Stereotypical Chavs

This morning's news reported to the entire country an incident that saw 7 teenage boys conforming to the stereotype of a Howdon youngster; in a vigorous effort to get high they downed a cocktail of drink, cannabis, anti-depressants, and diazepam. Nothing unusual in that you may think, and for the most part I have the sinking feeling that you are correct. However, the little morons succeeded where most of their peers have failed in that they managed to get to hospitalise themselves. Indeed, it is possible that not all of them will live to see another day.

Okay, first reactions to this news; 7 less horrid little charva's to hassle me when I'm next in Howdon (a charva is what I believe TLC would have referred to as a "scrub" in their bland, soulless song No Scrubs). Sorry if that sounds a little heartless as I'm sure they may be very nice young men if I'd got to know them, but given the choice of having some gel haired, shell suit attired little mindswamp jabbering abuse at me, or having that same person drooling to themselves in intensive care after a cocktail of drink and drugs, I'll take the latter option every time. I don't mean to sound nasty or mean, but I am so you'll just have to deal with that.

Also, why is it always a cocktail of drink and drugs? Is it because cocktails have much the same effect? (If you don't believe me, try going to your local and downing 8 or 9 Peachy Strippers; a stomach pump will seem like a logical conclusion to the evening...) And secondly, is anyone else angry with the little bastards for spoiling the fun for the rest of us? It's always cases like this that are used as justification when the government announce yet more draconian measures aimed at curbing our enjoyment of life. Well, I don't think that this sort of thing does prove that "...we need to protect our children" or whatever other hypocritical bullshit excuse is used. I think that it does bear out my argument in an earlier rant that people need educating about the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal.

Of the mix of things that they took, only cannabis is illegal. Would anyone care to take bets on what will get the brunt of the blame for this "tragic" incident? This is despite the fact that it is impossible to overdose on dope (incidentally, that old slogan of "Why do you think they call it dope?" refers to the fact that most of the powers that be are total dopes when it comes to knowledge of it's effects). According to recent figures (admittedly they were gleaned from Bizarre magazine but that is by the by) it would take something like 2000 joints to overdose on THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. Anyone who has ever smoked a joint will know that if these little pricks managed to go through that amount of dope they have A: lots of money, and B: the constitution of an Elephant. So I think we can work on the basis that the cannabis had nothing to do with their overdose? Good.

However, I have read of grown men dying after about 20 pints and vodka chasers. This is of course a lot, but it is possible I think you'll agree. When one adds anti-depressants (which come with warnings not to take with alcohol) and diazepam (which carry that same warning), then one can see rather rapidly that it was the legal drugs that caused the problem here.

The police have said in their statement about this incident "someone is peddling drugs that can kill". Well, yes I suppose so. And it's the government, not a drug dealer. Anyone over the age of 18 can legally get the drugs that may yet kill these boys. Who is to say that their parents didn't have the anti-depressants and diazepam? And everyone I know can tell a salutary tale of underage drinking, so why are the authorities hinting darkly at the involvement of the criminal element? Whilst I accept that they could have gotten some or all of the drugs involved from a dealer, isn't it equally as likely that they could have simply bought the beer at a local off licence, got the drugs from their parents, and bought themselves a bit of dope from a dealer?

I think the problem runs a lot deeper than the usual "drugs and dealers are a menace to society" message that we get bombarded with time after time. The fact is that society itself has a major problem when it comes to dealing with young people in that they are pretty much entirely left to their own devices. Parental interest in controlling their children seems to be pretty much non-existent at the moment (and that is regardless of social background; this incident could just have easily have been 7 spoilt little rich kids), and when things go wrong for them, we are quick to look for a scapegoat rather than examine their home life. I realise that I am making something of a generalisation in saying this, and as I don't have any children of my own I am looking at this issue from the outside as it were. But if a parent refuses to take responsibility for the actions (or even their upbringing) then aren't they far more to blame than any drug dealer?

Once again, I'm going to cop out and say that although I think the solution lies in increasing parental responsibility, I have no idea as to how to achieve that. Certainly I'm not so naive as to think that it can be done overnight; I would say that the problem is so ingrained now that it is the work of many years to try and undo it. Unfortunately, in today’s society, the nature of our democracy with it's 5 year terms of power and reliance on personal popularity rather than political skill, we will almost certainly continue to be promised quick fixes by parties who would say anything to get elected, and will dismiss long term plans as they may not be in power by the time they come to fruition. But my anti-democracy attitude is a rant for another time...

Godbothering

I actually sent this rant to the Bishop of Newcastle, and got a very polite response answering the main points I made. Seems that it's only the church organisation that is rancid; all the individuals within it (the catholic church that is) seem to be lovely.



Well, I suppose it was inevitable really; after 3 weeks of ranting in a sustained manner, I simply had to turn my attention to religion sooner or later. After all, anyone who has had the misfortune to be trapped in the same room as me whenever the subject has turned to religion and faith will know of my rather strong views on the matter (or at least they will do if they've ever managed to decipher my slurred and incoherent speech...)

I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this for some time and recently I have been given an opportunity. 1 night a week for the last 3 weeks I have invited two young gentlemen into the flat where I live. They have stayed for about an hour and a half each time and when have gone, all three of us are left feeling tired and yet sated and satisfied. Yes, I'm talking about Mormons.

For anyone who doesn't know about the Mormons (or the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints to give them their full title), they are members of a church founded in America around about 1820 by a bloke called Joseph Smith. Their basic beliefs are that Joe was a prophet in the fine traditions of the Old Testament (no, he didn't go round causing plagues of locusts or smiting his enemies with holy fury; even if he had done, 19th Century America had more pressing issues such as wiping out the natives and stealing their land to notice any vaguely biblical disasters...). He also had possession of a set of gold plates. Whereas you or I may think "Hmmm...I could get a few quid for these", Joe said that the inscriptions on them were in fact books of the Bible that never actually made the final draft, and had been buried in America since then. These inscriptions formed the basis of the book of Mormon, which in turn is the basis of their religion. And that, aside from the fact that they're really good at tracing family trees so that they can baptise their ancestors (does this involve digging them up and baptising them? Surely a body is pretty much soluble after a couple of hundred years underground; would you let yourself get baptised in the same water as 3 dozen dead and dissolved relatives?), is pretty much all you need to know about the Mormons.

Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they also seem to feel the need to go door-to-door and preach the word of Moroni (the angel who enlightened Joe Smith). Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a fairly affable bunch with none of the hellfire and damnation (and, let's face it, total misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the hell out of them as they are used to having doors slammed in their face and abuse thrown at them. It was actually nice to have them round as the JW have quite possibly marked my house with a big black cross since their last visit (the poor woman is quite possibly still having to attend three prayer meetings a day to overcome the horrible memory of "...that satanic man who told me that the founder of our great church was a con- man with convictions for fraud!" which he was by the way...)

Anyway, I won't presume to bore you with the details of the debates that have ensued from their visits. Needless to say that I'm enjoying being educated about their religion and they are having to put up with being educated about my views on life, the universe, and everything. What I will presume to bore you with is something that has been playing on my mind since their last visit. The two gentlemen who've been coming to argue with me are both polite and tolerant young men. They have listened attentively to my arguments and been respectful of my views despite the fact that are in flagrant breach of the rules that govern their lives, and because of this I have shown them the same courtesy when listening to their arguments.

So how come organised religion is one of the largest bastions of intolerance and ignorance in the known world? What causes it to develop from 2 polite young men talking reasonably to someone who doesn't accept their point of view to an autocratic institution that breeds ignorance and fear of any beliefs that differ from it's own? I really don't understand how it can happen.

What further confuses me is that despite the fact that religions have been schisming, spasming, and splitting pretty much since they began, literally billions of people choose to place their faith in them. Essentially, people are handing over a portion of their lives to an intangible concept which, even if you accept it's existence, has representatives on earth who act in their own self interest and not that of their followers. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.

Take the Catholic Church as an example (oh, in case you're a Christian of any sort, I'm not being biased against you. The Muslim faith also split into two distinct branches, the Sunni and the Shi'a. I'm not going to go into detail about them as A: I don't know much about the differences between the two, and B: I'm not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Salman Rushdie did...). The Catholic Church as it is now is the result of 2000 years of infighting, backbiting, self-aggrandising politicking, and general unpleasantness and intolerance. You disagree? Okay, well let's take a look at a few examples...

Firstly, despite what you may have been taught, the church was not the sole source of spiritual enlightenment and comfort until some German anti-Semite nailed a piece of paper to a door and started the first of the many Protestant faiths (which have also split and proliferated like randy mice in a grain store). The first major split occurred way back in 313AD. It was called Arianism, and it led to the mutilation, maiming and murder of hundreds of thousands of people as both sides attempted to have their point of view accepted as the one true way. And can you guess what it was about? Was it perhaps an argument of whether Christ existed? Or about the nature of the relationship between God and the Devil (and maybe even Bob)?

Nope. It was about the word "and" and how it related to the definition of “essence”.

