Today represents my last day in my current job as I leave for pastures new on Monday (well, a new department anyway). As I'm going to be getting trained how to actually do my new job for a few weeks, I shall be scaling down the frequency of these rants for a while. I hope to be able to at least manage 1 per week although it all depends on time available.
Still, what a day to go out on. Yesterday was a momentous day for France. A day that will add rich texture to the proud history of this mighty nation, a day that will long be spoken of in reverential and awed terms. It was the day that rural incest and inbreeding was brought up to date for the 21st century. I am referring to the 62-year-old (!) French woman who became pregnant through IVF treatment in America. Nothing too unusual in that these days. What sets it apart from the other stories of decrepit new mothers is the identity of the sperm donor; it was her brother. Brother, Sister and child live with their elderly mother in a large house in rural France. It is also rumoured that the only reason that they had the child was in order to secure the inheritance of their mothers’ house and (apparently considerable) fortune for the direct bloodline rather than allow it to go to some distant cousins.
As I have already admitted in a previous rant, I am a colossal pervert. However, this story doesn't so much make my flesh crawl as make it complete a 100m sprint in less than 9 seconds; what they have done is grim beyond all belief. The long held stereotype of the country bumpkin introducing you to his wife and sister when only 1 woman is standing there has been reinforced in spades by this hi-tech perversity. Moreover the doctor who performed the treatment, far from being angry at her duplicity (she lied about whose sperm it was) has gone on camera to say that he would do it again! Jesus Christ!! I can see how the gene pool ends up turning into a puddle in the more remote areas of the world (where family trees look like disease ridden stumps) such as Kentucky, Siberia, South Shields etc. But to give people the option of inbreeding via a test tube seems quite extravagantly awful. Trust the French to come up with it...
But fun though it is to bait the French with their incestuous ways and inability to pronounce the word "this" without sounding like a character from 'Allo Allo, I must move on to other things a little closer to home. Specifically to a conflict that, just as it seemed to be on the verge of resolution, has flared up again seemingly inexplicably. Naturally, I refer to Northern Ireland and the riots of the previous 2 nights. Gangs of loyalist and republican youths have been attempting to stone and petrol bomb each other with some determination. Thanks to the efforts of the police however, the only real injuries have been officers trying to keep the two factions apart, a task that it would appear that they have thus far succeeded in.
For the sake of the peace process, this is a good thing. Left wing though I am, it pains me to hear of a police being injured in the line of duty (although not as much as it pains the poor bugger who gets hit by a petrol bomb) so it has to be for a damn good reason in order to cause me to believe that it is for the best. In this case, it has so far managed to prevent either side in Northern Ireland claiming that the other has committed a heinous crime which must be avenged (i.e. one side does something bad that is excused by a previous awful act committed by the other side. In turn, the something bad excuses an atrocity in retaliation for it, and so on until everybody in Ireland is dead...). As neither republican nor loyalist have caused any major damage to each other, they cannot really complain of oppression from the other side (yes, yes; I'm being naive again because we all know both sides will continue to bitterly complain about their respective treatment at the hands of the other).
As both sides have demagogues of pretty much equal ferocity and bigotry, it is of vital importance that we keep their excuses to vent bile and hatred to an absolute minimum. On the loyalist side (technically the side that the British government have been backing all these years, and predominantly Protestant) we have the Rev. Ian Paisley, and a more godawful bigot one cannot hope to find. This is a man who, upon the visit of the Pope to Ireland, stood in the background bellowing "I denounce you as the Antichrist!" (which even I thought was a bit much...) until he was removed. And this is the man claiming to be the voice of his people (as opposed to whose people I wonder...?) and worse still, the man who is supposed to be on "our" side. I'd rather stand side by side with Dr. Harold Shipman than that horrendous cluster of evil that goes under the description of a man. That bastard has never once denounced the violence by Protestants against Catholics, nor has he even made the pretense of opening dialogue with them (presumably he thinks they're too busy offering worship to the antichrist...). This man must not, repeat *not*, be allowed to become the mouthpiece of the loyalist community or we can look forward to many more years of violence and despair.
On the republican side, we no longer have a single spokesperson. The duties are taken up as a collective by Sinn Fein (amongst others; they are not the sole representative of the Catholic community by any means, but they are the ones who represent those most willing to resort to violence). Their most public figures are Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Both of them were considered to be terrorists until recently and the public treated their words with contempt and derision. And yet nowadays they speak with honeyed reassurances and they talk reason and sense. Yet this men are meant to be the voice of the IRA who are (rightly in my opinion) despised as terrorists and criminals. Why is it that they are the ones who are making most of the peaceful overtures (procrastinating over weapons notwithstanding)? Why is it that the loyalists side who have suffered under the terror of the IRA for 20 years are the ones least willing to compromise?
Could it be because, whichever way you look at it, the Catholic (a generalisation as they are not all Catholics but let's stick with it for now) population of Northern Ireland have been discriminated against in favour of the Protestant (ditto) population since the word go. Whether in be in terms of jobs, benefits, or quality of life, the Protestants have long since held the upper hand. A compromise would mean losing some of this advantage, and the likes of Ian Paisley (Snr and Jnr since the old bugger has spawned a clone) will fight bitterly against this. Unfortunately, the main lesson that has been learned from the British occupation has been the sneering attitude toward the "natives" and the belief that because they are allied with the occupying power, they are better than those who are not.
The fact that trouble has started so early is a truly ominous and distressing omen. Marching season will soon be on us, and the Orangemen will insist on once more forcibly reminding the Catholic population of Northern Ireland that their "side" was victorious over the Papists at the Battle of the Boyne. Who were led by King James II. In 1690. Now I may just be being a little picky here, but it strikes me that perhaps after 300+ years, the Orange Order might just have let it go. But no, they insist on reminded everyone of a division that existed in history, and by doing this they only serve to keep that division in place. It would be the equivalent of a march from Sunderland through to Newcastle City centre to commemorate a football victory from 100 years ago. It doesn't matter any more, and times have moved on, but if the denizens of Newcastle were reminded of this year after year, there would be anger there, and each march would ensure it was kept simmering. Good things are being achieved by the peace process and this is the nearest that Ireland has been to peace since Henry II invaded almost a thousand years ago (well, in the 11 hundreds anyway). I hope that the people of Ireland learn from the hatred and horror of that great weight of history, and find themselves more inclined to bring it to an end so that a new and peaceful chapter in their history can be written. It would be a travesty if that same history remains the gulf between the 2 opposing sides. In either case, as long as the Paisley clan are sidelined and ignored, I suppose I shall glean some satisfaction from that.
Saturday 23 June 2001
Friday 22 June 2001
Dumb and Dumber
A rant that was the product of a bad day at work.
Okay, maybe this is just me and maybe I'm just being a touch elitist here. If so, I will welcome any corrections and complaints and apologise for any offence whatsoever that is caused. But please consider this honestly and sincerely; Are the general public getting stupider or what? I've heard all sorts of complaints from the great and good about the "dumbing down" of English culture and have dismissed them out of hand. However, having worked in a job where I have contact with the great British public every single day for a little under 2 years, I am rapidly rethinking that opinion.
As you may know, I work on a helpline for a software company. Essentially, people have a problem with their software or with their accounts, they ring us, we work out what the problem is, we work out how to solve it, then we relay this information to the customer. This sounds incredibly straightforward does it not? And in an ideal world it would be. This, as I have come to regretfully accept, is not an ideal world. If it were, people would be able to explain clearly and correctly the exact circumstances leading up to the problem occurring. They would not, repeat *not* ring up and simply say, "My computer's not working." "What is the exact problem please sir?" "Well...it's broken and you need to fix it."
Oh well, obviously if it's broken then I know exactly what you need to do. You need to stop wasting my precious time, energy, and breath with your complete ignorance of what the hell is going on with your machine! Do they think that I'm somehow magically going to be able to figure out the problem from that? Or are they so touchingly naive as to think that there can only be one type of problem with a computer (if only...)? So hence, it can be quite alarmingly difficult to actually get the information out of a person in the first place, and it is positively torturous when that person is completely incapable of answering simple questions ("So whereabouts in the program were you when the problem occurred?" "I was in the program." "Okay, we've established that, now which screen were you on please?" "I told you, I was in the program! Are you thick or something?") I don't know if anyone has done a study of blood pressure levels of helpline staff compared to the rest of the country but I have a strong suspicion that the results would be rather telling...
Anyway, the actual solving of the problem tends to be by far and away the easiest part of the job because one only has to rely on ones own ability. The next (and usually most stress inducing) problem is actually explaining the solution to the logheaded, bogbrained, hogfaced bastard at the other end of the phone. On most occasions, I have to guide a customer through different stages and different screens on their computer. Now I will make clear that I do not begrudge anybody who is not au fait with computer terminology. After all, if they were a computer expert then they would not need to ring a helpline, so a certain level of ineptitude and the need for guidance is both understandable and forgivable. However, I do resent it when people are utterly incapable of following simple instructions or, in the most desperate of cases, reading what is written on a screen. If I were to ring for help, I would do exactly what I was told by the disembodied voice on the other end of the phone. Can anyone explain to me why I might want to question, cast doubt, and criticise every instruction I am given? Or why, upon being told quite clearly to click onto button A, I repeatedly click onto button B and still insist that I am doing what I am told?!?!
But still more terrifying than any of the above is the helpline's worst nightmare; the customer so stupid that they don't realise how stupid they are, moreover they assume that because they don't understand what they are being told, that the person giving them the information must be incredibly thick! To that end, these moronic living brain donors get angry and lambaste me because the office brain cell is currently residing in the Yucca plant in the corner and they are incapable of comprehending, for example, how they cannot perform a certain task in the computer because it is physically impossible. I realise that I am a poster boy for arrogance, but even I bow down to someone who is so immensely arrogant as to always assume that if I don't understand something, then the person relaying that information must be stupider than I.
All of the above is merely my experience in my work setting. But I think that the problem occurs because more and more of us are being cosseted (intellectually speaking) and allowed to put less and less thought into our daily lives. Simple little things like a TV program constantly showing the name of an interviewee at the bottom of the screen in case we have forgotten who they were in the last 8 seconds, or warnings on a packet of peanuts saying that the product may contain nuts are proof of this to an extent. When one gets into that way of thinking, it is a small step to expect all of our problems or difficulties to be placed into someone else's hands, and that is what a large number of people whom I speak to every day are like. They make no effort to think for themselves but simply hand over control of their brain to me for the duration of the phone call. I'm not asking for an intellectual revolution (there is nothing so irritating as an intelligent person who knows just how intelligent they are and insist on proving it at every possible opportunity), I'm just asking that people stop and think every now and then before expecting a problem to be solved by somebody else. I don't think I'm asking much by that. Am I?
Okay, maybe this is just me and maybe I'm just being a touch elitist here. If so, I will welcome any corrections and complaints and apologise for any offence whatsoever that is caused. But please consider this honestly and sincerely; Are the general public getting stupider or what? I've heard all sorts of complaints from the great and good about the "dumbing down" of English culture and have dismissed them out of hand. However, having worked in a job where I have contact with the great British public every single day for a little under 2 years, I am rapidly rethinking that opinion.
As you may know, I work on a helpline for a software company. Essentially, people have a problem with their software or with their accounts, they ring us, we work out what the problem is, we work out how to solve it, then we relay this information to the customer. This sounds incredibly straightforward does it not? And in an ideal world it would be. This, as I have come to regretfully accept, is not an ideal world. If it were, people would be able to explain clearly and correctly the exact circumstances leading up to the problem occurring. They would not, repeat *not* ring up and simply say, "My computer's not working." "What is the exact problem please sir?" "Well...it's broken and you need to fix it."
Oh well, obviously if it's broken then I know exactly what you need to do. You need to stop wasting my precious time, energy, and breath with your complete ignorance of what the hell is going on with your machine! Do they think that I'm somehow magically going to be able to figure out the problem from that? Or are they so touchingly naive as to think that there can only be one type of problem with a computer (if only...)? So hence, it can be quite alarmingly difficult to actually get the information out of a person in the first place, and it is positively torturous when that person is completely incapable of answering simple questions ("So whereabouts in the program were you when the problem occurred?" "I was in the program." "Okay, we've established that, now which screen were you on please?" "I told you, I was in the program! Are you thick or something?") I don't know if anyone has done a study of blood pressure levels of helpline staff compared to the rest of the country but I have a strong suspicion that the results would be rather telling...
Anyway, the actual solving of the problem tends to be by far and away the easiest part of the job because one only has to rely on ones own ability. The next (and usually most stress inducing) problem is actually explaining the solution to the logheaded, bogbrained, hogfaced bastard at the other end of the phone. On most occasions, I have to guide a customer through different stages and different screens on their computer. Now I will make clear that I do not begrudge anybody who is not au fait with computer terminology. After all, if they were a computer expert then they would not need to ring a helpline, so a certain level of ineptitude and the need for guidance is both understandable and forgivable. However, I do resent it when people are utterly incapable of following simple instructions or, in the most desperate of cases, reading what is written on a screen. If I were to ring for help, I would do exactly what I was told by the disembodied voice on the other end of the phone. Can anyone explain to me why I might want to question, cast doubt, and criticise every instruction I am given? Or why, upon being told quite clearly to click onto button A, I repeatedly click onto button B and still insist that I am doing what I am told?!?!
