing greater creative and editorial ambition at 9pm.'

BBC2 needed to become 'a clearer alternative to BBC1, even at the risk of reaching fewer viewers', it said.

Both BBC1 and BBC2 in daytime are 'not meeting audience expectations' on the delivery of public purposes, it said."

A pretty robust assertion of public service values.

I wasn't there at the meetings that the Trust had, so I can only attempt to analyse my interpretation of events. But it seems the Trust has engaged in a PR exercise to fend off its critics, and engage with the public it broadcasts to. By cutting the top peoples salaries, and the budgets for A-list casting, the Beeb can show it is doing its bit in a period of economic doo doo. Not axing 6 Music shows the BBC cares about its passionate, licence paying public. The declaration of improving BBC 1&2's output for "audience expectations", likewise. A major problem with cutting an external and obvious source of BBC expenditure like "6", is that it can be argued you can cut some more, and then even some more chunks too.

The BBC, by its very nature will always face flack. But for now I think it has weathered it well. The comments by the Trust are promising, and show they have resolve. They'll need it, because the BBC's detractors will eventually find another stick to beat them with.

The Hitches Cancer Announcement

As we found out this morning, outspoken public intellectual and full time God hater, Christopher Hitchens has had to postpone a lot of his public schedules after being diagnosed with throat cancer. Hopefully the cancer has been diagnosed early and the chemotherapy will succeed in nipping it in the bud. The Hitch to my mind is quite simply one of the best and most articulate polemics of our generation. It is really too bad we lost him to the U.S (though he still holds British citizenship), but there we go. I know he upset a lot on the left with his support of the Neocon's (though I believe it was born more out of his opposition to the anti-Iraq war Left than a genuine affinity for Bush and Cheney), but if anyone has an opinion on anything, that is worth listening to, then it's the Hitch. No one quite has that knack of delivering that biting eloquent prose, and mellifluous one liner rebuttals you wish you'd thought of, in the face of dealing with someone afflicted with the symptoms of talking complete shit. Dealing with religious nutters like Jeremy Clarkson deals with caravans. An ermine coated AK47, metaphorically killing his victims in true style. In a mad mad world, we need someone like Hitch to dynamite the walls of bullshit. Let us hope we will have many more years of him firing on all cylinders. This just being a minor set back.