I'm serious. A holy war was waged over one of the most common words in the language. Catholics believed that there was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and they were three separate and distinct entities who existed simultaneously. Arians said that there was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (notice that there is one less "and"). God is the main man, he sent his Holy Spirit from heaven and inhabited a man who was the son. In other words, the three cannot exist at the same time.
Frankly, if I'd died over something as trivial as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed….

And it doesn't stop there. In the ninth and eleventh centuries the church split once more into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic (and yes, the churches of the East have themselves split repeatedly). And lest anyone think that these holy wars are a relic of history, I would invite you to consider the Protestant-Catholic split in Ireland, the Christian-Islamic conflicts that are scarring Nigeria, the Sudan, and various parts of Africa, or the Hindu-Moslem tension in India. I'm sure it's not a revelation when I say that the biggest cause of worldwide strife is conflicts between religions that supposedly preach peace and brotherhood.

When we take these various splits into account, there is something like 50 major religions and countless minor cults that all claim to preach the true word of God. The only thing they seem to hate more than the works of the Devil are religions whose views differ from their own by about 3 words in paragraph 8 of page 106. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRUST AND BELIEVE THEM!!

Apologies again if what I'm saying causes offence, but doesn't anyone else think that it's about time we consigned these outmoded and outdated methods of thought control to the dustbin of history? I accept that we do need some sort of receptacle for our faith (I've often commented on how mankind seems to have a God-shaped hole in their head; we all seem to need a religion to fill it) but could we not perhaps spend some time pondering our own individual thoughts on the nature of the universe rather than relying on a set of religions that seek to keep us from thinking for ourselves and serve no purpose other than their own glorification? At least then any future wars over religion will actually be down to something people genuinely believe in rather than principles that have been imposed on them by a church that is no longer relevant.

Racism

I find more and more that the blinkered refusal to accept the reality of a situation applies as much to those who are against racism as much as those who are racist.



Is their much racial tension in where you live? I ask because it is something that I am clearly naive about. Allow me to explain further...
In certain otherwise dull Northern Mill towns, it has been recently reported that vigilante gangs of Asian youths have declared certain areas of the city "No-Go" for white people. This is in response to an increase in racist attacks on Asians. So they are meeting racism with racism which, in my naiveté, seems like an idea on a par with Adolf Hitler’s “Right then lads; lets invade Russia!” brainwave in terms of sheer stupidity.

The whole issue of racism gives me something of a mixed feeling. Not as to whether it is a good or bad thing, for it is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person that is an extraordinarily awful thing. No, what gives me the problem is just how one should apply the criteria to decide just what is racist.

Let us decide on a definition of racism before we proceed further. Racism is the belief that, regardless of whatever evidence to the contrary may exist, people are going to behave in a certain way. I'm quite aware that this is not going to be satisfactory to everyone, but I believe it is broad enough to encompass the ranged arch of racist behaviour.

We are living in a time of "political correctness gone mad" if you believe one point of view, or "building towards a more tolerant and multicultural society" if you believe the other. It should be quite clear that neither of these viewpoints are the whole truth. Whilst the former has all sorts of unsavoury associations with unpleasant bigots ranting away and then justifying themselves by trying to make out that it is us who have the problem, the news from Burnley, Oldham etc, as well as the quite frighteningly blinkered post on this webboard shows that the latter comment is equally as detached from reality.

To me, this begs the following question; are both camps equally as racist? Neither are taking account of the way things actually are, both are ignoring facts that are plainly obvious. The more racist point of view fails to account for the fact that large numbers of people of differing colours and creeds can and do live together in harmony. By the same token, the idealistic point skirts around the reality that an equally large number of people do not.

Racism in both of these forms is equally as destructive. The former generates hatred between man, and the latter allows it to spread unchecked. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the youths in Oldham are racist, but what can one expect after the Stephen Lawrence case, or the Conservative party's difficulty in keeping it's foot out of it's mouth, or the murder in Wales of an Asian man at a hospital? Equally, I found the post made on this board thoroughly distasteful in it’s unthinking bigotry, yet when we are spoon fed a constant diet of “Immigrants are responsible for all of our countries ills”, is it surprising that some people feel defensive and afraid of anyone who isn’t visibly WASPish? In my opinion, it's time to stop looking for someone to blame and face up to our collective responsibility to sort the whole mess out and get on with evolving as a race.

Death and Exams

The second most self-indulgent rant I've ever written...well, initially it was. The remainder, about exams, is still pertinent and is still my firmly held belief.



I hope you'll indulge me if I begin my rant today on something of a selfish note (selfish? That's most unlike you Stuart....). As you know, and as indeed you are almost certainly sick of me wittering on about, I was booted out of the Law Society a little over a year ago. This was almost certainly the proudest moment of my life, because as far as I can tell I was struck off for having a morality that was uncomfortably close to that of a human being. Candour compels me to admit that it was not couched in quite those terms when they informed me that they didn't want me to be a member of their gang any more. Quite the opposite in fact; I was to be expelled from the Law Society because I was, and I quote, "...a rebellious and unstable young man.... (who is) not of the correct mindset to be a solicitor".

Now, let us leave aside the fact that, if I am honest, that is a pretty accurate description. The only reason I mention their words is because of a news story that you may have caught yesterday. Sally Clark is a corporate solicitor who no longer practices law. She no longer practices because she was convicted of the murder of her two infant sons in 1996 and 1998 when they were aged 11 weeks and 8 weeks respectively. And I say is rather than was a corporate solicitor because yesterday the Law Society decided against striking her off the roll. Instead, she has been given an indefinite suspension, which means that she still has the possibility of practicing in the future.

I'm happy to accept that I may be being rather bitter about my own circumstances, but this to me seems something of...well, an inconsistency to put it mildly. I was declared unfit to be a solicitor because I kept a diary, although apparently if I'd committed a double murder I would have simply been given a slap on the wrist. If killing ones own children is not a sign of instability, what the bloody hell is?!?!

Anyway, that is all by the by and I hope you will forgive me for my exorcising that little pocket of RAGING ANGER AT THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!!!!

Erm...*ahem*...right, yes...let's move on shall we?

What I was hoping to talk about as it is a pertinent subject at the moment is exams. At this time of year, literally millions of people aged 16 to 22 are going through what will seem at that moment and without the benefit of later hindsight the most challenging and stressful time of their lives. For some it is GCSE's, others it is A-levels and others still are studying for a degree or diploma. And the reward that awaits them in their brave new world of extra qualifications? Well, I expect that, like all exam graduates of the past 10 years they will have their hard won achievements denigrated and dismissed by a bunch of crusty old farts who will insist that exams are getting easier, standards are slipping, and "it was much harder in my day".

Surely I'm not the only one who is getting sick of these old bastards declaring that because pass rates are up, standards must be down? Is it jealousy on their part perhaps; are they so utterly convinced of their own intellectual superiority that nobody could possibly have achieved a grade better than they did at that stage of their lives? Or could it be that they've seen some of the exam papers and had no difficulty themselves, entirely forgetting that the students do not have the benefit of the experience of actually having done the exams in the first place? Either way, they are wrong wrong WRONG!

Looking back now, my GCSE's were a piece of piss, my A-Levels caused little difficulty, and my degree and postgraduate exams were bearable. That is looking back. At the time they were the most horrendously difficult things in the entire world. GCSE's gave me heartburn, A-Levels made me sick with fear, and I'm amazed that I didn't develop an ulcer when studying for my finals. I struggled through them and was proud of my achievements, and it was genuinely upsetting to be told that I wouldn't have got nearly such grades if I'd done the exam 30 years earlier. How in the name of Beelzebub's fat cock would they have known?

If standards really were falling at the rate that the old guard say, then I estimate that in a little over 10 years we will be able to grow some purple bacteria in a petrie dish and name it Gerald, enter it for a GCSE and it would stand a reasonable chance of passing with a C or above. And actually, whilst we're on the subject, can anyone offer me a plausible explanation as to the purpose of giving an A* grade? Other than making the achievement of getting an A seem that much shittier, I really don't see the point. Doesn't it just make an A the equivalent of a B, B becomes C and so forth? Actually, maybe that's why some people say standards are slipping. Maybe they're just annoyed that they never had the chance to get an A* and the mere existence of that grade belittles their own exam results.

Perhaps I am giving a somewhat skewed view of this issue. I have a few other friends currently undergoing the ordeal of their university finals and I empathise with the panic (or not depending on whether or not your name is Richard...) that they are going through. The only person I know who is currently going through GCSE's is one of the most frighteningly intelligent people I know for any age let alone age 16 (Good luck to all of you by the way). It just annoys me that they are going to be told at the end of it all that they are not as good as the generation before them, no matter how good their grades are.

Why am I here

Possibly the most self-indulgent rant I've ever written.