But still more terrifying than any of the above is the helpline's worst nightmare; the customer so stupid that they don't realise how stupid they are, moreover they assume that because they don't understand what they are being told, that the person giving them the information must be incredibly thick! To that end, these moronic living brain donors get angry and lambaste me because the office brain cell is currently residing in the Yucca plant in the corner and they are incapable of comprehending, for example, how they cannot perform a certain task in the computer because it is physically impossible. I realise that I am a poster boy for arrogance, but even I bow down to someone who is so immensely arrogant as to always assume that if I don't understand something, then the person relaying that information must be stupider than I.
All of the above is merely my experience in my work setting. But I think that the problem occurs because more and more of us are being cosseted (intellectually speaking) and allowed to put less and less thought into our daily lives. Simple little things like a TV program constantly showing the name of an interviewee at the bottom of the screen in case we have forgotten who they were in the last 8 seconds, or warnings on a packet of peanuts saying that the product may contain nuts are proof of this to an extent. When one gets into that way of thinking, it is a small step to expect all of our problems or difficulties to be placed into someone else's hands, and that is what a large number of people whom I speak to every day are like. They make no effort to think for themselves but simply hand over control of their brain to me for the duration of the phone call. I'm not asking for an intellectual revolution (there is nothing so irritating as an intelligent person who knows just how intelligent they are and insist on proving it at every possible opportunity), I'm just asking that people stop and think every now and then before expecting a problem to be solved by somebody else. I don't think I'm asking much by that. Am I?
Thursday 21 June 2001
A Short Essay on Killing
There seems to be a massive overload of stories concerning death, destruction, and doom today. Every item seems to be laden with reminders of mortality; the prosecution making their closing speech in the Jill Dando case, the parole hearing of Robert Thompson, the start of an enquiry into Dr. Harold Shipman and his undoubtedly many victims, and the extradition of the bastard who murdered Caroline Dickinson in France 5 years ago. The list seems endless doesn't it? And me being me, it just wouldn't be polite to not pick over the bones (if you'll pardon the expression) of this morbid cluster of soggy horror.
The Jill Dando case is taking up a huge amount of column inches in the media at the moment, and by heaven it holds all the interest and fascination of a damp horsefart. As far as I can gather, the whole matter seems to be revolving around the discovery of a quarter of a particle of gunpowder residing on the clothing of the accused, Barry George (a.k.a. Bulsara). That and the fact that he's a bit of a sad and lonely man who lives his life through the life of celebrities (in other words, he almost certainly had a subscription to Hello! magazine...). Throughout the trial we've also been informed of a number of other possible assassins, ranging from Serbs sent by Arkan (a now deceased warlord) to the criminal underworld (who were presumably sick of Crimewatch UK and couldn't get to Nick Ross).
Unfortunately, no one in the country gives a shit about whether he did it or not. Seeing as how we have the collective attention span of an elderly and rather arthritic care home resident, Jill Dando is old news. We have a whole range of other unpleasant events to distract us now. And besides, it's not as if she was an A list celebrity. We've got plenty of mid 30's blonde female presenters with little or no personality to speak of, so losing one isn't exactly a major televisual tragedy. By the same token, the trial of her supposed murderer is not a major event by any means. Who among you has genuinely missed her from your TV screen? No-one; not whilst we've got vapid Carol Smiley to fill the role anyway...Of course the murder of anyone is a tragic thing, but the media seem to failed to have noticed that, with the exception of the over 60's, the trial of her murderer is no more meritorious and newsworthy than the trial of a murderer of a local man or woman. Oh how cruel and fickle celebrity can be...
As I've already went on about the Bulger killers at some length previously, I shall try and be brief concerning Robert Thompson's parole hearing. Needless to say there are protests the length and breadth of the land, some fully understandable (Jamie Bulger's mother has appealed for anyone who comes into contact with the 2 boys once released to make their identities public), others less so (mass protests outside parole board offices).
Due to the nature of the original crime, these latter set of do-gooders really do serve to cause me the same level of irritation as an unwiped smear of shit around one's ringpiece. If you'll recall, Jamie was led to his death from a crowded shopping mall and led through the streets of Liverpool. He was crying according to those who saw him, and was visibly distressed and upset.
Where the fuck were all of these placard-bearing do-gooders when Jamie was being dragged to his early grave? We have any amount of people screaming for so called justice now, why didn't they want to get involved then? Probably because they don't want to admit to the fact that a society so messed up that bystanders will casually allow this sort of thing to happen may just have a few serious problems, and it's much easier to assuage collective guilt by demonising the killers and venting hatred (either for them or for themselves) in a noisy and public manner. Maybe they just don't want to admit that we're all as much to blame for failing James (and the countless other victims of abuse) as those who commit the crimes themselves by continually being bystanders and turning a blind eye.
One could make a link between the public turning a blind eye and the damage it causes, and a professional body not being sufficiently responsible for monitoring it's members. Certainly, that is one of the factors involved in allowing Dr. Harold Shipman to top the league for all-time UK serial killers. Because of the amount of self-regulation within the British Medical Association where GP's are concerned, a psychopath such as Shipman was allowed to kill as he desired (and he desired a lot if the figures concerning his final tally are accurate; numbers in the mid 300's are being bandied about as conservative estimates).
But the point is, he is a psychopath and one cannot expect to be able to regulate for people such as him. Although his case has demonstrated that GP regulations do need tightening, I hope that this will not be taken as a reason to introduce mountains of red tape and paperwork in the name of ensuring that a one off situation is guarded against in the future. The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" is a one that springs to mind...
And finally we have the extradition of a Mr. Francisco Arce Montes from Miami to France in order to face trial for the rape and murder of Caroline Dickinson, a schoolgirl who met her awful fate whilst on a school trip to Brittany. It would appear that Montes, a Spaniard, is a prolific and worldwide pervert, thought to be responsible for a string of rapes in Swansea, the murder in France, and sex crimes in the USA. I find it frightening that one man can go on a worldwide orgy of rape and murder and entirely escape detection for so long. It was only coincidence that he was even caught (a US immigration officer recognised his name in an immigration service bulletin; he only recognised the name because he had been on holiday in Britain and had seen Montes' name in a newspaper as a possible suspect).
The fact that law enforcement is still almost wholly limited to nation states allows such a thing to happen. In America, a gentleman named Henry Lee Lucas took advantage of the fact that individual states in the US did not compare or swap records of unsolved crimes. Had they done so they would have found that a number of unsolved crimes in their various states fit into the same pattern. Lucas killed over 30 before he was caught, and the US authorities learned their lesson and co-operation has markedly increased between police in different states. That was in just one (albeit a large) country. The worldwide potential for murder and mayhem by one reasonably cunning man or woman is, I would suggest, even more worrying. But still the police of each individual country will regard one another with suspicion and contempt, and more people like Montes will continue to kill and rape undetected. I think we owe ourselves more than to allow this.
So then, 4 different murders and 4 different problems with society in each individual case. It would seem that be it apathy at the trial of a murderer, people doing nothing to help because "they don't want to get involved", professional incompetence, or failure of organisations to co-operate, we as a whole are not actually doing very much to safeguard against the horror of finding out that your friend, your husband or wife, your parents etc. has been cruelly taken from us. Though it is the murderer who does the deed, to a certain extent it is us who allow it to happen.
The Jill Dando case is taking up a huge amount of column inches in the media at the moment, and by heaven it holds all the interest and fascination of a damp horsefart. As far as I can gather, the whole matter seems to be revolving around the discovery of a quarter of a particle of gunpowder residing on the clothing of the accused, Barry George (a.k.a. Bulsara). That and the fact that he's a bit of a sad and lonely man who lives his life through the life of celebrities (in other words, he almost certainly had a subscription to Hello! magazine...). Throughout the trial we've also been informed of a number of other possible assassins, ranging from Serbs sent by Arkan (a now deceased warlord) to the criminal underworld (who were presumably sick of Crimewatch UK and couldn't get to Nick Ross).
Unfortunately, no one in the country gives a shit about whether he did it or not. Seeing as how we have the collective attention span of an elderly and rather arthritic care home resident, Jill Dando is old news. We have a whole range of other unpleasant events to distract us now. And besides, it's not as if she was an A list celebrity. We've got plenty of mid 30's blonde female presenters with little or no personality to speak of, so losing one isn't exactly a major televisual tragedy. By the same token, the trial of her supposed murderer is not a major event by any means. Who among you has genuinely missed her from your TV screen? No-one; not whilst we've got vapid Carol Smiley to fill the role anyway...Of course the murder of anyone is a tragic thing, but the media seem to failed to have noticed that, with the exception of the over 60's, the trial of her murderer is no more meritorious and newsworthy than the trial of a murderer of a local man or woman. Oh how cruel and fickle celebrity can be...
As I've already went on about the Bulger killers at some length previously, I shall try and be brief concerning Robert Thompson's parole hearing. Needless to say there are protests the length and breadth of the land, some fully understandable (Jamie Bulger's mother has appealed for anyone who comes into contact with the 2 boys once released to make their identities public), others less so (mass protests outside parole board offices).
Due to the nature of the original crime, these latter set of do-gooders really do serve to cause me the same level of irritation as an unwiped smear of shit around one's ringpiece. If you'll recall, Jamie was led to his death from a crowded shopping mall and led through the streets of Liverpool. He was crying according to those who saw him, and was visibly distressed and upset.
Where the fuck were all of these placard-bearing do-gooders when Jamie was being dragged to his early grave? We have any amount of people screaming for so called justice now, why didn't they want to get involved then? Probably because they don't want to admit to the fact that a society so messed up that bystanders will casually allow this sort of thing to happen may just have a few serious problems, and it's much easier to assuage collective guilt by demonising the killers and venting hatred (either for them or for themselves) in a noisy and public manner. Maybe they just don't want to admit that we're all as much to blame for failing James (and the countless other victims of abuse) as those who commit the crimes themselves by continually being bystanders and turning a blind eye.
One could make a link between the public turning a blind eye and the damage it causes, and a professional body not being sufficiently responsible for monitoring it's members. Certainly, that is one of the factors involved in allowing Dr. Harold Shipman to top the league for all-time UK serial killers. Because of the amount of self-regulation within the British Medical Association where GP's are concerned, a psychopath such as Shipman was allowed to kill as he desired (and he desired a lot if the figures concerning his final tally are accurate; numbers in the mid 300's are being bandied about as conservative estimates).
But the point is, he is a psychopath and one cannot expect to be able to regulate for people such as him. Although his case has demonstrated that GP regulations do need tightening, I hope that this will not be taken as a reason to introduce mountains of red tape and paperwork in the name of ensuring that a one off situation is guarded against in the future. The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" is a one that springs to mind...
And finally we have the extradition of a Mr. Francisco Arce Montes from Miami to France in order to face trial for the rape and murder of Caroline Dickinson, a schoolgirl who met her awful fate whilst on a school trip to Brittany. It would appear that Montes, a Spaniard, is a prolific and worldwide pervert, thought to be responsible for a string of rapes in Swansea, the murder in France, and sex crimes in the USA. I find it frightening that one man can go on a worldwide orgy of rape and murder and entirely escape detection for so long. It was only coincidence that he was even caught (a US immigration officer recognised his name in an immigration service bulletin; he only recognised the name because he had been on holiday in Britain and had seen Montes' name in a newspaper as a possible suspect).
The fact that law enforcement is still almost wholly limited to nation states allows such a thing to happen. In America, a gentleman named Henry Lee Lucas took advantage of the fact that individual states in the US did not compare or swap records of unsolved crimes. Had they done so they would have found that a number of unsolved crimes in their various states fit into the same pattern. Lucas killed over 30 before he was caught, and the US authorities learned their lesson and co-operation has markedly increased between police in different states. That was in just one (albeit a large) country. The worldwide potential for murder and mayhem by one reasonably cunning man or woman is, I would suggest, even more worrying. But still the police of each individual country will regard one another with suspicion and contempt, and more people like Montes will continue to kill and rape undetected. I think we owe ourselves more than to allow this.
So then, 4 different murders and 4 different problems with society in each individual case. It would seem that be it apathy at the trial of a murderer, people doing nothing to help because "they don't want to get involved", professional incompetence, or failure of organisations to co-operate, we as a whole are not actually doing very much to safeguard against the horror of finding out that your friend, your husband or wife, your parents etc. has been cruelly taken from us. Though it is the murderer who does the deed, to a certain extent it is us who allow it to happen.