It would seem that fate is conspiring against me today as there is little that is rantworthy in the news. Oh, there's the odd story that provides ripples of amusement I suppose; Dubya is facing the imminent prospect of losing control of the Senate as one of his own politicians is about to defect to the Democrats. This means the probable end of Dubya's Son of Star Wars initiative as well as his proposed lining of his Oil Baron buddies' pockets. He is apparently doing this in protest at the 1.37 trillion dollar tax cuts that have been forced through although I would like to think that he's just awoken to the fact that his country is being ran by a man with all the political savvy of William Hague on magic mushrooms.

Actually, speaking of my esteemed lookalike, I watched his appearance on Question Time last night with some amusement. Fair play to him, he certainly talked a good fight. It's just a pity that his comments about a secret European plan to harmonize our income tax with the rest of the EC have been utterly discredited less than 12 hours after he made them. Not only did the EC point out that this was not the case, but they provided a long list of directives to prove it. Oh, and also quite a few examples of little Billy actually calling for tax harmonization. Surely that must be some sort of record; from hero to hypocrite in half a day. Poor little foetus-man...

Oh, and a couple of blokes are challenging their conviction for providing meat that was unfit for human consumption as well. It would appear that meat that was destined to become cat and dog food ended up being sold to various butchers and marketplaces, and from thence to someone's dinner plate. Apart from the fact that this is incredibly funny and the sort of scam that I would have ached to attempt when I was a student, I really don't see the problem. After all, anyone who has ever eaten a Mcdonalds or a Burger King will have eaten meat of far lower quality than cat food. As long as whoever ended up eating the meat smothered it enough ketchup or mayonnaise then I'm sure that they won't have noticed much...

The only other thing that has even remotely interested me is the tale of woe from the world of cricket. Apparently the sport has been corrupt since the seventies and the game needs to be cleaned up. Well it's about bloody time too! Obviously, before the seventies the game must have been fast paced and exciting. For far too long bookies have obviously conspired to ensure that the games are dragged out for anything up to 5 days! Hopefully we'll be able to get back to the racy and pacy game that must have existed before the corruption set in...

Anyway, this lack of truly newsworthy items has set my train of thought to examine just what it is I actually do with these little rants. Not so much the physical processes that is simply I writing this and then posting it from my hotmail account to my friends. No, it makes me think of just why and how I do this. I'm sure it's no secret that I aspire to be a columnist or social/political commentator one day, but what does that actually entail?

It seems to me that the purpose of a columnist is to cast his or her eye over the day’s events and offer their own comment. And they also....erm....well they....oh. Is that it?!?! Jesus, anyone with half a brain and an opinion could do that! Oh my word I feel so cheated...

So let's get this straight; columnists are glorified critics? But I hate critics! And not even clever enough to criticise anything specific like an art or book critic, oh nononono! They (we, oh lord it's what I want to be so I have to refer to them as we...) just criticise life in general. That must make us the lowest form of critic. And critics are the lowest of the low! We sit by the sidelines, create nothing constructive of our own, and criticise that which others do. Those who can, do. Those who can't, don't. Those who don't even aspire to join the game, criticise. And sometimes write a column about it...

And we can't even call ourselves journalists, a profession that is widely regarded as the natural home for anyone who isn't much good at anything else. At least they go after their stories and sometimes change the world for the better. We sit on our ever expanding arses, pontificate at length as to why the world isn't much good, offer no suggestions as to how to make it better, and then go for lunch! (Actually, that sounds like rather a good job does it not?) So even journalists are better than we are! It would seem that I'm trying to aspire to the one job that I could find that ranks lower on the moral gauge than bloody lawyers...

So with this in mind, are there actually any benefits to society that are provided by columnists? Well, I would like to think that we entertain and...oh no hang on. I've read Richard Littlejohn's column many a time and although it has succeeded admirably in boiling my piss it has been less successful in the entertainment aspect. Hmm, so I can rule that out then. Okay, well what else could there be? I should point out that half an hour has passed since I typed that last question mark, so I really am trying hard to think of something....

Aha! I have it; we make people think. For example, rant 16 was not, in my opinion, one of my better rants. I would however point to the reaction that it got (showcasing Mr Boardman's paranoia to the whole world not least among this; Stan I am most impressed by the slightly scary fact that you know about all of this shit...). And I like to think that even if one reads my meandering thoughts or any other column then it provokes a reaction and forces one to think about it. So I suppose that's a fairly laudable aim. Isn't it?

Animal Testing

I abhor animal testing, but on balance I find that I abhor the terror tactics used by some of the Animal rights protesters even more.



I note that some animal rights activists managed to get themselves arrested today. The 3 men are currently being questioned in connection with the sound beating dealt out to a Mr Brian Cass who is the head of a pharmaceutical testing company. Yes, it's a case of a group of thugs using the fear of violence as a weapon in their shabby little "war" on behalf of the animals who suffer in the name of research and progress.

Now, I confess that I find it strange that I am so disapproving of the men who carried out the assault on Mr Cass. After all, I am a staunch advocate of animal rights and I anthropomorphosize animals to a ridiculous degree. However, although I would be delighted at the concept of Mr Cass having been brutalised by, say, 3 dozen rabbits with eyes weeping from freshly injected shampoo, or perhaps a score of cats whose exposed brains still have electrodes attached. Hell, I would even have settled for him being arse-raped by a family of chimpanzees who've undergone major psychological trauma due to the side effects of a drug testing experiment.

But when a bunch of activists take it upon themselves to intimidate not just the people who work at the pharmaceutical company, but their families and friends as well, I'm inclined to think that they've gone rather too far. After all, this is an issue that does generate a huge amount of public sympathy (the mistreatment of animals that is, not the intimidation of people. Actually, that's an issue in itself really; we have more concern for animals than we do for people. I wonder if that is a good or bad thing...) When the activists behave in this way they do not draw attention to the plight of the animals, they take attention away from it. Due to the way that the media reports it, and also due to the fact that the activists are behaving like bullying little thugs, one can find oneself feeling strangely satisfied by the defiance shown by the drugs company when they insist that their work will continue.

This is in my opinion not a good thing. Are there still people out there who genuinely believe that the wanton suffering of animals in the name of science or beauty is a good thing? I deliberately make the distinction between using animals to test drugs and using them to test cosmetics. The former does have it's defenders, the latter has (I hope) been entirely discredited. Frankly, if we're going to rub shampoo into anyone’s eyes, could we not do it to Jennifer Love Hewitt? I'm personally getting pig sick of the whining little tart simpering "Because I'm worth it" during every bloody advert break. If she's really worth it, test the stuff on her! And if we need to find out whether certain cosmetics cause blistering on sensitive skin then strap down a supermodel and smear her with the stuff. Whilst I fail to see how causing a rats skin to scar and blister can tell us more about how it would affect a human, I'm all for seeing an overpaid clothes hanging really earn their money.

But as for the testing of drugs on animals...well, this is a somewhat more complicated issue, although I'd like to nail my colours to the mast and state that I am firmly against it. If for no other reason than I resent animals taking drugs when they're so damn hard to get hold of where I live. And what are they going to do with them anyway? Do beagles sit in a lab smoking weed, watching the Star Wars films, and talking complete bollocks all night? Are there really rats that are full of pills and listening to bad electronic noise whilst wittering on about what a banging tune this is? And will scientists force cocaine up an orangutan’s nose and be forced to listen to it talking at about 400 words per minute about how brilliant it is whilst it sneezes out lumps of blood encrusted sinus?

I suspect not alas. It is more likely that rows of caged beasts live out their short and unhappy lives being poked, prodded, and dosed with god knows what before being dissected and incinerated along with the rest of the rubbish. We're meant to be a civilised society yet we'll happily heap indignity and suffering on animals in the name of progress. Why the hell is this? If there were absolutely no other alternatives then I would reluctantly accept the necessity of testing on animals. But there is no need for it, not really.

Now, I'm not advocated using people instead of animals (although I confess that in my more right wing days I was all in favour of testing on prisoners in return for remission of their sentence. Part of me still thinks that would work...) but I know of certain things that can be done instead. Human tissue can be recreated in the lab, so drugs can be tested on this rather than animals. Computer generated models are now so advanced that pretty much anything can be tested here before moving onto human trials (i.e. stuffing students full of experimental drugs in order to fund their beer binges. Who said students never give anything to society?) I'm tempted to mention the advances in cloning as well but as I know next to nothing about the implications of that I shall steer clear. Even so, there are ample other possibilities before we have to carve up animals to find a cure for cancer.

Why do we not take them? Money. Cash. Expense. Animal testing is the cheapest method of testing drugs and as long as this is the case then vivisection will continue. Though I am loath to admit it, the cause of all of this suffering is raw, naked capitalism.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all of the above. The animals (or test subjects to give them their correct name; apparently the testers need to use this sort of doublespeak to assuage their own conscience) may be living in the lap of luxury and be far happier than any of their brethren. It's impossible for us to tell of course because there is such a veil of secrecy surrounding animal testing that no one knows precisely what is going on. With that in mind, it is all too easy to accept the information given by the activists as the absolute truth. There is no transparency and the drugs companies do not feel the need to enlighten us as to what it is they actually do. The sooner they do so, the better. That way it will either cease to be an issue, or we will be so horrified at what they actually do that they may be forced into abandoning animal testing. I live in hope...

1984 Today

Every year I read 1984. Every year I write a similarly depressing rant.




I’ve just had a few days holiday, and found myself rereading a favourite book of mine; 1984 by George Orwell. I had always consoled myself with the notion that such a horrendous state of affairs could never occur, or at least never be sustained, in this day and age. Well, after having steeped my paranoid brain in such a pink, fluffy, and candy coated idea I sat myself down and read through the days news. This is never a good idea if one wishes to keep deluding oneself that 1984 is a nightmare that will remain within the confines of the literary world.

First up on the roll call that keeps me awake at night is the unfolding situation in that most favoured and feminist of holiday destinations, Afghanistan. I could go on at great length about the Taliban who control most of the country; about their strict interpretation and stricter imposition of Islam (a religion which holds tolerance as one of it's sacred precepts...) and Sharia law. Or about their quite remarkably shoddy treatment of women which would make even the most hardened woman hater blanch in disgust. Perhaps I could even pontificate about the inherent vandalism of their destruction of two ancient statues of Buddha, and act that sparked international condemnation (Christ, even Iran kicked off at them about it; Iran for gods' sake, a country long considered the epitome of religious fanaticism!)

Instead, I shall content myself with mentioning the latest human rights atrocity, being the edict that the Buddhists of Afghanistan must wear a mark upon themselves at all times that will identify them as such. As I'm sure you're aware, the last time a fashion statement like this was made was when that famous Austrian style guru Adolf decreed that the yellow Star of David was *the* fashion accessory for Jews in Germany and the occupied territories. And of course this led to a particularly horrific time in World history.

At the end of WWII the allies declared at the Nuremberg trials that the atrocities committed by the Nazi's should never be allowed to happen again. Hmm, thus far in my lifetime I have seen concentration camps being set up in the Balkans, the attempted genocide of an entire group of people purely on racial grounds in Rwanda, and now we see the discrimination of a group based on religious grounds. So we've not really stuck to that promise we made in Nuremberg really, have we. Or if we have, the reasons for our intervention seem to have been arbitrary. Or have they?

Do you think it's co-incidental that, having stood by and idly watched the Iran-Iraq war claim hundreds of thousands of lives (well, we weren't entirely idle; after all, we made a fortune selling weapons to both sides...), we intervened when Kuwait, a major oil producing nation for the west, was invaded? Or that, although we stayed idle when Rwanda was busy collapsing in on itself we took action in the Sierra Leone (sending troops and military advisors to the elected government) which has diamond mines in the rebel held territory of that country?

In Orwells 1984, the perpetual state of war between Oceana, Eurasia and Eastasia was purely over the resource rich countries that bordered the 3 major powers. It seems to me that we currently only go to war to secure our access to those same resource rich countries. The lofty ideal of the Nuremberg trials, to secure the human rights of the oppressed and persecuted, exist on paper only.

Now then, for the next item on my nightmarish agenda we have something a little closer to home. 61 year old Helen John was yesterday jailed for 3 months for causing criminal damage. She had cut a hole in a perimeter fence surrounding an American Military base. Aside from the fact that she could have wantonly and negligently let Americans escape into the general British populace, a 3-month sentence seems a little harsh. Then I found out that she was due to stand against Tony Blair at the general election. Hmmm....

Now lets clear a few things up before I proceed. I don't believe that our government is so totalitarian that they have to imprison someone who would be, at best, a minor irritant to Tony Blair in his efforts to get re-elected to his constituency. Nor do I believe that the government exerted any pressure to imprison an old lady for a minor offence that nearly always gets the miscreant a fine. I would however be interested to see what the political leanings of the magistrates who jailed her were.

I mention it merely to make you aware of it and I do that because recent history does seem to show that if we ignore minor abuses of power, it makes us less likely to be concerned, as they gradually become big abuses of power. I'm referring to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, a man who appears to have seen a picture of Hitler and thought "Mm, that moustache looks really good, I must grow one", who first began acting like a dictator when he authorised the large scale land seizures of white owned farms by "war veterans" (the war that is alluded to is the War of Independence when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. Most of these "veterans" weren't even born when the war took place) which despite having no legal basis for doing so, was generally rather popular amongst many people there. He then moved on to attempting to replace the independent judiciary with his own people, and (co-incidentally enough) attempting to have his rival for the presidency imprisoned before the elections. Again, we have a parallel in 1984, where the Party were so successful in their neutralisation of any opposition that they even had control of what little rebellion there was.

As I've been rambling for some time now, I shall make this my final point. The Labour party have complained bitterly that the press are colluding with protesters on the campaign trail in order to cause visible demonstrations whenever a minister makes an appearance, and thus create news stories. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that this shows a level of paranoia that makes even me seem well adjusted. Rather, let us contemplate what the implications of that complaint actually are.

They are essentially whining because the press is making the government look bad. Maybe I missed a meeting, but I thought that the function of an independent media was to report the news? And I could be wrong on this, but isn't a general election newsworthy? Even if it were not, I'm damn sure that the antics of Basher Prescott are. So is the haranguing of Tony Blair by a protester, and the booing of Jack Straw by the Police Federation. They've also complained that the troubles that my lookalike is having on his campaign trail are not being as widely reported. This is because Hague is a joke whose chances of getting into power are roughly the same as my chances of getting into Jennifer Lopez's pants. The media also know this, and dedicate the relevant amount of time to his campaign accordingly.

Why exactly are the government so upset about the media reporting the news? Is it because they want nothing but good news to be reported so that we will be constantly told how good things are, regardless of whatever the evidence of our own eyes may tell us? Do they just want praise of their achievements (of which there are many) and no criticism of their shortcomings (of which there are an equal amount)? Without wishing to belabour the comparison, The Ministry of Truth in 1984 concerned itself with ensuring that all media reports were favourable to the Party. Admittedly, they went as far as doctoring previous reports so that it seemed as if the Party was infallible, but I'm sure you can see the cause of my concern.

All in all, using just 3 examples one can start to draw parallels with today’s world and the hideous totalitarian nightmare world of 1984. Sleep tight.

Politician in Human Being shocker

I'm going to be boringly predictable today because the news has gifted me the only exciting story of the last couple of days. Who would have thought that John Prescott had it in him? For four years the grumbling great porker has been shuffled to the back of the cabinet by an embarrassed looking Tony Blair ("Look Peter, we have to have one of the old guard in the cabinet to keep those awful left wing types in line..."). Apparently, this has put him in rather a bad mood and turned him into a ticking timebomb just waiting for an opportunity to go off. Yesterday whilst on the campaign trail he was given that opportunity courtesy of a bloke with a mullet hair cut, and an egg.

I hardly need add to the mounds of print that have already been written about "the incident", but for those of you who didn't see what happened, a gentleman registered his protest at Mr. Prescotts transport policy via the medium of lobbing an egg at him. Mr. Prescott received the well delivered protest with all the good grace that one would expect of a navvy from Hull and delivered a rebuttal in the form of a rather impressive left jab to the jaw. If only parliamentary debate was so interesting... ("And now it's over to Prime Ministers Question Time coming to you live from Battersea Gym. Mr. Blair has weighed in at 175lbs and Mr. Hague at 140lbs. Winner is by two falls or a knockout!")

I've also allowed myself a chuckle at the Tory reaction to this little kerfuffle. After having spent their years in opposition bleating about law and order and the erosion of the right of self defence (such as when the farmer Tony Martin shot the burglar a while back; remember how bitterly they complained about how unjust the decision to jail Mr. Martin was? No? Well, seeing as no one pays much attention to the Tories I'm not surprised...) they are now given a ball blisteringly good opportunity to make political capital and they can't! So far their reaction has been to pretty much mumble something into their collective beard about how he shouldn't have lost his cool, as all politicians should expect some heckling.

Personally, I find it rather sweet to see that the supposedly great and good of the country are actually real human beings rather than the personification of a particular cause or viewpoint. I'm not a fan of Prescott or the Labour party but I suspect his little duel yesterday will win far more votes than it will lose. If somebody whom you'd never met before threw an egg at you in the street, what would you do? Not everyone would lamp the bastard, but some would and of the ones who wouldn't I suspect many of us would silently applaud them.

There's far too few examples of Politicians behaving in a similar way to you or I, and what is even more annoying is that on the rare occasions that they do they are either vilified or ridiculed by the press. The headline of The Sun treats the Prescott Punch as a piece of slapstick humour, Paddy Ashdown became Paddy Pantsdown after his affair, and Peter Mandelson was depicted as the devil incarnate.

"What?" I hear you cry, "Peter Mandelson behaving like a human being? I have not heard such reports! To what do you refer?"
Well, although it is by now old news, I refer to the Hinduja Brothers and the row over their passports. To recap, the brothers are Indian millionaires. The accusation was that, in exchange for funding part of the Millennium Dome, Mandelson would use his influence to get them British Passports. The row of course caused Mandy to resign for a second time thus ending his cabinet career for the foreseeable future.