Wednesday 20 June 2001
Uninteresting Times
A bored and (to be honest) uninteresting look at the news of the day.
There are so many little bitty stories today and so little to really get ones teeth into. Obviously there are certain things that catch the eye as there always is. And I can always trust the Tory party to get me out of a jam when it comes to thinking about what to write; Alan Clark wrote in his diaries before the fall of Thatcher that he thought the Conservatives might be about to have one of it's "periodic bouts of epilepsy". That was over 10 years ago, and I think we can now safely say that the Tories have now been thrown into the bath and we can now put our washing in, such is the violence of their thrashing.
Of course, it's not all bad news for the poor dears. No, not a bit of it; Anne Widdecombe has announced (with customary bad grace and bitterness) that she will not stand for the leadership of the Conservatives. The announcement was greeted with expressions of regret from the right wing, a certain satisfaction from the left, whilst a troupe of munchkins were seen dancing through Lambeth singing "Hey-ho the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead!" So it would appear that the contest for the job will be exclusively between people who are almost certainly human beings (although it is a shame as they have a tradition of including aliens in their leadership battles; John Redwood was obviously a relation of Mr. Spock and I suppose it is possible that Iain Duncan-Smith could be one of the mysterious Sith alluded to in The Phantom Menace...time will tell I suppose).
But even that bloated old whore of a party can only provide so much entertainment in one day, and so in barely 2 paragraphs, I once more find myself desperately in search of something vaguely interesting happening in the world. Surely it can't be too difficult? We live in a world where wars (both civil and international) mar every continent, where famine is rife as food rots uncollected in European grain mountains, and new diseases cause the unlucky to expire in spectacular and uncomfortable looking ways. The history books of tomorrow are being filled with all manner of events that will be regarding as interesting times by those who read them. And what is the best that I can do?
A mildly amusing item on a 35 year male old teacher (Paul Tramontini) who faces charges of abducting a 15 year old female pupil (Katherine Baillie) and spending the last year living on the run with her in Italy. I despair, I really do...but on with the story! Okay then, thoughts on this one. Well, firstly the happy couple are from Portsmouth. Well...at least it wasn't her Dad. What!?! My only experience of people from Portsmouth has given me the impression that they really need to expand their gene pool before the whole city becomes nothing more than a collection of mutants who play the banjo really well and where a white water canoeing trip would be perilous in the extreme. Surely we should rejoice that any child born of their union may have the correct number of limbs, digits, and (in the worst area's of the city) eyes.
Okay then, secondly the gentleman in question is a maths teacher. Well, at least he's gone some way to dispelling the stereotype of the boring maths teacher who still lives with their mother. For far too long now the market on unstable and rebellious teachers has been cornered by English and Games teachers and it's about time that a blow for equality was struck. Admittedly I'd imagine the blow experienced by Mr. Tramontini was of a different sort altogether, but the principle remains solid (as did he whilst receiving the blow I'd imagine...).
And finally we have Miss Baillie herself. She was 15 when she left the country with Mr. Tramontini and is now 16 and sporting a new blonde hairdo and "mature" attitude. Thoughts on her...well, if I was going to endanger my career and my personal liberty...well, don't take this wrong now but...you'd think he would have picked someone a little better looking. I mean, having seen some of the photo's of her, it's not even if she's one of the new breed of 15 year old schoolgirls whose sole purpose seems to be to make men think thoughts that they really shouldn't if they want to be regarded as decent members of society. She looked (and still looks) like a gangly young teenage girl; no bust and no bum, and certainly not womanly looking. One assumes that the only reason they returned was because she had started looking a little old for his tastes...
If only more teachers would take it upon themselves to behave disreputably for my own personal amusement then surely the world would be a happier place. Alas, such is the plight of the education system that most teachers just can't seem to find the time to behave in as stupid a manner as I require to get a cheap laugh. Unlike everybody's favourite good ole' boy Dubya who seems to be basing his entire domestic and foreign policies solely on what will make me laugh the hardest in a mix of glee and horror.
After all of the ballyhoo and biscuitbrained media madness of the Tim McVeigh execution last week, Juan Raul Garza will become the second federal prisoner to be executed by Dubya. Bearing in mind that until he came along, America's federal government had managed to avoid executing anyone since 1963, 2 within a month sets a pretty impressive (and yet faintly scary) precedent. One cannot but help feeling a little sorry for poor JRG; he was initially sentenced to death in Texas so his penultimate right of appeal ultimately lay within the state before he appealed to the President. Alas for him, throughout the time he was awaiting execution Dubya was the governor of Texas. And so when faced with numerous calls for clemency as President, he's not exactly in a hurry to stop an execution he endorsed (along with 151 others in his time as governor).
Anyway, they represent pretty much all of the vaguely interesting news that is kicking around today. Strange how they all seem to involve someone else’s misfortune isn't it? I mentioned interesting times earlier on, and there is a curse that any readers of Terry Pratchett will be familiar with along the same lines. "May you live in interesting times", meaning of course that anything that seems interesting from an outside point of view is uniformly unpleasant for those who are actually experiencing it. In news terms, today is rather slow and boring. In real terms few people have died, there have been no major disasters, and in general everything is running smoothly. So why do I feel so cheated? Ah well, there's always tomorrow...
There are so many little bitty stories today and so little to really get ones teeth into. Obviously there are certain things that catch the eye as there always is. And I can always trust the Tory party to get me out of a jam when it comes to thinking about what to write; Alan Clark wrote in his diaries before the fall of Thatcher that he thought the Conservatives might be about to have one of it's "periodic bouts of epilepsy". That was over 10 years ago, and I think we can now safely say that the Tories have now been thrown into the bath and we can now put our washing in, such is the violence of their thrashing.
Of course, it's not all bad news for the poor dears. No, not a bit of it; Anne Widdecombe has announced (with customary bad grace and bitterness) that she will not stand for the leadership of the Conservatives. The announcement was greeted with expressions of regret from the right wing, a certain satisfaction from the left, whilst a troupe of munchkins were seen dancing through Lambeth singing "Hey-ho the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead!" So it would appear that the contest for the job will be exclusively between people who are almost certainly human beings (although it is a shame as they have a tradition of including aliens in their leadership battles; John Redwood was obviously a relation of Mr. Spock and I suppose it is possible that Iain Duncan-Smith could be one of the mysterious Sith alluded to in The Phantom Menace...time will tell I suppose).
But even that bloated old whore of a party can only provide so much entertainment in one day, and so in barely 2 paragraphs, I once more find myself desperately in search of something vaguely interesting happening in the world. Surely it can't be too difficult? We live in a world where wars (both civil and international) mar every continent, where famine is rife as food rots uncollected in European grain mountains, and new diseases cause the unlucky to expire in spectacular and uncomfortable looking ways. The history books of tomorrow are being filled with all manner of events that will be regarding as interesting times by those who read them. And what is the best that I can do?
A mildly amusing item on a 35 year male old teacher (Paul Tramontini) who faces charges of abducting a 15 year old female pupil (Katherine Baillie) and spending the last year living on the run with her in Italy. I despair, I really do...but on with the story! Okay then, thoughts on this one. Well, firstly the happy couple are from Portsmouth. Well...at least it wasn't her Dad. What!?! My only experience of people from Portsmouth has given me the impression that they really need to expand their gene pool before the whole city becomes nothing more than a collection of mutants who play the banjo really well and where a white water canoeing trip would be perilous in the extreme. Surely we should rejoice that any child born of their union may have the correct number of limbs, digits, and (in the worst area's of the city) eyes.
Okay then, secondly the gentleman in question is a maths teacher. Well, at least he's gone some way to dispelling the stereotype of the boring maths teacher who still lives with their mother. For far too long now the market on unstable and rebellious teachers has been cornered by English and Games teachers and it's about time that a blow for equality was struck. Admittedly I'd imagine the blow experienced by Mr. Tramontini was of a different sort altogether, but the principle remains solid (as did he whilst receiving the blow I'd imagine...).
And finally we have Miss Baillie herself. She was 15 when she left the country with Mr. Tramontini and is now 16 and sporting a new blonde hairdo and "mature" attitude. Thoughts on her...well, if I was going to endanger my career and my personal liberty...well, don't take this wrong now but...you'd think he would have picked someone a little better looking. I mean, having seen some of the photo's of her, it's not even if she's one of the new breed of 15 year old schoolgirls whose sole purpose seems to be to make men think thoughts that they really shouldn't if they want to be regarded as decent members of society. She looked (and still looks) like a gangly young teenage girl; no bust and no bum, and certainly not womanly looking. One assumes that the only reason they returned was because she had started looking a little old for his tastes...
If only more teachers would take it upon themselves to behave disreputably for my own personal amusement then surely the world would be a happier place. Alas, such is the plight of the education system that most teachers just can't seem to find the time to behave in as stupid a manner as I require to get a cheap laugh. Unlike everybody's favourite good ole' boy Dubya who seems to be basing his entire domestic and foreign policies solely on what will make me laugh the hardest in a mix of glee and horror.
After all of the ballyhoo and biscuitbrained media madness of the Tim McVeigh execution last week, Juan Raul Garza will become the second federal prisoner to be executed by Dubya. Bearing in mind that until he came along, America's federal government had managed to avoid executing anyone since 1963, 2 within a month sets a pretty impressive (and yet faintly scary) precedent. One cannot but help feeling a little sorry for poor JRG; he was initially sentenced to death in Texas so his penultimate right of appeal ultimately lay within the state before he appealed to the President. Alas for him, throughout the time he was awaiting execution Dubya was the governor of Texas. And so when faced with numerous calls for clemency as President, he's not exactly in a hurry to stop an execution he endorsed (along with 151 others in his time as governor).
Anyway, they represent pretty much all of the vaguely interesting news that is kicking around today. Strange how they all seem to involve someone else’s misfortune isn't it? I mentioned interesting times earlier on, and there is a curse that any readers of Terry Pratchett will be familiar with along the same lines. "May you live in interesting times", meaning of course that anything that seems interesting from an outside point of view is uniformly unpleasant for those who are actually experiencing it. In news terms, today is rather slow and boring. In real terms few people have died, there have been no major disasters, and in general everything is running smoothly. So why do I feel so cheated? Ah well, there's always tomorrow...
Tuesday 19 June 2001
Clean Air is for Pussies
From the days when our biggest Dubya-related worry was Kyoto.
I find myself rather irksomely weary today. Perhaps this is because of the unnaturally gray and lifeless sky that has no business being there on a June day. It could be the incessant dripping that did a most wonderful job of ensuring my efforts at getting to sleep consisted of staring at the inside of my eyelids for 3 hours. However, as I am one of those dreadful people who lie awake worrying about the current state of world, and as I am vindictive by nature, I rather think I shall lay the blame directly at Dubya's door.
Yes, the leader of the free world and the winner of the "Closest resemblance to a Bonobo Monkey by a President" award 2001 is visiting Europe (Yurp as he doubtless refers to it) to try and cajole us into accepting his plans for the Son of Star Wars defence system whilst simultaneously telling us that we can take our environmental treaties and shove them up our collective Yurpean arse (or ass, seeing as he's a plain speaking Texan...). I refer to the Kyoto treaty, negotiated between President Clinton and the EU and just awaiting ratification. Or at least it was until Dubya promised all of his friends in the Oil and Energy business that he wouldn't sign it.
And why would he do such a thing? Well, the treaty states that all signatories will reduce carbon emission levels (basically a catchall term for greenhouse gasses) by 5.2% of 1990 levels, and that they will do so by 2012. Dubya has refused point blank to do so, stating in his defence that the treaty is "fatally flawed". And I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point; the treaty has one major flaw that I amongst many others would wish to see rectified before it is brought into force as a piece of international law. It is far too weak! 5.2% is a tiny little drop in a vast and gaseous ocean. What would it actually achieve other than giving a few ministers a chance to indulge in a bit of backslapping and perhaps allowing their respective governments to claim the green vote?
But let's ignore that rather trifling point for now as it only serves to distract from an otherwise legitimate rant about one of my favourite whipping boys (and as one of the Mormons said to me yesterday, "You shouldn't get too bogged down with the facts because they'll distract you from the truth"). The fact remains that the EU are at least willing to take a step, however small, toward reversing our rather annoying habit of treating the planet like a vast dumping ground for all manner of waste and poison. America, responsible for producing 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, isn't even willing to make such a tiny effort simply because they don't want to do anything that might "harm the economy".
That is a frequently used piece of doublespeak that could best be translated as "all of my friends and fund-raisers in big business will have to spend a tiny fraction of their gargantuan profits in order to achieve this goal, and they prefer their profits to stay in their pockets." In other words the man elected to look after and safeguard the best interests of the people of the US is using his power and influence in order to safeguard the interests of about 50 of them; the 50 being industrialists and company bosses. It's not as if the money that they save will filter down to the workforce either, and lest you doubt that then perhaps we can discuss the comparative figures for pay rises given to bosses and redundancies amongst workers in the last 10 years?
I won't presume to bore you (or at least no more than usual) with the many and varied environmental reasons that Dubya's actions are a stupendously bad thing. Suffice to say that we can look forward to more earnest yet boring programs about why the world continues to be a god-awful smog filled place, and kiss goodbye to a snowballing number of flora and fauna species. Cheers Dubya, you're really building for the future of America and the World aren't you, you corrupt, money hungry, spineless, traitorous little shit of an excuse for a man.
It's not as if this is particularly good business. I was always told that one should shear ones sheep so that one can continue making a profit from them year after year. As big business continues to tear through resources and produce more and more waste it becomes more difficult for them to actually sustain those profits because there are less raw materials available and they're not getting renewed as they once were due in part to the amount of toxic crap that is churned out. They're not shearing the sheep; they're ripping the skin off and leaving the corpse to rot in the field.
Now I'm all too aware of just what a whining liberal environmentalist I sound as I write all of this, but fear not. I am not about to break into that old chorus of "What kind of world are we leaving for our children?!" complete with wringing hands and watery eyes. Frankly I couldn't give the first toss about our children right now; the world of the future is their problem, and good luck to them! I'm concerned about the world that I live in now and I'd quite like to be able to go outside without having to check the pH level of the air that I'm breathing. That's not too much to ask really, is it?
I find myself rather irksomely weary today. Perhaps this is because of the unnaturally gray and lifeless sky that has no business being there on a June day. It could be the incessant dripping that did a most wonderful job of ensuring my efforts at getting to sleep consisted of staring at the inside of my eyelids for 3 hours. However, as I am one of those dreadful people who lie awake worrying about the current state of world, and as I am vindictive by nature, I rather think I shall lay the blame directly at Dubya's door.
Yes, the leader of the free world and the winner of the "Closest resemblance to a Bonobo Monkey by a President" award 2001 is visiting Europe (Yurp as he doubtless refers to it) to try and cajole us into accepting his plans for the Son of Star Wars defence system whilst simultaneously telling us that we can take our environmental treaties and shove them up our collective Yurpean arse (or ass, seeing as he's a plain speaking Texan...). I refer to the Kyoto treaty, negotiated between President Clinton and the EU and just awaiting ratification. Or at least it was until Dubya promised all of his friends in the Oil and Energy business that he wouldn't sign it.
And why would he do such a thing? Well, the treaty states that all signatories will reduce carbon emission levels (basically a catchall term for greenhouse gasses) by 5.2% of 1990 levels, and that they will do so by 2012. Dubya has refused point blank to do so, stating in his defence that the treaty is "fatally flawed". And I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point; the treaty has one major flaw that I amongst many others would wish to see rectified before it is brought into force as a piece of international law. It is far too weak! 5.2% is a tiny little drop in a vast and gaseous ocean. What would it actually achieve other than giving a few ministers a chance to indulge in a bit of backslapping and perhaps allowing their respective governments to claim the green vote?
But let's ignore that rather trifling point for now as it only serves to distract from an otherwise legitimate rant about one of my favourite whipping boys (and as one of the Mormons said to me yesterday, "You shouldn't get too bogged down with the facts because they'll distract you from the truth"). The fact remains that the EU are at least willing to take a step, however small, toward reversing our rather annoying habit of treating the planet like a vast dumping ground for all manner of waste and poison. America, responsible for producing 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, isn't even willing to make such a tiny effort simply because they don't want to do anything that might "harm the economy".
That is a frequently used piece of doublespeak that could best be translated as "all of my friends and fund-raisers in big business will have to spend a tiny fraction of their gargantuan profits in order to achieve this goal, and they prefer their profits to stay in their pockets." In other words the man elected to look after and safeguard the best interests of the people of the US is using his power and influence in order to safeguard the interests of about 50 of them; the 50 being industrialists and company bosses. It's not as if the money that they save will filter down to the workforce either, and lest you doubt that then perhaps we can discuss the comparative figures for pay rises given to bosses and redundancies amongst workers in the last 10 years?
I won't presume to bore you (or at least no more than usual) with the many and varied environmental reasons that Dubya's actions are a stupendously bad thing. Suffice to say that we can look forward to more earnest yet boring programs about why the world continues to be a god-awful smog filled place, and kiss goodbye to a snowballing number of flora and fauna species. Cheers Dubya, you're really building for the future of America and the World aren't you, you corrupt, money hungry, spineless, traitorous little shit of an excuse for a man.
It's not as if this is particularly good business. I was always told that one should shear ones sheep so that one can continue making a profit from them year after year. As big business continues to tear through resources and produce more and more waste it becomes more difficult for them to actually sustain those profits because there are less raw materials available and they're not getting renewed as they once were due in part to the amount of toxic crap that is churned out. They're not shearing the sheep; they're ripping the skin off and leaving the corpse to rot in the field.
Now I'm all too aware of just what a whining liberal environmentalist I sound as I write all of this, but fear not. I am not about to break into that old chorus of "What kind of world are we leaving for our children?!" complete with wringing hands and watery eyes. Frankly I couldn't give the first toss about our children right now; the world of the future is their problem, and good luck to them! I'm concerned about the world that I live in now and I'd quite like to be able to go outside without having to check the pH level of the air that I'm breathing. That's not too much to ask really, is it?
Monday 18 June 2001
Funny chaps, Women.
I can't claim to understand the female of the species. This was my particular attempt to understand 2 women whom I know.
Despite my good weekend I find that once more something troubles me and occupies my thoughts, nagging at me in much the same way that a wife would. Although I consider myself something of an empathic sort and pride myself on my ability to relate to pretty much anybody, lately I find that women are confusing and bemusing me more and more with each passing day.
Now I should clarify a couple of things before I even get started; this is not going to be a diatribe about what funny chaps women are. Nor do I intend to whinge endlessly about the fact that I have thus far failed entirely to pull for about the last 6 months (although I could of course complain bitterly about that at quite some length and the next time I'm horribly drunk with friends I intend to do so!). Rather I wish to pass comment on one or two elements of the female psyche that I find utterly baffling, probably because I am but a mere man and thus have no chance of fully plumbing the dark depths of women's thought processes. As always, it goes without saying that I don't mean to cause any offence by what I write.
There are two things in particular that I found myself thinking about more and more; women who stay with men who are abusive to them is the first, women with eating disorders is the second (my oh my, I can just sense the chuckles building up in you as you've read that...). Now that I come to think about it, neither domestic violence nor anorexia is the sole domain of the fairer sex. There are men who suffer from one, the other, or both. However, in general both are associated with women and it is on that basis that I shall proceed.
Okay then, deep breath and here we go...firstly we have good old-fashioned domestic violence. Can anyone out there at all possibly explain to me what the hell possesses women to stay with a man who hits them? I really just do not get it at all, and I am starting to lose count of the amount of young, attractive, and strong willed women who waste their lives with idiots whose only way of expressing themselves is with their fists (if for no other reason than I can't understand why they'd stay with them when lovely me is young free and single...).
Of the women I know who were (or still are) in this type of relationship, I have noticed one or two common factors. Firstly, they are not as emotionally hard as they may pretend to be. Without exception, the men seem to be able to ensnare them by an act of abject misery on the rare occasions that their victims pluck up the courage and common sense to leave them. They use an act, which blends together all of the best elements of whining to demonstrate his weakness; saying they can't live without you which gives the impression that he loves her; occasionally they'll even weep and apologise for their previous behavior in order to show repentance; without exception it finishes on the promise that things will be different this time (indeed, it usually is; they tend to have learned their lesson by this point and only hit the women where the bruises won't show...).
This always seems to work because the women end up feeling guilty about leaving the pathetic little heap of DNA in such a state. So back they go, and the violence starts again (although sometimes it takes as much as month for the man to return to his usual ways). And what is more, the women tend to end up convincing themselves that they somehow need this man in their life! Who are these men, and why haven't they all been hired as salesmen? Anyone who can convince a woman that what she really needs is to be thrown through a door and have her face pulped could surely sell ice to the Eskimos.
I'm sure that their respective friends have already said it to them, but they *really* don't need anyone like that in their lives. If it is a fear of loneliness that keeps them with an abusive man then I can assure you that it is not as bad as a regular beating and the feeling that one is worthless. If it is the feeling that the violence is somehow their fault (because a lot of these men claim that the women somehow make them violent; fair enough if they greeted their husbands with a hearty kick in the testicles followed by a barrage of abuse then perhaps the men would have a point, but otherwise...) then they really need to improve their feelings of self worth, and that is never going to happen whilst with a man who treats them so utterly dreadfully.
I am given to understand that for whatever reason a woman convinces herself that she loves the particular monster that she is with, one of the main reasons that they stay and suffer the endless abuse is the conviction that their man will change. They will *never* change, not ever. Not whilst they remain so cowardly as to refuse to address their own inadequacy that leads them to take out the misery for their own failings on their partner. And that is what I think is at the root of why men lash out at their partners. I think that for a very personally and deeply shameful reason (no, I'm not a women beater; lets face it, if I tried to beat the lady I currently live with I would find myself with innumerable broken bones and ruptured organs and bloody good thing too!).
After I'd split from my girlfriend, we found ourselves enjoying a heated and drink fueled argument. The insults raged, the furniture was assaulted, and the ornaments flew with gay abandon. And then, in order to convince the good lady that I was the man that she really needed in her life, I pinned her to the wall and screamed at her for about half a minute. I count that as possibly the most unforgivably stupid thing that I have ever done in my life (and I'm including the time I ate 3 ladybirds for a bet when I was 5). Eventually the abject terror on her face made it's through my alcohol soaked synapses. I had never felt as bad before or since as I did when I realised I was responsible for putting her in fear of a physical assault from me. I still haven't forgiven myself and though I have been utterly absolved by my ex, I hope that the only reason that she has forgiven me is because I despise what it is that I did and I have taken steps to address the issues that caused it to happen in the first place. However, I suppose it could just as easily be for the reasons that I have detailed so far and that saddens me, because it shows just how easy it seems to be for women to fall into the mindset of the abused.
Our second fun packed topic is eating disorders. Anorexia, Bulimia, and Body Dismorphic Disorder are the main ones that I'm referring to, but in real life it is difficult to categorise a sufferer so neatly, so I will only refer to them in general terms. Again this is mainly the province of women, especially in the media which seems to be both chief offender and public informant when it comes to this topic.
Again, I cannot claim to be anything other than utterly bemused by someone willingly starving themselves, inducing vomiting, or hacking their flesh to ribbons. We are told that the media is to blame because they impose unrealistic standards on women and continually bombard them with images of young, slim, beautiful women with not a flaw in sight. I don't completely accept that; okay so the women in magazines look fantastic. It is their job to look fantastic, and have none of you ever heard of airbrushing? The editor of Loaded (the archetypal ladmag) freely admits that cellulite and blemishes are regularly airbrushed out of pictures of models and celebrities in their pants. Also, if sufferers are so deeply influenced by the women they see in magazines, why can't they look up from their copy of Cosmo and take a look around them. They will see hundreds of thousands of women who do not look as if they have just stepped off the catwalk. They will be all shapes and sizes (and yes some of them will be thin; some women just are) and the vast majority of them will look good, be they size 8 or size 18.
It seems pretty unrealistic to blame the media for eating disorders when it represents a comparatively small percentage of our daily visual intake. There has to be more to it than that. I think that if it ties in to anything, it must be a self-esteem problem. Perhaps they think that they can only be attractive when thin, and somehow they always think that they are fat regardless of their weight and appearance. A lady whom I know with an eating disorder told me that whenever she looked in a mirror she saw a dumpy and overweight woman with flab on her arms and legs, saddlebags on her thighs, and a spare tire round her stomach. She's 8 and a half stone. At her worst she was less than 8 stone and looked skeletal and frail. She now looks fantastic, but still worries that she is too fat and unattractive, and this makes every day a battle for her.
At the risk of sounding flippant, I have to say that I find it difficult to find a hollow eyed, gaunt faced and grey skinned skeleton in any way erotic. Nor is the idea of a woman vomiting a tremendously exciting prospect (unless you are like a certain friend of mine who has a fascination with roman showers, but that is by the by) and yet women still do this to themselves in the name of beauty. I think I speak for a lot of men when I say that I prefer a woman who looks like a woman as opposed to a half-starved pre pubescent. So if it's not the media, and if they are so misguided as to believe that men want them to look the way they end up looking, what causes them to think in that way?
Clearly it is something deep rooted in both the individual and our society as a whole (for it is so widespread now that it cannot be a case of hundreds of thousands of women simultaneously developing these disorders individually) and it is not for me to unravel such a Gordian knot. Both domestic violence and eating disorders occur and are propagated by a lack of self esteem, so for some reason a lot of women don't feel as good about themselves as they ought. This is not a good state of affairs, and by blaming scapegoats such as the media we are doing everyone a dis-service. Once again, it is the standard finding that there is something wrong in our society, and we need to find out what it is and how we can best remedy it. Otherwise we can look forward to more bruised and scrawny women wiping their vomit flecked lips clean whilst they cry at how worthless they are. That is not right.