I found this rather touchingly human of the political prince of darkness for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the Hinduja brothers were friends with Mandy, so essentially he was using his position to try and help out a couple of his mates. Now admittedly when one bears in minds that he was involved in government, that does make the implications rather more serious. But what he did is no different to myself asking a friend who is a computer programmer to come and fix my frequently broken machine at no cost other than a few beers at the pub. The implications may indeed be different but the principle is the same.
Secondly, Mandy was minister of the Dome at the time. He is also MP for Hartlepool. The fact that he was willing to bear responsibility for the dome just goes to show the lengths that he will go to in order to avoid Hartlepool and frankly speaking, fair play to him!

It seems that, although we complain about the out of touch attitude of many politicians, we have an equally large problem with them behaving like a normal person. Perhaps it's no wonder that all in Parliament are so evasive and cagey when interviewed. If they behave in that way then at least they won't be condemned out of hand. If they deviate from this then they are open to ridicule and no-one likes being made to appear stupid or as a figure or fun. Are we encouraging blandness in politics?

Not overtly, no. But could we be said to be giving tacit approval to the almost total lack of character in British politics. Every party conference or major announcement is stage managed to the nth degree so that there is no danger of debate or argument, it is simply a matter of rubber stamping the decisions already made by the upper echelons of the party. This is partly a result of the publics disapproval of the rowdy scenes that used to be a feature of party conferences; socialists kicking off at Kinnock for moving the Labour Party towards the centre rather than far left; LibDems with their total inability to vote the way that their leaders wanted them to. In fact, only the Tories have always (well, within my memory anyway) kept things on an even keel, and that's possibly because they were terrified of Maggie...

With that in mind, I think it would be far more entertaining if politicians had to be interviewed by a member of the public. Not as per Question Time which is stupifyingly dull and well controlled. No, I want to see bloke or lass from the pub giving Blair a hard time! Does you remember when Maggie got interviewed by a member of the public after the Belgrano was sank during the Falklands? It was the only time I'd ever seen her running scared, but people respected her for facing the grilling (although tellingly, she never did it again). And more important than that, it was bloody entertaining! And in an election campaign that, until Prescotts tantrum, was promising some truly epic boredom, that can only be a good thing.

Young Lust

I still can't see how a 13 year old boy can be branded as a paedophile.



Today finds me troubled. No change there you might think. You might even be right, but that is not the point. I find myself particularly troubled by a news item that caught my roving eye yesterday and a one that you may well have caught yourself concerning paedophilia (bet that got your attention...)

In a recent sting operation, the police swooped on a number of people who were downloading child porn from the Internet. Notwithstanding the fact that an opportunity to hand out a sound kicking to the testicles of some of these bastards was missed, this is a very good thing indeed. That they will be placed on the sex offenders’ register and will be imprisoned is also a good thing. However, a less good thing is the age of one of those arrested. He is a 13-year-old boy, and he has just been convicted of child sex offences relating to possession of indecent images of youngsters. Specifically, pictures of girls his own age.

Now I should make it clear that the availability on the Internet of indecent images of children is a very bad thing, let there be no doubt whatsoever about that. However, is it just me that blanches at the prospect of demonising a boy for looking at pictures of girls his own age? A 43-year-old man getting his kicks from a picture of a young girl is appalling. A 13 year old boy doing it...well, it's not the same in my opinion. When I was 13, I pretty much fancied other 13-year-olds. Sorry. Does that make me somehow inclined toward paedophilia? If so, doesn't it make...well, every man in the land a possible child sex offender?

Of course it doesn't. This was a young boy who is discovering his sexuality. He finds girls of his own age attractive and the Internet provided him the means of finding pictures of such girls to provide him with sexual gratification. Again I must stress that the availability (the very existence in fact) of these pictures is a bad thing, but I suspect that this young boy isn't the only one who would avail himself of them. After having admitted that I was a Young Conservative I don't think I have many taboos left to break, but harking back to when I was that age, and if I'd had access to the same technology, then I suspect quite strongly that I would have done the same. Maybe that makes me a pervert, but I think it just makes me honest.

As I've grown older and changed, so have my tastes. I still like women my own age or thereabouts and, happily, being an adult this means I am normal in my sexual preferences (well, comparatively so anyway). This boy has essentially been pilloried for the same thing. He will have to spend 18 months on the sex offenders’ register; he has already been through the court system and tarred with the same brush as those moon faced and pathetic men who really are child abusers. What kind of impact is this going to have on him I wonder? Obviously I can only speculate, but one would imagine that he is going to have a few issues to deal with as he gets older. He needed to be given understanding, not condemnation.

Once more, I should clarify a couple of things. He, as a child, should be given help and understanding so that he can grow up to lead a normal life. I am not advocating this same degree of help and understanding for genuine paedophiles. As the children that they were, I have the greatest of sympathy for the problems that they undoubtedly had and the abuse that they most probably suffered. As adults I want to know that they are either safely incarcerated or dead. There comes a point where, no matter how much we can understand what happened to make a person turn out to be a child abuser and no matter how tragic that is, we must put aside whatever need certain sections of society feel to rehabilitate them. I am given to believe that once someone develops a taste for paedophilia then one will always have this particular affliction. If I am wrong in that assertion then by all means correct me. But if we take it as the truth, then the only place paedophiles have in our society is to provide an example of what we need to do to ensure that nobody else turns out this way.

In my former profession I regularly met and conversed with paedophiles. As part of my job involved trying to convince these people that I was on there side, and as I am rather a good actor, I found that they tended to be very open with me. One of the truly terrifying things about them was their conviction that they had done nothing wrong. In their minds, the child was a willing partner (in one particular case, the gentleman assured me that the child was in fact the seducer. He was 8). The other thing that struck me about the paedophiles that I met was their manner. Without exception, their eyes were always downcast, they were meek and their every action was hesitant, almost apologetic in manner. Now believe it or not, I am of the mindset to feel sympathy for people who feel rightly or wrongly that they have been rejected by society. Possibly it is the inherent nerdiness in me, I don't know. And it is all too easy to forget that these gentle natured men were guilty of ruining young lives. And they would do it again, of that I have no doubt. Not because they are not given proper treatment in prisons as some claim. I believe that it is because they are untreatable. One may as well ask someone to stop having blue eyes; such is the bond between their actual psyche and their desire for sex with children. So loathe though I am to agree with the Hang 'em and Flog 'em brigade, I think that paedophiles should be thoroughly studied so that we can learn from them what we need and then quietly put down as one would get rid of a rabid animal.

As a quick side note, you may be intrigued to learn that certain academics seek to justify paedophilia on historical grounds as it was not merely accepted, but subtly encouraged in societies such as Ancient Greece and the Ottoman Empire. Fine, that was then and this is now. Both of those societies also encouraged the subjugation of other societies, the inferiority of women, and in the case of the Greeks, sacrifices to the gods. Things that were acceptable in olden times may not be acceptable in today’s society. As a keen student of history (yes, I really am that boring...) I know that one should interpret historical data in the light of the prevailing attitude of the time and of that region. The reverse is also true, and in our time and our region (i.e. the civilised world) child abuse is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. I don't imagine anyone will disagree with that, but I had to get it off my chest.

As a final and somewhat more frivolous note, the news reports that I have seen on this particular issue make little or no distinction between pornography on the Internet, and child pornography on the Internet. This is a very important distinction to make because I (and I want there to be no doubt about this) think that pornography is great. I love it and can't praise it highly enough. Lest you think I'm somehow dirty for making this admission, I would point out a couple of facts. Firstly, approximately 69% (such an appropriate figure) of the Internet is comprised of pornography. Secondly, the porn industry has a turnover of $5 billion per year. That's bigger (and harder and faster and...sorry, sorry I got carried away) than a lot of major software firms can manage. So either 5 billionaires are spending an awful lot of time on their computers, or this stuff really is vastly popular. Well as I've started the ball rolling by stating my long time love of porn, and as I'm certainly not a billionaire, then I suspect the latter is true.

Now I don't just say this for the good of my health. I say it because I am sick of seeing normal porn being lumped together with kiddie porn. Effectively every person who likes porn is being told that they are little better than the bastards who abuse children are and I rather resent this. I'm not proposing some sort of media crusade against the mass vilification of pornography (although that would be rather fun..."Perverts of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your mess!") but I am proposing that we remember that we are not in the minority but the vast majority. Think on that the next time you read or see some report that attempts to compare pornography to the worst kinds of evil.

A dishonourable profession

I was rather too kind about Alan Clarke in this rant. Mainly because I read and thoroughly enjoyed his Diaries.




Politics is such a dirty word these days don't you think? Can you think of a single politician whom you consider to be trustworthy? Or who has ideological convictions? It's not really the easiest task in the world is it?
Okay, I've started off with four questions, and it really is rather unreasonable of me to get you to basically write this for me, so I shall forge on with a few statements.

I've started off by saying that politics is disreputable "these days" but I'm wondering whether it has ever been considered to be a reputable occupation. It was back in the late fifties and early sixties (particularly after the P.M. Antony Eden made such a pigs ear of the Suez Canal crisis by trying to invade Egypt with French support. The silly man should have known not to go along with any enterprise that the French approved of...) that satirists such as Peter Cook and Willie Rushton pointed out just how inept our ruling classes were. Before then a certain awe of our leadership was encouraged, though satire has been around since the Middle Ages (albeit initially in the form of a court jester). It wasn't quite to the degree of a belief in a divine right to rule but it was certainly an arrogance that cannot really be approached these days (except by me when I'm drunk of course).

However, no matter what the actual behaviour of politicians before then, the perception of them has certainly changed. I remember when the then Labour leader John Smith died and the BBC were interviewing some of his constituents in an effort to get glowing tributes to match those already given by his colleagues. The nicest thing that anyone had said (at least I assume so as this was the only clip of a member of the public that was shown) was "...for a politician he wasn't a bad bloke." Hmm, damned with faint praise methinks.

So, when one bears in mind our general opinion concerning politicians, what the bloody hell are we doing electing them again and again? We wouldn't trust these people to be alone in our houses, yet we cheerfully give them supreme power over our lives! What exactly are we thinking? Are we really possessed of such short memories that we'll elect people whose shortcomings we've spent the last four years bemoaning? Unfortunately, I think we are. Most people are viewing the election as a straight contest between the Labour and Conservative parties. Not really much of a choice is it? No one trusts the Tories and not many people like Labour due to the last few months of making a pigs ear (yes, yes cheap pun I know…) of the Foot and Mouth crisis. But we'll still troop out to the polling stations and cast our votes one way or the other.

What happened to the idea of a multiparty democracy? (My, I am full of questions today...) We have a multitude of other voting options; LibDem, Green, UK Independence, Socialist, Welsh/Scottish nationalists, various fringe parties, but we ignore them for the most part. We're willingly following the 2 party model of the U.S., which is good in all respects apart from the fact that it doesn’t work. Only 40% of the U.S. electorate voted at the last election (the moral of that story being vote or else we'll end up with someone like Dubya in power). Counting irregularities aside, just a few hundred more people voting would have made the difference between Gore and Dubya (assuming that they could count that high...does anybody actually know why they had such difficulties?!? Were they counting using fingers and toes? If so, it's a pity that the deadlock didn't happen in Alabama as they'll have been able to count up to at least 26 using just fingers and toes...) The massive voter apathy was a result of the perception that one party was much like the other, and no matter whom they voted for nothing would really change. The same is rapidly becoming true over here. When the Conservatives were ousted we lost a government who preached tough immigration policies, were hard on crime, demanded tougher jail sentences for a range of offences, and offered low taxes whilst raising money elsewhere via increases in alcohol/tobacco/petrol duties. They were replaced with a Labour government who...oh.

It's quickly getting to the stage where we don't have to make any choices between political ideas. It's simply a popularity contest between 2 pragmatic sides who will say or do anything to try and get your vote. Tony Blair has received an awful lot of criticism for the stage-managed announcement of the General Election. You may recall that he announced it whilst on a visit to a girls school (perks of the job I suppose...) where coincidentally a multitude of journalists had gathered. He was accused of cynical manipulation in doing this. Well of course he did! He's a politician, and through our own apathy we encourage politicians to do this sort of thing. We're either suckered in by it or we ignore it. We all blame politicians for messing up the country, but who exactly elects them?

Perhaps the problem is that not enough emphasis is put on the importance of actually voting. In Australia, voting is compulsory. Once you get to a polling station you can put whatever you want of course, hell you can wipe your backside with the ballot paper if you so desire but the point is you have to go the polling station to do so. This way, no one can complain that whatever disaster befalls the country was "nothing to do with me". Everyone has some responsibility for their government; they feel involved. I would submit that we don't have nearly the same feeling of involvement here, especially among my generation. Whether that is due to the inherent cynicism of the Thatcher generation, or whether we're just irresponsible, I don't know (and if I did, I'd probably run for Parliament myself). Whatever the reason, it's something that we do need to sort out or we can look forward to a succession of governments elected by a minority of the people.

The main political parties themselves do not aid matters by their similarity to one another, both in terms of policies and personalities (well...such personalities as politicians have anyway). Jack Straw is equally as humourless and heartless as Michael Howard ever was; Robin Cook is as ineffectual as Francis Maude is; both sides have remarkably similar policies on everything from taxation to law and order to foreign investment. I deplore this loss of personality in politics (although I admit I'm probably harking back to a nostalgic period that never actually was). One of my all time heroes of politics (even after I stopped being a Tory) was Alan Clarke. He was as right wing as they come, had the most dreadfully outdated views on class structure, and was accused of having links to the National Front (for the record, he didn't. They liked him because, as a historian, we wrote a book about Hitler’s strengths as a leader such as his economic reforms. Ethically speaking, he denounced Hitler as a grade A git).

I thought he was fantastic. At the time when John Major had embarked on his ill advised "Back to Basics" campaign, and Tories were being exposed as sexual hypocrites (promoting family values whilst humping ones secretary is fairly inadvisable) it emerged that AC had bedded not only a judges wife, but his two daughters as well. When faced with the press asking if these allegations were true, not only did he freely admit to it but also pretty much said that it had been bloody good fun! If we're going to elect morally reprehensible politicians, couldn't we at least elect people as entertaining as him rather than the corrupt grey suits full of nothing that we currently plump for?

Well, I seem to have rambled on with very little real purpose here, so I promise that I shall do my utmost to make this my last political rant for a while. But I hope that I have perhaps impressed on you that if this country really is turning to shit, and if we really are just replacing one awful government with another, then we have absolutely no one to blame but ourselves. If that is the case, I'm afraid it is actually up to us to do something about it. We do it by using our vote and not just letting another election pass us by.

Young Tories Anonymous

The confession in this rant is something that shames me to this day.



Well, on a day as beautiful as this, where that most excellent canopy of the sky perches atop the sun kissed earth like a vast blue turd, it seems rude not to mention the election at least once. After all, the apathetic masses generally couldn't care less about whichever vacuous suit of empty promises grins outside number 10 like a Mormon polygamist with equal number of genitalia. So with that in mind, I believe that it would be prudent to have a look at some of the ideas that the men who aren't (touch wood) going to get elected have espoused.

Now then, before proceeding I should make a confession. *Deep Breath* Okay...for a little over 3 years (and I can hardly bring myself to say this) I was a Young Conservative. I know I know but I thought I could handle it. I thought I could just vote Tory once or twice and not get hooked but I was wrong. It was only through years of being weaned off right wing thinking that I could eventually state with confidence that I was clean of conservatism. I've been on the Non-Tory wagon for 4 years now and show no signs of falling off.

With that out of the way (and believe me, I would prefer to forget about that particular chapter of my life) let us have a brief look at some of the ideas that the Tories believe (well some of them) will sweep them back into power. Before even that, we should consider what basic advantages a conservative government will bring. Well, if Hague did become P.M. then he would be the most recognisable British politician in the world, and particularly America, since Margaret Thatcher. Admittedly this is because most Americans would think that we had elected Monty Burns of The Simpsons fame as the leader of our nation but any publicity is good publicity I suppose. Plus the image of little Willy sitting in the cabinet office muttering "Excellent..." in sinister whispered tones is just too good to let go of. Here's hoping that he appoints a bloke called Smithers as deputy P.M.

Of course, should the Conservatives lose then we stand a high chance of Mr Burns (sorry, Hague) being deposed by the finest politician of Spanish origin with homosexual leanings that the Tories have ever had. I'm going to be intrigued to see how he manages to keep the bigoted xenophobia of the political right that we have all come to know and love chugging along at the same rate...

And speaking of things European, no breakdown of the Tory election manifesto would be complete without a mention of their attitude towards the E.U.
I'm quite aware of how stultifyingly boring the whole European issue is, so I shall be as brief as I can. The main objection of the Tories to Europe (apart from "They're all bloody foreign!" although I suspect that particular argument won't feature in their campaign) is the single currency. The Euro is the issue that has divided the Conservatives into two camps, each bitterly opposed to the other. On the one hand, we have the europhobes and assorted borderline-racists who "didn't fight in the war just so we could jump into bed with the bloody Europeans!" although frankly I find the idea of my grandparents fighting for my right to leap into bed with a European quite sweet...
Then we have the hard core capitalists led by Ken Clarke who are of the firm belief that a single currency will advance the cause of capitalism and frankly couldn't give a bugger whom they go to bed with to achieve that.

The backdrop to this is a nation who (if The Sun is to be believed) are overwhelmingly opposed to joining the single currency because we don't want to lose our "good old pounds and pence". Yes, we are fighting for the right to use pieces of paper and metal that has the Queens head on it as opposed to pieces of paper and metal with a picture of some dreadful foreign type on it. Hmm....it doesn't seem quite as rational when put like that does it? D'you know, I think that is probably because as arguments go, it's a vast pile of hamster droppings that have been out in the sun for too long.