Despite my good weekend I find that once more something troubles me and occupies my thoughts, nagging at me in much the same way that a wife would. Although I consider myself something of an empathic sort and pride myself on my ability to relate to pretty much anybody, lately I find that women are confusing and bemusing me more and more with each passing day.
Now I should clarify a couple of things before I even get started; this is not going to be a diatribe about what funny chaps women are. Nor do I intend to whinge endlessly about the fact that I have thus far failed entirely to pull for about the last 6 months (although I could of course complain bitterly about that at quite some length and the next time I'm horribly drunk with friends I intend to do so!). Rather I wish to pass comment on one or two elements of the female psyche that I find utterly baffling, probably because I am but a mere man and thus have no chance of fully plumbing the dark depths of women's thought processes. As always, it goes without saying that I don't mean to cause any offence by what I write.
There are two things in particular that I found myself thinking about more and more; women who stay with men who are abusive to them is the first, women with eating disorders is the second (my oh my, I can just sense the chuckles building up in you as you've read that...). Now that I come to think about it, neither domestic violence nor anorexia is the sole domain of the fairer sex. There are men who suffer from one, the other, or both. However, in general both are associated with women and it is on that basis that I shall proceed.
Okay then, deep breath and here we go...firstly we have good old-fashioned domestic violence. Can anyone out there at all possibly explain to me what the hell possesses women to stay with a man who hits them? I really just do not get it at all, and I am starting to lose count of the amount of young, attractive, and strong willed women who waste their lives with idiots whose only way of expressing themselves is with their fists (if for no other reason than I can't understand why they'd stay with them when lovely me is young free and single...).
Of the women I know who were (or still are) in this type of relationship, I have noticed one or two common factors. Firstly, they are not as emotionally hard as they may pretend to be. Without exception, the men seem to be able to ensnare them by an act of abject misery on the rare occasions that their victims pluck up the courage and common sense to leave them. They use an act, which blends together all of the best elements of whining to demonstrate his weakness; saying they can't live without you which gives the impression that he loves her; occasionally they'll even weep and apologise for their previous behavior in order to show repentance; without exception it finishes on the promise that things will be different this time (indeed, it usually is; they tend to have learned their lesson by this point and only hit the women where the bruises won't show...).
This always seems to work because the women end up feeling guilty about leaving the pathetic little heap of DNA in such a state. So back they go, and the violence starts again (although sometimes it takes as much as month for the man to return to his usual ways). And what is more, the women tend to end up convincing themselves that they somehow need this man in their life! Who are these men, and why haven't they all been hired as salesmen? Anyone who can convince a woman that what she really needs is to be thrown through a door and have her face pulped could surely sell ice to the Eskimos.
I'm sure that their respective friends have already said it to them, but they *really* don't need anyone like that in their lives. If it is a fear of loneliness that keeps them with an abusive man then I can assure you that it is not as bad as a regular beating and the feeling that one is worthless. If it is the feeling that the violence is somehow their fault (because a lot of these men claim that the women somehow make them violent; fair enough if they greeted their husbands with a hearty kick in the testicles followed by a barrage of abuse then perhaps the men would have a point, but otherwise...) then they really need to improve their feelings of self worth, and that is never going to happen whilst with a man who treats them so utterly dreadfully.
I am given to understand that for whatever reason a woman convinces herself that she loves the particular monster that she is with, one of the main reasons that they stay and suffer the endless abuse is the conviction that their man will change. They will *never* change, not ever. Not whilst they remain so cowardly as to refuse to address their own inadequacy that leads them to take out the misery for their own failings on their partner. And that is what I think is at the root of why men lash out at their partners. I think that for a very personally and deeply shameful reason (no, I'm not a women beater; lets face it, if I tried to beat the lady I currently live with I would find myself with innumerable broken bones and ruptured organs and bloody good thing too!).
After I'd split from my girlfriend, we found ourselves enjoying a heated and drink fueled argument. The insults raged, the furniture was assaulted, and the ornaments flew with gay abandon. And then, in order to convince the good lady that I was the man that she really needed in her life, I pinned her to the wall and screamed at her for about half a minute. I count that as possibly the most unforgivably stupid thing that I have ever done in my life (and I'm including the time I ate 3 ladybirds for a bet when I was 5). Eventually the abject terror on her face made it's through my alcohol soaked synapses. I had never felt as bad before or since as I did when I realised I was responsible for putting her in fear of a physical assault from me. I still haven't forgiven myself and though I have been utterly absolved by my ex, I hope that the only reason that she has forgiven me is because I despise what it is that I did and I have taken steps to address the issues that caused it to happen in the first place. However, I suppose it could just as easily be for the reasons that I have detailed so far and that saddens me, because it shows just how easy it seems to be for women to fall into the mindset of the abused.
Our second fun packed topic is eating disorders. Anorexia, Bulimia, and Body Dismorphic Disorder are the main ones that I'm referring to, but in real life it is difficult to categorise a sufferer so neatly, so I will only refer to them in general terms. Again this is mainly the province of women, especially in the media which seems to be both chief offender and public informant when it comes to this topic.
Again, I cannot claim to be anything other than utterly bemused by someone willingly starving themselves, inducing vomiting, or hacking their flesh to ribbons. We are told that the media is to blame because they impose unrealistic standards on women and continually bombard them with images of young, slim, beautiful women with not a flaw in sight. I don't completely accept that; okay so the women in magazines look fantastic. It is their job to look fantastic, and have none of you ever heard of airbrushing? The editor of Loaded (the archetypal ladmag) freely admits that cellulite and blemishes are regularly airbrushed out of pictures of models and celebrities in their pants. Also, if sufferers are so deeply influenced by the women they see in magazines, why can't they look up from their copy of Cosmo and take a look around them. They will see hundreds of thousands of women who do not look as if they have just stepped off the catwalk. They will be all shapes and sizes (and yes some of them will be thin; some women just are) and the vast majority of them will look good, be they size 8 or size 18.
It seems pretty unrealistic to blame the media for eating disorders when it represents a comparatively small percentage of our daily visual intake. There has to be more to it than that. I think that if it ties in to anything, it must be a self-esteem problem. Perhaps they think that they can only be attractive when thin, and somehow they always think that they are fat regardless of their weight and appearance. A lady whom I know with an eating disorder told me that whenever she looked in a mirror she saw a dumpy and overweight woman with flab on her arms and legs, saddlebags on her thighs, and a spare tire round her stomach. She's 8 and a half stone. At her worst she was less than 8 stone and looked skeletal and frail. She now looks fantastic, but still worries that she is too fat and unattractive, and this makes every day a battle for her.
At the risk of sounding flippant, I have to say that I find it difficult to find a hollow eyed, gaunt faced and grey skinned skeleton in any way erotic. Nor is the idea of a woman vomiting a tremendously exciting prospect (unless you are like a certain friend of mine who has a fascination with roman showers, but that is by the by) and yet women still do this to themselves in the name of beauty. I think I speak for a lot of men when I say that I prefer a woman who looks like a woman as opposed to a half-starved pre pubescent. So if it's not the media, and if they are so misguided as to believe that men want them to look the way they end up looking, what causes them to think in that way?
Clearly it is something deep rooted in both the individual and our society as a whole (for it is so widespread now that it cannot be a case of hundreds of thousands of women simultaneously developing these disorders individually) and it is not for me to unravel such a Gordian knot. Both domestic violence and eating disorders occur and are propagated by a lack of self esteem, so for some reason a lot of women don't feel as good about themselves as they ought. This is not a good state of affairs, and by blaming scapegoats such as the media we are doing everyone a dis-service. Once again, it is the standard finding that there is something wrong in our society, and we need to find out what it is and how we can best remedy it. Otherwise we can look forward to more bruised and scrawny women wiping their vomit flecked lips clean whilst they cry at how worthless they are. That is not right.
Thursday 14 June 2001
Two Little Boys
This was my response to that godawful email petition that demanded the return of the Bulger killers to prison.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
Two Little Boys
This was my response to that godawful email petition that demanded the return of the Bulger killers to prison.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
Wednesday 13 June 2001
The Worst Job In Britain
As with all my predictions about Tory leadership contests, I got this utterly wrong. I always get it wrong when it comes to the tories. Maybe I should actually be relieved about that.
As it's a fairly slow news day (unless one counts Dubya's mangling of the Spanish language as well as the English; is it really too much to ask for the President of the USA to get the Spanish Premier's name right?) and as I really don't want to talk about World affairs (apparently some Philippine terrorists have beheaded an American hostage) because it's too depressing, I think I'll limit myself to mocking the Tory leadership contest.
As I trust you noticed, the Tories took something of a beating in the election. So much so that little Billy felt it necessary to stand down as leader to make way for someone who could lead the party back to the halcyon days that they enjoyed in the 80's. Alas poor Billy, we barely knew ye. Let us take a moment to reflect on the political passing of the man and his career as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition...right, that's long enough. Frankly, I'm glad to see the back of a man whose only positive contribution to the last 4 years was to make the Tories completely unelectable, and who tried to convince the country that we needed to stop all this forward thinking nonsense and mire ourselves firmly in the past. My only regret is that it is not mandatory to execute failed party leaders who encourage autocratic thinking in the PM.
So anyway, the Tory party is once more a rudderless and decaying hulk, seemingly doomed to be torn apart on the rocks of political ineptitude and public distrust. Who can captain their ship into the calmer waters of government (or at least as a realistic opposition)? The short answer is of course, no one. Not whilst the Labour party have control of the centre left and centre right amongst the electorate. But let us ignore that trifling fact for a while, and pretend that a new leader will actually make the slightest difference.
So who are the candidates for this thankless and dare I say worthless job? Well, there only seem to be 3 contenders who will evoke any sort of recognition from the public. These are (in reverse order of odiousness) Kenneth Clarke, Michael Portillo, and Anne Widdecombe. Some other names are being bandied about such as Francis Maude and Peter Lilley, but as no one would recognise those two if they assaulted them on the street, I think they can safely be discounted.
So what of these 3, these brave 3 who are (or may be) volunteering for the worst job in the country? Firstly we have Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the unhealthiest health secretary that ever made it to government (it was sort of difficult to take him seriously when he encouraged us to improve our general state of health as he puffed on a cigar whilst swigging brandy by the snifter). He's been pretty much anonymous for the last 4 years due to his unwavering support for the EU. This sets him at odds with a large portion of his party, who view Europe with the same sort of horror that you or I would reserve for finding a fly in one's drink. However, he has now reared his head once more and is hoping to unite the party under a pro-euro banner and march them proudly into the next election with a realistic chance of getting into power. He has as much chance of this as Hermann Goering did of becoming an Orthodox Jew.
I somehow can't see the Tories undergoing a transformation from bigoted xenophobes to open armed europhiles in the space of a few years, so I suspect that Mr. Clarke can be pretty much ruled out of the contest. And as a side issue, I would like to put a bet that he will be the first MP to suffer a heart attack in the new parliament. The man has a complexion that is a lovely mix of pallid grey and broken veined red. His jowls sag and his skin is unhealthy and bloated. The man really needs to improve his lifestyle before he becomes fertiliser. But I digress...
Next we have Michael Portillo, a man whom I have already described as the finest homosexual of Spanish origin that the Tories have ever had. I would have to install this man as the odds on favourite assuming that he decides to take the job in the first place. There have been whispers that he would prefer someone else to take on the task of rebuilding, let them lose the next election but not so heavily and then take over when the Conservatives actually have a chance of challenging the government. A little underhanded perhaps, but then he is a politician. However, if we assume that he does go for it, what will he have to offer apart from the thickest lips and nicest hair in parliament?
Certainly, he is the only candidate who has even the remotest chance of uniting the divided party. He is eurosceptic, thus appealing to the right wing, but he is also in favour of being inclusive. In other words, he values treating people who are not WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) as normal human beings rather than as a bunch of leftie, politically correct, black lesbian single mothers. This should appeal to the left wing of the party (the ones whose voices were drowned out by the hurricane of bile and hatred that the rest of the party was spouting during the election campaign). So theoretically, the man has a good chance. And anyone who annoys Norman Tebbit (who is clearly identifying himself as a rather unpleasant little homophobe...so nice that the right wing are saving the likes of me the trouble of pointing out how intolerant they are) is alright by me. I would even go so far to say that he could even make the Tories electable again...well, okay perhaps he'll manage to make them appear human again. Even that would be an achievement.