Why are we so adamant about keeping our currency as Sterling? It was only 30 years ago that we were still using imperial currency. Does that mean that someone, somewhere is campaigning for its return? (actually, this being England, there almost certainly is. I'll bet they vote Tory as well...) If so, why stop there? Why not set up a campaign to bring back the Groat! Or trawl further back in history to demand the Denarii! Except we couldn’t do that, could we? The Denarii, one of our earliest currencies, was used throughout the Roman Empire. In effect, it was the first Euro, although it was used over a far wider area.

Money is a method of bartering, nothing more and nothing less. It is a convenience that allows us to avoid carrying livestock with us when we want to go shopping (don't you think that it's a shame that currency developed using precious metals as the standard instead of goods? I think the idea of going shopping with an 8 goat note, or a 2 chicken coin is an irresistible one! Just picture the scenes at the shops "Alright then love there's the dress, that'll be 4 eggs and litre of milk please." "Oooh, can you break a 20 cow note? I've not got anything smaller.")

If we're going to get annoyed about the whole European issue, then could we perhaps get annoyed at it for the fact that it has a system of bureaucracy that makes Kafka's "The Trial" seem like a model of simplicity, or that there are legions of unelected people making decisions that will affect thousands if not millions of people, and they are totally unaccountable, or even that no-one really knows what the hell the European Parliament actually does. But please, don't kick off with it because of cold, hard cash because I find the idea that we are that obsessed with money a rather disturbing one.

So what else have the Tories been wittering about in an effort to make us vote? Well, they've promised to not only spend as much as Labour has promised, but cut taxes in the bargain! Now I'm not the most mathematically inclined person but surely one can't spend money that one doesn't have? And that is clearly what they have thought as well because yesterday they unveiled a series of measures to raise 8 billion pounds for tax cuts. They are a trifle vague however. They say that £2.1 billion will be recouped by cutting government red tape. Erm, didn't they have 18 years in power with which to do this? They're also going to crack down on benefit fraud, despite the fact that our current government are more draconian on fraud and other crime issues than the Tories are (Anne Widdecombe excepted of course...)

And when it comes to Law and Order, the Conservatives are once more behind the pace. They are trying to compete with Jack Straw, the man who shopped his own son for smoking dope, for the sheer unpleasantness of laws that restrict ones personal liberty. The only way that they could top the proposed law for retaining DNA samples of anyone arrested (not found guilty, simply arrested) would be by making drug and alcohol tests compulsory at work (and lest you think I'm joking, this has been proposed by one or two Tories).

One of my all time heroes of politics (even after I stopped being a Tory) was Alan Clarke. He was as right wing as they come, had the most dreadfully outdated views on class structure, and was accused of having links to the National Front (for the record, he didn't. They liked him because, as a historian, we wrote a book about Hitler’s strengths as a leader such as his economic reforms. Ethically speaking, he denounced Hitler as a grade A git).

I thought he was fantastic. At the time when John Major had embarked on his ill advised "Back to Basics" campaign, and Tories were being exposed as sexual hypocrites (promoting family values whilst humping ones secretary is fairly inadvisable) it emerged that AC had bedded not only a judges wife, but his two daughters as well. When faced with the press asking if these allegations were true, not only did he freely admit to it but also pretty much said that it had been bloody good fun! If we're going to elect morally reprehensible politicians, couldn't we at least elect people as entertaining as him rather than the corrupt grey suits full of nothing that we currently plump for?

I could of course go on for a considerable length of time about just how rubbish the Tories are but that would be far too easy. Instead, I'd like to ask you to consider the following. When John Major lost the last election, many dyed-in-the-wool Tories didn't vote out of a sort of collective guilt at how awful the Conservative had become. This time, they've had an actual Labour government, and they really don't like it! I can guarantee that they'll turn out in force to vote. Labour voters however are gently being lulled into apathy because of the assumption that a victory is a foregone conclusion. Which it is, if they bother to vote. If they don't we may be the first nation in the known world to elect a foetus from Yorkshire as our leader. So vote. Even if you're not registered, please vote. Admittedly, I'm going to be voting LibDem as I think both major parties are a shower of rubbish, but that is by the by. Just please, please ensure that little Billy Hague continues to be the political joke that he so richly deserves to be

Childhood Sucks

Whatever I was trying to say here, I don't think I said it very well.



Who'd be a child these days? In Manchester today a school bus was fired on. Children are missing out on free meals because they don't want their friends to tease them for being poor (that at least is a familiar complaint; I'm sure you spent many happy hours at school tormenting others in the hope that you'd fit in and no-one would tease you). And I hardly need mention Israel, where babies and young teenagers are considered fair game in an increasingly sordid little conflict.

Are things really that bad nowadays? Has everything changed since I was younger, or has it always been like this and I'm just more aware of it these days? It's summer soon, and if it follows the pattern of all previous summers we can look forward to child abduction, rape, and murder being the lead news story most nights of the week. Stop me if you've heard this one before, but aren't you getting sick of the routine that we go through every time? It starts with a disappearance, a few suitably cute yet heart rending photo's are shown on a daily basis and we are given the spectacle of the parents appearing on the TV to appeal for their child’s safe return. And actually, whilst I'm on that subject, have you started to watch those press conferences with a more cynical eye? Ever since that spate of parents who turned out to be the murderer (Sion Jenkins the headmaster from hell who mashed his stepdaughter's head with a tent spike springs to mind) I find myself watching for the slightest twitch that may indicate guilt.

Anyway, the press conference finishes and the searches continue. We now watch a mixture of policeman and concerned locals trawling across fields and wasteland desperately searching for a clue. The days pass, hope fades, and usually after about a fortnight a ravaged and crumpled body is found, the murder hunt begins, and we forget about it until the trial of whomever was responsible.

And we just accept this, we fucking accept it! Does anyone watch the scenes described above and empathise with the family, hoping that they will see their child again and have the opportunity to hug them and tell them how much they love them? Like hell we do, we see the first report of the disappearance and think; "Poor bugger'll be dead by now, if they're lucky". On the rare occasions that a child is found alive, no one rejoices that the ordeal is over for those concerned. Yet when a body is found, we lap up the news with a kind of grim satisfaction that we were right all along. The next surge of emotion we experience is the fear and loathing felt toward the murderer. And then we get on with our day.

Doesn't any of this suggest that perhaps we have a problem in society? No one wants the above scene to be replayed with his or her children in the starring role, but have you ever thought about how you react to it when it's yet another item on the news? I hesitate to use the hackneyed phrase "betraying our children", but our almost total lack of concern is just that. You disagree that we are that callous? Okay, remember the fever pitched hysteria that snaked it's way across the land last year about the release of paedophiles from prisons? Was that really because everyone was genuinely concerned for the children of their area? Or was it a collective outpouring of guilt a la the hysteria surrounding Princess Di's demise? I think the fact that many of the people who bore the brunt of the group hatred had nothing whatsoever to do with child molesters (oh, my mistake; a Welsh paediatrician was driven out of her home. Truly a fine example of the intelligence of the mob...)

Maybe we're so comfortable with betraying our children because we seem so singularly good at betraying our childhood. Look at where you are today and where your life is heading. Got that image fixed firmly in your head? Good, now does it bear any relation to the sort of person you wanted to be when you were a child? Not the whole "I want to be an astronaut" business, but how you wanted to treat other people and how you wanted to be treated yourself. When we were younger our friends and our family were our whole lives; we knew the sort of person who we enjoyed spending time with, and what sort of person we didn't. It's impossible of course to get anything like that level of clarity now, distractions such as bills, jobs, money and the like cloud the judgement of everybody. What I think I'm lamenting is the loss of vitality and honesty as we age. Does anybody seize the day any more; do you set a goal and strive for it feeling the rush euphoria when you succeed or the agony of disappointment when you fail? Or do we just drift along waiting for the next thing to come along whilst kidding ourselves that we're in control of our lives and destiny? Speaking personally, I'm nothing like the person I hoped to be when younger, partly because of circumstance but mainly because I just didn't try. It was easier not to think about things and let myself become a victim of that circumstance, and I refuse to believe that I'm the only person who regrets this. Modern life may be rubbish, but it's because we let it be that way. Maybe we should either make more of an effort or just give up, but either recourse is better than the casual way we waste our lives.

Movies Movies Movies!

A fairly fluffy piece about the Writers Guild Strike in the US.




Wow. I’ve finally spotted something that is frankly too good not to take the piss out of, and the winner of that most illustrious and coveted honour of "Item that left me Shaking with Anger the most" is....

The Writers Guild of America strike.

Have you read about this before? I'm sure you'll have seen it at least in passing over the last year or so. Basically, the writers of Hollywood screenplays are a touch miffed at being regarded as the lowest form of life in the world of movies. They are basically (and probably justifiably) asking for more money and recognition. In support of this, pretty much all of Hollywood (actors, directors, pornstars etc.) is striking in a show of solidarity. If talks to resolve the situation are not successful by the end of the week, then we face a distinct lack of blockbusters at the cinema.