Finally we have dear old Doris Karloff herself, Anne "3 men a day" Widdecombe. You'll have to excuse me as I find myself crying tears of laughter at the mere thought of this woman (and I only tentatively identify her as such; woman is easier to write than "some form of biped") being thought of as a realistic leader of the party and perhaps of the country. This is a woman whose ranting puts me to shame. A woman who managed to utterly humiliate herself at the last Tory conference with her ignorant bleating about drugs and who went further still by implying that drugs are only a problem if you live in a council estate and didn't go to university.
I was getting ready to unleash all manner of reasons as to why this woman is the second cousin of the antichrist, and why the fact that she appeals to the blue rinse brigade and various stuffy old colonels is reason enough not to vote for her. But it occurs to me that there is no need; anyone with 2 eyes, 2 ears, and a sense of what is and what is not normal can see and hear for himself or herself that she is unelectable. The left would never accept her, although if the Tories do choose her as their leader, then they can look forward to being politically shipwrecked for many more years to come.
One of the main themes of this little rant has been the 2 distinct halves of the party and whether they can be united. In truth, I don't see this as being possible as they are ideologically opposed to each other and have little chance of reconciliation. The best thing that can happen is for them to split accordingly, and then hopefully the far right will wither and die whilst the left gets absorbed by the LibDems. Think of a world without a Tory party...what a wonderful world that would be.
As it's a fairly slow news day (unless one counts Dubya's mangling of the Spanish language as well as the English; is it really too much to ask for the President of the USA to get the Spanish Premier's name right?) and as I really don't want to talk about World affairs (apparently some Philippine terrorists have beheaded an American hostage) because it's too depressing, I think I'll limit myself to mocking the Tory leadership contest.
As I trust you noticed, the Tories took something of a beating in the election. So much so that little Billy felt it necessary to stand down as leader to make way for someone who could lead the party back to the halcyon days that they enjoyed in the 80's. Alas poor Billy, we barely knew ye. Let us take a moment to reflect on the political passing of the man and his career as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition...right, that's long enough. Frankly, I'm glad to see the back of a man whose only positive contribution to the last 4 years was to make the Tories completely unelectable, and who tried to convince the country that we needed to stop all this forward thinking nonsense and mire ourselves firmly in the past. My only regret is that it is not mandatory to execute failed party leaders who encourage autocratic thinking in the PM.
So anyway, the Tory party is once more a rudderless and decaying hulk, seemingly doomed to be torn apart on the rocks of political ineptitude and public distrust. Who can captain their ship into the calmer waters of government (or at least as a realistic opposition)? The short answer is of course, no one. Not whilst the Labour party have control of the centre left and centre right amongst the electorate. But let us ignore that trifling fact for a while, and pretend that a new leader will actually make the slightest difference.
So who are the candidates for this thankless and dare I say worthless job? Well, there only seem to be 3 contenders who will evoke any sort of recognition from the public. These are (in reverse order of odiousness) Kenneth Clarke, Michael Portillo, and Anne Widdecombe. Some other names are being bandied about such as Francis Maude and Peter Lilley, but as no one would recognise those two if they assaulted them on the street, I think they can safely be discounted.
So what of these 3, these brave 3 who are (or may be) volunteering for the worst job in the country? Firstly we have Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the unhealthiest health secretary that ever made it to government (it was sort of difficult to take him seriously when he encouraged us to improve our general state of health as he puffed on a cigar whilst swigging brandy by the snifter). He's been pretty much anonymous for the last 4 years due to his unwavering support for the EU. This sets him at odds with a large portion of his party, who view Europe with the same sort of horror that you or I would reserve for finding a fly in one's drink. However, he has now reared his head once more and is hoping to unite the party under a pro-euro banner and march them proudly into the next election with a realistic chance of getting into power. He has as much chance of this as Hermann Goering did of becoming an Orthodox Jew.
I somehow can't see the Tories undergoing a transformation from bigoted xenophobes to open armed europhiles in the space of a few years, so I suspect that Mr. Clarke can be pretty much ruled out of the contest. And as a side issue, I would like to put a bet that he will be the first MP to suffer a heart attack in the new parliament. The man has a complexion that is a lovely mix of pallid grey and broken veined red. His jowls sag and his skin is unhealthy and bloated. The man really needs to improve his lifestyle before he becomes fertiliser. But I digress...
Next we have Michael Portillo, a man whom I have already described as the finest homosexual of Spanish origin that the Tories have ever had. I would have to install this man as the odds on favourite assuming that he decides to take the job in the first place. There have been whispers that he would prefer someone else to take on the task of rebuilding, let them lose the next election but not so heavily and then take over when the Conservatives actually have a chance of challenging the government. A little underhanded perhaps, but then he is a politician. However, if we assume that he does go for it, what will he have to offer apart from the thickest lips and nicest hair in parliament?
Certainly, he is the only candidate who has even the remotest chance of uniting the divided party. He is eurosceptic, thus appealing to the right wing, but he is also in favour of being inclusive. In other words, he values treating people who are not WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) as normal human beings rather than as a bunch of leftie, politically correct, black lesbian single mothers. This should appeal to the left wing of the party (the ones whose voices were drowned out by the hurricane of bile and hatred that the rest of the party was spouting during the election campaign). So theoretically, the man has a good chance. And anyone who annoys Norman Tebbit (who is clearly identifying himself as a rather unpleasant little homophobe...so nice that the right wing are saving the likes of me the trouble of pointing out how intolerant they are) is alright by me. I would even go so far to say that he could even make the Tories electable again...well, okay perhaps he'll manage to make them appear human again. Even that would be an achievement.
Finally we have dear old Doris Karloff herself, Anne "3 men a day" Widdecombe. You'll have to excuse me as I find myself crying tears of laughter at the mere thought of this woman (and I only tentatively identify her as such; woman is easier to write than "some form of biped") being thought of as a realistic leader of the party and perhaps of the country. This is a woman whose ranting puts me to shame. A woman who managed to utterly humiliate herself at the last Tory conference with her ignorant bleating about drugs and who went further still by implying that drugs are only a problem if you live in a council estate and didn't go to university.
I was getting ready to unleash all manner of reasons as to why this woman is the second cousin of the antichrist, and why the fact that she appeals to the blue rinse brigade and various stuffy old colonels is reason enough not to vote for her. But it occurs to me that there is no need; anyone with 2 eyes, 2 ears, and a sense of what is and what is not normal can see and hear for himself or herself that she is unelectable. The left would never accept her, although if the Tories do choose her as their leader, then they can look forward to being politically shipwrecked for many more years to come.
One of the main themes of this little rant has been the 2 distinct halves of the party and whether they can be united. In truth, I don't see this as being possible as they are ideologically opposed to each other and have little chance of reconciliation. The best thing that can happen is for them to split accordingly, and then hopefully the far right will wither and die whilst the left gets absorbed by the LibDems. Think of a world without a Tory party...what a wonderful world that would be.
Tuesday 12 June 2001
Lock them up and throw away the key
Prisons are shit. They don't work, because we don't use them as we should; places for rehabilitation.
So then, all appeals for clemency were rejected. Despite the opposition of a large minority of people, yesterday the inevitable happened and the end came for Timothy McVeigh. In the poetic and moving words of the 16th century poet John Donne, "Farewell to thee, thou blinkered and idiotic murdering fuckhead; didst thou really think that the slaughter of innocents would further thy cause? Or has thy mind simply snapped like a rotted tree in a storm? Either way, good bloody riddance to you!" Or something like that anyway...
As I've already gone into my feelings concerning the death penalty, there is no need to belabour the point. Suffice to say that he got what he deserved, unfortunately the event was a media frenzy and so it somewhat detracted from what should have been a solemn occasion. However, there were numerous calls for mercy from the many opponents of the death penalty. By mercy, they were presumably talking about life imprisonment which doesn't seem particularly merciful to me, but that is by the by. Having addressed capital punishment previously, I think perhaps a glance at the alternatives is warranted. I can't claim to be an expert on the American prison system, but I do have a certain level of knowledge of our own and so I shall limit myself to that.
I suppose the first question should be "Why do we have prisons in the first place?” which is not as straightforward as it seems. Are they for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, or containment? But more than that, why are they actually needed? Large-scale prisons are a comparatively recent innovation. Before that, the main alternative to being condemned to death was banishment. This took many forms as society progressed; in prehistoric until the dark ages this generally took the form of banishment from a tribal territory. A man alone in the land of a hostile tribe could look forward to a fairly short life packed with interesting times. As we moved into the medieval and beyond, banishment (or at least the incidences that made it into the history books) became the province of the rich and powerful. It was rare that a king could feel so secure in his position that he could afford to have an influential rival executed, so banishment to the continent became the alternative. When one bears in mind that this occasionally resulted in said rival coming back at the head of an army of continental mercenaries, this could be said to have been a bit of a rubbish method of disposing of undesirable elements.
In the time of the Empire banishment became the exile of thieves and murderers (amongst others) to penal colonies, America until they kicked us out, and Australia after that. Not for nothing are Aussie soap opera's referred to as criminal...
And so we get to today, where banishment is a thing of the past. And why? Well, if one looks at the whistle stop history of it, one can see that the objective behind it is the same in each case; send the offender far away where they can't bother us any more. No thought was given to what happens to them once they were banished, because it ceased to be our problem. Someone else had to deal with them in whatever way they saw fit; we simply stopped worrying about them. This is perfectly fair and reasonable when you have somewhere to send them.
However, I would say that our attitude towards prisons isn't a million miles away from our ancestors’ attitudes toward banishment. As the prison population are for the most part put back into society after having served their time, our complete indifference as to what happens to them whilst they are in there is perhaps not the best way of dealing with things. At present, our prisons are little more than warehouses for criminals. So in that respect, the main purpose of our prisons is containment. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Certainly, no one in their right mind would want criminals freed and at large after they'd done something deserving of punishment. So prisons fulfill the roll that banishment once did; removing an undesirable from society.
They do this by confining criminals together in enforced cohabitation. Being human beings like the rest of us they intermingle, befriend some and antagonise others. Social hierarchies are formed (e.g. Sex offenders at the bottom, gang bosses at the top) and rules are created and observed. If broken, then the prisoners deal punishment themselves. In other words, a sub-culture forms. The longer one is exposed to this sub-culture, the more ingrained it becomes and the less likely one becomes to be able to live by the rules of normal society. In other words, they become institutionalised.
It seems to me that we are storing up trouble for ourselves when we store people in prison. They rarely learn the error of their ways or get the opportunity to improve themselves via increasing their qualifications (either practical or academic) so there is little or no rehabilitation on offer. As to punishment and deterrence, they fulfill that function the first time someone is sent there. But I would say that it is because a first time prisoner suffers fear of the unknown. Sometimes that first prison experience is enough to deter someone from serious crime (I'm tempted to make a crude pun about them never forgetting their first time, especially when one considers the part that fear of being raped in the showers has in the deterrence value of prisons). All too often though, new tricks are learned and the criminal becomes more alienated from society.
There are two schools of thought about this. To the right, the approach is to build more prisons so that we can contain more people for longer periods of time. To the left we have the desire for rehabilitation and understanding of the offender. Somewhere in the middle (although admittedly glancing off to the left) is me. Crime does need to be punished. It's just that I tend to believe that people are inclined to make mistakes in their lives, and blanket condemnation followed by a process that will incline them more toward criminal activity does not seem to me to be the wisest idea. Certainly they should be imprisoned (if only because we have no realistic alternative; I mentioned banishment earlier, perhaps once we have the technology for establishing permanent dwellings on the Moon and Mars we will see the re-appearance of penal colonies...). It's what we do with them once they're there that I take issue with.
And yet again, I'm going to cop out. Having stated that I think our current system doesn't work, I can't offer a functional alternative. I can offer idea's of course, and I've already hinted at them. Improving the educational facilities within prisons so that an unskilled and uneducated prisoner can finish his sentence and have either a trade to go into or qualifications to help him get work would be a good start. At the same time, one must remember that a crime was committed and this should be punished, so more Spartan surroundings and a strictly regimented lifestyle for all prisoners could be imposed(does anyone really imagine that if that odious little turd Jeffrey Archer does get imprisoned that he will be at anything other than a luxurious and comfortable prison? The bastard will probably get Jonathan Aitken's old suite...).
The flip side of this view is "Why should criminals have the opportunity to better themselves when citizens don't have access to the level of education that they would like?" Well, here's fun; why not try improving access to education for everyone? I don't mean for the prison issue to be looked at in isolation. I keep harping on about society, and our prison population is just one of society's problems. If, when one goes through school, one has access to a good education (by which I mean both academic and practical; I find it disgusting that someone who could be a top class electrician or builder gets a hard time through school because of our emphasis on academia. As always though, that is a rant for another day...) then it is less likely that one will commit a crime. I say that because one of the main background factors to crime is poverty and social deprivation. If we think of prison as a second chance to get this education, but also incorporate the element of punishment, then we deter people from crime by using both carrot and stick. At least that way, when society does encounter repeat offenders and pathological criminals, we will have clean hands and a clean conscience when dealing with them.