This situation does throw up quite a lot of questions. Why hasn't more been done to stop this? If everyone is striking in solidarity then who is the bad guy here? Couldn't we persuade the pornstars to keep working? Will this mean that actors will be picketing the studio's and signing on the dole? Not even just a few pornstars?

Okay, maybe the questions about the porn industry are not strictly relevant here, so let us put them to one side for the moment.

What does wind me up slightly is the fact that this is regarded as such a big screaming deal. So we're going to get a few less Hollywood blockbusters this summer. And this is bad because...? Does anyone actually remember going to see Battlefield Earth? Or Speed 2? Or Deep Impact? No? Shall I tell you why? Well, it's quite possibly because they were the most appalling lumps of excrement ever committed to celluloid. And what do all three of these films have in common? They're all (or were hyped as) Summer Blockbusters.

If Hollywood is not going to be churning out films that have plots more in common with paint by numbers than with any known works of literature, does that mean that independent film makers are going to get to have a go? If the huge special effects budgets are not going to be available, does that mean we'll see stories with characters that have depth and believable relationships? If studio executives are going to have to justify what they actually do for a change does that mean that whatever films do get made will be the creative vision of the director alone? Will films based on historical events actually bear any resemblance to recorded history?

Nope.

The film industry has more than enough scripts stored away to keep us in appallingly acted, second rate, and poorly executed films for the next decade. The promise of a big opening in lean times will undoubtedly secure the funding for effects laden films. And the power of the studio executive, chopping and changing a film to fit in whatever the most profitable market demographic of the moment is, will remain unchanged as long as we, the film going public, continue to flock to the cinema's to watch the celluloid slurry that is the norm these days.

I'm not going to deny that Gladiator was a tremendous spectacle, and being a passionate nerd when it comes to Star Wars I have few bad words about the Phantom Menace (despite the obvious flaws it had), but who goes to the cinema these days to see a film that genuinely challenges them? I rarely do because most films are so grossly insulting to the intelligence (I except the likes of LA Confidential and Se7en obviously).

That in itself is not a bad thing. I also go to the cinema to switch off my brain and enjoy a fun and uncomplicated evenings viewing. That is rarely possible these days as even the films that are supposed to fit into this category are for the most part so badly made as to be unwatchable. (Dungeons & Dragons anyone? Or Space Cowboys?)
And yet these films still charted. They've still had people going to see them because we just can't seem to get enough of their pretty bright lights and flashing colours. Why the hell should Hollywood have to worry about the strike when they know they can still dazzle us with their vivid explosions with "...a cast of fresh faced unknowns!" whom they coincidentally don't have to pay quite as much? Actually, maybe the prospect of consigning some of the current crop of actors isn't such a bad one...

So then; whether seeking highbrow intellectual or lowbrow fun films, we're probably not going to see that much change in the movie industry because of the screenwriters. If the purpose of the strike is to revolutionise the film industry, then they've gone about it the wrong way. If the public start to boycott cinema's on the grounds that they refuse to watch this shite any longer...well okay, then I will be encouraged. Not as encouraged as I will be when I hear that the porn industry has decided to call off any strike action obviously, but that's just me.

I DEMAND Whores!

To this day, I cannot understand why Prostitution has not been legalised and regulated. Seems that when we criticise Americans for their Victorian Puritanism, we're ignoring that same unpleasant streak's prevalence in our own culture.




Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the recent death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?

And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?

I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.

Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.

The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)

However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.

And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.

And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)

As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?

To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.

By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a jammy bastard) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is a slut. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.

As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.

A Man who Loves his Son

Prior to 9/11, this was the sort of thing Dubya spent his time talking about. We can already see the unilaterism and arrogance that was to become the calling card of his administration in the approach to the Son of Star Wars defence initiative.



Ahhh, Dubya! He’s like a kid with a new toy sometimes. I refer to Dubya's Son of Star Wars initiative that he's so very keen on. From what I understand of it, the idea is to develop a national shield against ballistic missiles by the use of a network of better and faster missiles. If we discount for a moment the fact that he's a Texan and therefore loves guns and weapons of all kinds, we can examine whether or not it could actually be a good idea.

We have been living in the shadow of nuclear weapons to a greater or lesser degree since the end of WWII. One would have thought that something that reduces this threat would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, it has been greeted with a reaction bordering on the use of arms. The best reaction has been from the UK and Canada who have given very diplomatic responses along the lines of "Thank you for consulting with us about it, and seeing as whatever we say isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to what you're going to do, we may as well try and stay on your good side".

Since the idea was first mooted, Dubya has done his best to sweeten the pill somewhat. He has promised that he will cut the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, and has hinted that the defence system would not just cover America, but it's allies as well. He has also, however, disregarded the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, which is the basis of many of the major arms control treaties since then. It banned the use of defensive systems, thus establishing a balance of sorts (i.e. No-one would start a nuclear war as nobody could hope to win it). If he ignores the treaty, then why should any other nation pay attention to it? Could this lead to all of the other nuclear nations (Russia, China, and India) not aligned with the US to try and increase their nuclear capabilities?

There seem to be two points of view here; there is the view that the development of a defence against nuclear missiles is a very good thing (this is the view of America). Then we have the view that it is very much not a good idea for one nation to have a defence against it when no bugger else does (the view of the rest of the world).

So what do we make of each argument? As I am hardly Dubya's biggest fan, I'm sure you'll have a rough idea of what I think of all this. However, as nuclear war is one of my biggest bugbears then I feel I owe this issue a fair hearing. So despite the fact that it kills me to talk about Dubya and not mention the words "Gimp", "Wanker", "Tosspot", or "Fucknut" in association with him, I shall swallow my pride and continue.

Firstly we have the American point of view. The line of thinking seems to be that the safety of their citizens is paramount. This is a laudable motivation, of that there can be little doubt. However, it is not a particularly far-seeing or well thought out idea. With a defensive shield, the American public need never worry again about a nuclear attack by a hostile nation. However, despite what a large number of Americans might think, there is a world outside of the US and they are rather upset at the idea that another country could deploy a weapon of mass destruction against them without the satisfying knowledge that vast numbers of Americans will also die in a blaze of nuclear fire.

It is rather high minded of the Dubya administration to assume that they have the right to create a worldwide problem in order to alleviate a domestic one. And if we think about it a little more, one has to wonder whether it does actually address the main threat to America, and whether it is actually creating more problems than it solves. Firstly, is there actually a danger of an ICBM based nuclear attack on the US? Russia has it's own problems and there has also been doubts raised as to the maintenance of their missiles. They can hardly launch an attack when they'd have to fire their missiles using catapults. China has never struck me as an impetuous sort of nation, so the odds of them attempting to launch a surprise attack on America are low at best.

Certain elements of US intelligence and military already acknowledge that the biggest threat to national security comes from multi national terrorist groups (like multi national supermarkets with Semtex) and cyber terrorism. Neither of these are likely to be launching missiles soon. The former is feared for the possibility that they will use "suitcase bombs" (portable bombs carried by individuals; they can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry) and the latter because they have the power to paralyse the US computer networks. The Son of Star Wars offers no protection from these threats.

Moreover, if we look at the views of the rest of the world, we can see that it has the potential to create far more dangerous problems for the rest of us. If one powerful nation has the ability to destroy another with minimal fear of reprisal, how long will it take for America to start and impose its will on the rest of us? Hollywood has already done more than it's fair share to educate us that America is the best damn country in the world (they won the second world war you know, and they captured the Enigma machine). It is quite natural for people to think that if their way is the best, it is right. Therefore everybody who holds a different view is wrong. Could anyone imagine what it would have been like during the Spy Plane crisis if the missile defence shield had been in place? Would the US have been quite so conciliatory?

Also, Dubya has hinted that America's allies will also receive the benefit. This is a curious statement, and it is one that puts me in mind of The Godfather offering protection to those who promise to somehow further his own aims. Are we going to be getting this free of charge? Or are we going to have to jump to whatever tune the US government decides to play? (Not that that's a new situation for we Brits; Kyoto treaty anyone?)

Under a more benevolent leader, perhaps the objections wouldn't have been quite so great. But Dubya (perhaps through no fault of his own) has a reputation as a leader who does not pay any attention to the wishes of others. Thus far, he has been very single-minded about pursuing his policies (the only real setback he has suffered has been the derailment of his plans to provide a funding boost for evangelical church educational programs) and he has only made any pretence of modifying policy when he needs to tread carefully. He's hardly going to worry about upsetting Europe, Asia, or anywhere else in the world if he knows that we can be railroaded into agreeing with US policy due to fear. Maybe I am being a little paranoid, but anyone who has studied history will see time and time again that a position of absolute power does indeed corrupt. The missile defence would give America that absolute power. I think perhaps we should stop looking at Dubya as an ignorant hillbilly and perhaps give some thought to just where he is leading not just America, but all of us.