So then, all appeals for clemency were rejected. Despite the opposition of a large minority of people, yesterday the inevitable happened and the end came for Timothy McVeigh. In the poetic and moving words of the 16th century poet John Donne, "Farewell to thee, thou blinkered and idiotic murdering fuckhead; didst thou really think that the slaughter of innocents would further thy cause? Or has thy mind simply snapped like a rotted tree in a storm? Either way, good bloody riddance to you!" Or something like that anyway...
As I've already gone into my feelings concerning the death penalty, there is no need to belabour the point. Suffice to say that he got what he deserved, unfortunately the event was a media frenzy and so it somewhat detracted from what should have been a solemn occasion. However, there were numerous calls for mercy from the many opponents of the death penalty. By mercy, they were presumably talking about life imprisonment which doesn't seem particularly merciful to me, but that is by the by. Having addressed capital punishment previously, I think perhaps a glance at the alternatives is warranted. I can't claim to be an expert on the American prison system, but I do have a certain level of knowledge of our own and so I shall limit myself to that.
I suppose the first question should be "Why do we have prisons in the first place?” which is not as straightforward as it seems. Are they for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, or containment? But more than that, why are they actually needed? Large-scale prisons are a comparatively recent innovation. Before that, the main alternative to being condemned to death was banishment. This took many forms as society progressed; in prehistoric until the dark ages this generally took the form of banishment from a tribal territory. A man alone in the land of a hostile tribe could look forward to a fairly short life packed with interesting times. As we moved into the medieval and beyond, banishment (or at least the incidences that made it into the history books) became the province of the rich and powerful. It was rare that a king could feel so secure in his position that he could afford to have an influential rival executed, so banishment to the continent became the alternative. When one bears in mind that this occasionally resulted in said rival coming back at the head of an army of continental mercenaries, this could be said to have been a bit of a rubbish method of disposing of undesirable elements.
In the time of the Empire banishment became the exile of thieves and murderers (amongst others) to penal colonies, America until they kicked us out, and Australia after that. Not for nothing are Aussie soap opera's referred to as criminal...
And so we get to today, where banishment is a thing of the past. And why? Well, if one looks at the whistle stop history of it, one can see that the objective behind it is the same in each case; send the offender far away where they can't bother us any more. No thought was given to what happens to them once they were banished, because it ceased to be our problem. Someone else had to deal with them in whatever way they saw fit; we simply stopped worrying about them. This is perfectly fair and reasonable when you have somewhere to send them.
However, I would say that our attitude towards prisons isn't a million miles away from our ancestors’ attitudes toward banishment. As the prison population are for the most part put back into society after having served their time, our complete indifference as to what happens to them whilst they are in there is perhaps not the best way of dealing with things. At present, our prisons are little more than warehouses for criminals. So in that respect, the main purpose of our prisons is containment. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Certainly, no one in their right mind would want criminals freed and at large after they'd done something deserving of punishment. So prisons fulfill the roll that banishment once did; removing an undesirable from society.
They do this by confining criminals together in enforced cohabitation. Being human beings like the rest of us they intermingle, befriend some and antagonise others. Social hierarchies are formed (e.g. Sex offenders at the bottom, gang bosses at the top) and rules are created and observed. If broken, then the prisoners deal punishment themselves. In other words, a sub-culture forms. The longer one is exposed to this sub-culture, the more ingrained it becomes and the less likely one becomes to be able to live by the rules of normal society. In other words, they become institutionalised.
It seems to me that we are storing up trouble for ourselves when we store people in prison. They rarely learn the error of their ways or get the opportunity to improve themselves via increasing their qualifications (either practical or academic) so there is little or no rehabilitation on offer. As to punishment and deterrence, they fulfill that function the first time someone is sent there. But I would say that it is because a first time prisoner suffers fear of the unknown. Sometimes that first prison experience is enough to deter someone from serious crime (I'm tempted to make a crude pun about them never forgetting their first time, especially when one considers the part that fear of being raped in the showers has in the deterrence value of prisons). All too often though, new tricks are learned and the criminal becomes more alienated from society.
There are two schools of thought about this. To the right, the approach is to build more prisons so that we can contain more people for longer periods of time. To the left we have the desire for rehabilitation and understanding of the offender. Somewhere in the middle (although admittedly glancing off to the left) is me. Crime does need to be punished. It's just that I tend to believe that people are inclined to make mistakes in their lives, and blanket condemnation followed by a process that will incline them more toward criminal activity does not seem to me to be the wisest idea. Certainly they should be imprisoned (if only because we have no realistic alternative; I mentioned banishment earlier, perhaps once we have the technology for establishing permanent dwellings on the Moon and Mars we will see the re-appearance of penal colonies...). It's what we do with them once they're there that I take issue with.
And yet again, I'm going to cop out. Having stated that I think our current system doesn't work, I can't offer a functional alternative. I can offer idea's of course, and I've already hinted at them. Improving the educational facilities within prisons so that an unskilled and uneducated prisoner can finish his sentence and have either a trade to go into or qualifications to help him get work would be a good start. At the same time, one must remember that a crime was committed and this should be punished, so more Spartan surroundings and a strictly regimented lifestyle for all prisoners could be imposed(does anyone really imagine that if that odious little turd Jeffrey Archer does get imprisoned that he will be at anything other than a luxurious and comfortable prison? The bastard will probably get Jonathan Aitken's old suite...).
The flip side of this view is "Why should criminals have the opportunity to better themselves when citizens don't have access to the level of education that they would like?" Well, here's fun; why not try improving access to education for everyone? I don't mean for the prison issue to be looked at in isolation. I keep harping on about society, and our prison population is just one of society's problems. If, when one goes through school, one has access to a good education (by which I mean both academic and practical; I find it disgusting that someone who could be a top class electrician or builder gets a hard time through school because of our emphasis on academia. As always though, that is a rant for another day...) then it is less likely that one will commit a crime. I say that because one of the main background factors to crime is poverty and social deprivation. If we think of prison as a second chance to get this education, but also incorporate the element of punishment, then we deter people from crime by using both carrot and stick. At least that way, when society does encounter repeat offenders and pathological criminals, we will have clean hands and a clean conscience when dealing with them.
Monday 11 June 2001
Drink
I seem to be less approving of drink than of drugs. Which is odd, as I rather enjoy both.
Were you at all drunk yesterday? Or over the weekend? I would certainly expect so bearing in mind that it's summer (despite the omnipresent rain) and your weekend will have been free of care. So can I safely assume that you had a typically British weekend and that your memories of it are somewhat hazy? Good...
It has been commented on that the British drink as if someone might suddenly take it away from them, and I am hard pressed to find any evidence to refute this. What does puzzle me is why we follow the same routine almost every weekend and with such little variation despite the fact that we invariably end up embarrassing either ourselves or our friends and are usually guilty of committing at least one act on a night out guaranteed to ensure one is left feeling foolish and awkward in the weeks to come.
However, if you were to talk to the person sitting nearest you right now about their weekend, I have little doubt that they will tell you what a fantastic time they had, wax boastfully as to the quantity of drink that they consumed, and perhaps even regale you with an outrageous tale of what happened when they/their friend/their pet finished their 12th pint and then ran into a policeman/former spouse/Lord Lucan. God knows, I'm pretty sure I would even though the events of the weekend passed are pretty much a blur to me. This is despite the fact that I felt dreadful for most of Saturday, remedied this by starting drinking in the early evening thus guaranteeing further nausea on Sunday which saw me becoming a permanent fixture on the sofa alongside a large bottle of Coca-Cola and a permanently babbling (though for the most part vacantly stared at) TV.
Realistically, rather than feeling satisfied at a weekend spent either drunk or recovering, I suppose I should be filled with mortification at a weekend wasted, with nothing achieved other than a Friday night spent ranting incoherent rubbish at Abby and Claire, the majority of which I can't even remember (I’d apologise, but I suspect that they may feel equal measure of mild embarrassment for having done exactly the same...). I'm not though (although this is the first time I've actually thought about this in any detail and I have to say, thus far I'm a little perturbed and may even go so far as to not get drunk this coming weekend) and I suspect that you would be surprised at me if I was.
Alcohol has always played a large part in British life and culture. Like the rest of Europe, we made use of brewing technology at a very early stage in history. In pre-Roman times, drinking water was a dangerous thing to do as one was at risk of catching all manner of interesting diseases due to the lack of sanitation. Happily, the brewing process killed off any bacteria in the water thus ensuring that those who drank beer had a higher survival rate than those who stuck to untreated water. Natural selection being what it is, Britain gradually became an island whose inhabitants were quite merrily (not to mention merry) accustomed to downing pint after pint of beer.
As a side note, in the Far East they got round the problem of impure water by adding leaves to it and boiling it, thus producing tea. I am given to believe that there is not such a hard drinking culture in the East and I'd be intrigued to know whether anyone has looked into whether there is any connection between this and the historical points mentioned above.
And our drinking culture has actually served us rather well historically. It kept the peasantry drunk and satisfied during the Middle Ages, thus allowing them to endure any number of upheavals caused by kings and kingmakers during this turbulent time. It also ensured that none of them strung enough thoughts together to realise just what an unutterably shitty deal they were getting out of life, a much understated value of alcohol. In the time of the British Empire, our adversaries (the ones that we didn't obliterate anyway) commented with amazement on the fact that our soldiers fought with such valor and tenacity for their daily pay, of which by far the most important component was a pint of rum. Yes, each man daily drank a pint of rum, a concept that even the hardest drinkers among you should regard with a measure of respect and amazement.
It is only recently that alcohol has started to become a hindrance to our status as a world player. Whilst keeping ones workers permanently pissed was considered advantageous when they were mill workers, labourers, soldiers, and subsistence farmers, it is less useful when trying to operate high-tech machinery, enter huge swathes of data into complicated computer systems, or work in any sort of high pressure business environment.
If one couples this with the reluctance to train people to any particular level of specialisation (presumably a hangover from our empire days where the upper classes preferred their subjects to be competent but not too bright so as not to highlight the failings of the upper class itself) then we can see that perhaps the government has one or two things to think about as they start making their plans for the new parliament.
This is not to say that I am becoming anti-alcohol; anyone who has ever been out with me will confirm that I have a long and meaningful love affair with all manner of wine and spirits. However, I do find it fascinating how we as a culture treat alcohol compared to the other drugs available for recreation. Alcohol, had it just been discovered, would almost certainly be criminalised as a class A drug due to the long term damage it causes to Liver, brain, heart etc, not to mention it's potential for overdose and addiction.
And addiction is what I am really driving at here. We shudder with horror at the thought of a heroin addict going through messy and painful withdrawal, and perhaps feel a sense of disdain at their lack of willpower for allowing themselves to get addicted in the first place. Okay, fine; I challenge you to give up alcohol for a year. Any takers? Come on, it's only a year! We expect drug users to give up their drugs for the rest of their lives, all I'm asking of you is a single year of not drinking alcohol, surely that's not too much to ask? But it is, isn't it? I don't imagine for a moment that I could give up drinking at this point in my life, and I salute anyone who thinks that they could.
I'm going to stop short of saying that we are a nation of people hopelessly addicted to a drug and that we are unable and unwilling to break that addiction (although the only reason I back away from saying something like that is due to my own unease at thinking in such terms even though this does seem to be the case). What I will finish on is by asking you to imagine a British society without alcohol and consider whether it would be better, and whether we would have nearly as much fun at weekends.
Were you at all drunk yesterday? Or over the weekend? I would certainly expect so bearing in mind that it's summer (despite the omnipresent rain) and your weekend will have been free of care. So can I safely assume that you had a typically British weekend and that your memories of it are somewhat hazy? Good...
It has been commented on that the British drink as if someone might suddenly take it away from them, and I am hard pressed to find any evidence to refute this. What does puzzle me is why we follow the same routine almost every weekend and with such little variation despite the fact that we invariably end up embarrassing either ourselves or our friends and are usually guilty of committing at least one act on a night out guaranteed to ensure one is left feeling foolish and awkward in the weeks to come.
However, if you were to talk to the person sitting nearest you right now about their weekend, I have little doubt that they will tell you what a fantastic time they had, wax boastfully as to the quantity of drink that they consumed, and perhaps even regale you with an outrageous tale of what happened when they/their friend/their pet finished their 12th pint and then ran into a policeman/former spouse/Lord Lucan. God knows, I'm pretty sure I would even though the events of the weekend passed are pretty much a blur to me. This is despite the fact that I felt dreadful for most of Saturday, remedied this by starting drinking in the early evening thus guaranteeing further nausea on Sunday which saw me becoming a permanent fixture on the sofa alongside a large bottle of Coca-Cola and a permanently babbling (though for the most part vacantly stared at) TV.
Realistically, rather than feeling satisfied at a weekend spent either drunk or recovering, I suppose I should be filled with mortification at a weekend wasted, with nothing achieved other than a Friday night spent ranting incoherent rubbish at Abby and Claire, the majority of which I can't even remember (I’d apologise, but I suspect that they may feel equal measure of mild embarrassment for having done exactly the same...). I'm not though (although this is the first time I've actually thought about this in any detail and I have to say, thus far I'm a little perturbed and may even go so far as to not get drunk this coming weekend) and I suspect that you would be surprised at me if I was.
Alcohol has always played a large part in British life and culture. Like the rest of Europe, we made use of brewing technology at a very early stage in history. In pre-Roman times, drinking water was a dangerous thing to do as one was at risk of catching all manner of interesting diseases due to the lack of sanitation. Happily, the brewing process killed off any bacteria in the water thus ensuring that those who drank beer had a higher survival rate than those who stuck to untreated water. Natural selection being what it is, Britain gradually became an island whose inhabitants were quite merrily (not to mention merry) accustomed to downing pint after pint of beer.
As a side note, in the Far East they got round the problem of impure water by adding leaves to it and boiling it, thus producing tea. I am given to believe that there is not such a hard drinking culture in the East and I'd be intrigued to know whether anyone has looked into whether there is any connection between this and the historical points mentioned above.
And our drinking culture has actually served us rather well historically. It kept the peasantry drunk and satisfied during the Middle Ages, thus allowing them to endure any number of upheavals caused by kings and kingmakers during this turbulent time. It also ensured that none of them strung enough thoughts together to realise just what an unutterably shitty deal they were getting out of life, a much understated value of alcohol. In the time of the British Empire, our adversaries (the ones that we didn't obliterate anyway) commented with amazement on the fact that our soldiers fought with such valor and tenacity for their daily pay, of which by far the most important component was a pint of rum. Yes, each man daily drank a pint of rum, a concept that even the hardest drinkers among you should regard with a measure of respect and amazement.
It is only recently that alcohol has started to become a hindrance to our status as a world player. Whilst keeping ones workers permanently pissed was considered advantageous when they were mill workers, labourers, soldiers, and subsistence farmers, it is less useful when trying to operate high-tech machinery, enter huge swathes of data into complicated computer systems, or work in any sort of high pressure business environment.
If one couples this with the reluctance to train people to any particular level of specialisation (presumably a hangover from our empire days where the upper classes preferred their subjects to be competent but not too bright so as not to highlight the failings of the upper class itself) then we can see that perhaps the government has one or two things to think about as they start making their plans for the new parliament.
This is not to say that I am becoming anti-alcohol; anyone who has ever been out with me will confirm that I have a long and meaningful love affair with all manner of wine and spirits. However, I do find it fascinating how we as a culture treat alcohol compared to the other drugs available for recreation. Alcohol, had it just been discovered, would almost certainly be criminalised as a class A drug due to the long term damage it causes to Liver, brain, heart etc, not to mention it's potential for overdose and addiction.
And addiction is what I am really driving at here. We shudder with horror at the thought of a heroin addict going through messy and painful withdrawal, and perhaps feel a sense of disdain at their lack of willpower for allowing themselves to get addicted in the first place. Okay, fine; I challenge you to give up alcohol for a year. Any takers? Come on, it's only a year! We expect drug users to give up their drugs for the rest of their lives, all I'm asking of you is a single year of not drinking alcohol, surely that's not too much to ask? But it is, isn't it? I don't imagine for a moment that I could give up drinking at this point in my life, and I salute anyone who thinks that they could.
I'm going to stop short of saying that we are a nation of people hopelessly addicted to a drug and that we are unable and unwilling to break that addiction (although the only reason I back away from saying something like that is due to my own unease at thinking in such terms even though this does seem to be the case). What I will finish on is by asking you to imagine a British society without alcohol and consider whether it would be better, and whether we would have nearly as much fun at weekends.
Thursday 7 June 2001
A Cruel and Unusual Punishment
I stand by my opinions in this rant. And as a side note, I've gained great amusement from watching those who condemn the death penalty in all circumstances struggling to provide justifiable exceptions for the execution of Saddam Hussein.
As you are no doubt getting piss sick of me babbling endlessly about the election, and as by now you will have made the decision of whether to vote and who to vote for, I shall resist the temptation to discuss today’s national trip to the polling station (apart from just there obviously...). In fact, I feel that perhaps my near obsession with exhorting you to vote may have perhaps driven you away from me somewhat. This of course worries me, because I want to feel as if we're one big happy family, and so I've had a good hard think about what I could discuss to perhaps win you back over. And then it came to me in a blinding flash; what better to reduce you to a helpless state of belly laughter than a rant about the death penalty!
My mind has been set thinking along this well trodden path by the ongoing saga of Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled to be executed on Monday for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
This is the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" has kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself has also been much discussed and rejected (although it is to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me most satisfyingly, had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being fucking stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. This is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death is fast becoming a sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
As you are no doubt getting piss sick of me babbling endlessly about the election, and as by now you will have made the decision of whether to vote and who to vote for, I shall resist the temptation to discuss today’s national trip to the polling station (apart from just there obviously...). In fact, I feel that perhaps my near obsession with exhorting you to vote may have perhaps driven you away from me somewhat. This of course worries me, because I want to feel as if we're one big happy family, and so I've had a good hard think about what I could discuss to perhaps win you back over. And then it came to me in a blinding flash; what better to reduce you to a helpless state of belly laughter than a rant about the death penalty!
My mind has been set thinking along this well trodden path by the ongoing saga of Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled to be executed on Monday for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
This is the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" has kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself has also been much discussed and rejected (although it is to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me most satisfyingly, had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being fucking stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. This is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death is fast becoming a sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
Wednesday 6 June 2001
The End of an Empire
I'm by no means the only person to compare the US to the Roman Empire. I'm not even the funniest (step forward Eddie Izzard). I do like to pretend I'm one of the best.
And so it is that I find a piece of news that goes some way to confirming what anybody who observed the debacle that was the US Presidential election had long since either known or suspected; that Dubya is in the White House thanks entirely to the scheming and underhand machinations of his brother Jeb. Co-incidentally the man who is Governor of Florida. Co-incidentally, the state where all of the controversy over vote counting and voting irregularities was centered. Co-incidentally the state that won the election for Dubya.
Essentially, the US civil rights commission have found that good 'ol Jeb is guilty of a gross and negligent dereliction of duty by failing to address any of the massive number of problems that either prevented people from casting their votes in the first place or guaranteed that those who did vote would do so incorrectly, thus spoiling their ballot papers. "Fair enough" you may think, "so Jeb is an incompetent and inefficient politician; nothing special there, and his failures will have affected all voters, not just the Democrats".
Well, to be blunt, you'd be wrong. For starters, black voters were 10 times more likely to lose their votes in Florida. Historically, black people have predominantly voted Democrat, so amazingly enough Jeb's failure benefited Dubya...who would have thunk it?! (Incidentally, the reasons as to how it was black voters who suffered because of the cock ups range from the bureaucratic, such as barring people from voting who had the same name as a convicted felon; as half of Florida's prison population is black one can see how this caused problems. There are also the more sinister occurrences such as the State Troopers setting up multiple roadblocks and random spot checks on cars and people, all of which was done in predominantly black neighbourhoods)
Essentially, he helped to guarantee that the affluent white areas that were inclined to Republican could, and that the poorer minority areas that were inclined to vote Democrat, could not.
So then, just one more example of how Democracy can be corrupted, twisted, and used to the benefit of a few. Now that Dubya is in, he is doing his utmost to use his power for the benefit of his friends in big business by introducing tax cuts, allowing oil drilling in Alaska, and trying to manufacture an energy crisis in California (the latter two are being derailed since the defection of a Republican senator). Speaking frankly, I am getting piss sick of being let down by our supposedly fair system of democracy, and at the risk of sounding like some sort of anarchist, I think it's getting near the time where we need to rewrite the rules so that the system actually works, or risk losing the whole damn thing and having to start again.
You may think me somewhat...excitable in thinking like this. You may even think I'm completely round the twist. In my defence I would say this; if you had said to a citizen of the Roman Empire living in the reign of the Emperor Trajan (about 100AD) that in a little over 200 years the empire would crack and fall they would have laughed you out of Rome (after having marveled at your funny clothes...and assuming that they understood a word you said as well...actually, this isn't a very good example at all if I analyse it too closely but let's ignore that for now).
The Roman parallel can be drawn with various other points of our society; I have previously made the point that under our democracy, the wielding of power is dependent on being elected by the people. The people are made rather more malleable by a press that helps keeps us stupid and help to think as little as possible (and if that sounds paranoid, bear in mind that The Sun is the best selling newspaper in this country) and so the process of election of our leaders becomes little more than a vacuous popularity contest. On that basis, the current government will do whatever it takes to keep them popular with the people in order to get themselves re-elected. As they are in power for less than 5 years, they have to do something within that time in order to keep the masses satisfied, and so they will always take a quick and temporary solution over a difficult to implement but ultimately long term solution. We don't have a society, we have a 5-year cycle.
In Rome before the emperors the same held true. The wielders of supreme power were known as Consuls. The citizens elected them for 1-year terms. The citizenry could be influenced by bribery and so the process of election of their leaders became a contest between the rich. However, as the people then were rather more fickle than they are now, no Consul would ever take for granted being re-elected (before the first Dictator of Rome, a bloke named Marius, no-one had been Consul more than 7 times) and so would not authorize any public works that would not be completed within their term. This short-term thinking led to the gradual, almost imperceptible decline and fall of the Roman Republic, then the Empire afterwards.
You may have heard of the saying "He who does not heed history is doomed to repeat it". To an extent, this is true, although not entirely. Circumstances now are not exactly the same as they were then; we do not have endless waves of Barbarians threatening our borders (unless you count the French...) and they do not have complexity of Global Economics and Globalisation. I've also oversimplified one or two points from Roman History so as to save you from excruciating boredom. But the basic principles are there. I would say that Rome initially had the right idea in that they limited the right to vote to citizens. In principle, this was a sensible move, although they went about it the wrong way because they used predominantly financial criteria to decide who became a citizen. In today’s world where we have 1 man = 1 vote, this means that you and I can vote for our leaders. At the risk of sounding like an elitist, this also means that the any Tasha Slappa and charva over the age of 18 can also vote. If someone appeals to the lowest common denominator then they will get elected. Quite frightening really, isn't it?
So what is to be done? Once again, Laidler cops out and states that he doesn't rightly know. Some sort of citizenship exam would be a good idea but as to how to implement that, I couldn't say. To save me from the accusation of being in favour of a Nazi-like state, I should also make it clear that any such system would have to ensure that people who don't have the vote have all of the same rights (bar voting of course) and treatment on the same level as those who do. By saying that, and knowing human nature the way I do, I've undoubtedly consigned the whole thing to the status of "Pipe-dream".
Regardless of what needs to be done to remedy the current democratic crisis, I hope that I have at least gone some way to impressing on you that there is one. I wholeheartedly believe that there is, and I dearly hope that there is something that can be done to make the transition from this system to whatever is coming next a little easier than the upheavals that were suffered by Rome. As in all things, time will tell.
And so it is that I find a piece of news that goes some way to confirming what anybody who observed the debacle that was the US Presidential election had long since either known or suspected; that Dubya is in the White House thanks entirely to the scheming and underhand machinations of his brother Jeb. Co-incidentally the man who is Governor of Florida. Co-incidentally, the state where all of the controversy over vote counting and voting irregularities was centered. Co-incidentally the state that won the election for Dubya.
Essentially, the US civil rights commission have found that good 'ol Jeb is guilty of a gross and negligent dereliction of duty by failing to address any of the massive number of problems that either prevented people from casting their votes in the first place or guaranteed that those who did vote would do so incorrectly, thus spoiling their ballot papers. "Fair enough" you may think, "so Jeb is an incompetent and inefficient politician; nothing special there, and his failures will have affected all voters, not just the Democrats".
Well, to be blunt, you'd be wrong. For starters, black voters were 10 times more likely to lose their votes in Florida. Historically, black people have predominantly voted Democrat, so amazingly enough Jeb's failure benefited Dubya...who would have thunk it?! (Incidentally, the reasons as to how it was black voters who suffered because of the cock ups range from the bureaucratic, such as barring people from voting who had the same name as a convicted felon; as half of Florida's prison population is black one can see how this caused problems. There are also the more sinister occurrences such as the State Troopers setting up multiple roadblocks and random spot checks on cars and people, all of which was done in predominantly black neighbourhoods)
Essentially, he helped to guarantee that the affluent white areas that were inclined to Republican could, and that the poorer minority areas that were inclined to vote Democrat, could not.
So then, just one more example of how Democracy can be corrupted, twisted, and used to the benefit of a few. Now that Dubya is in, he is doing his utmost to use his power for the benefit of his friends in big business by introducing tax cuts, allowing oil drilling in Alaska, and trying to manufacture an energy crisis in California (the latter two are being derailed since the defection of a Republican senator). Speaking frankly, I am getting piss sick of being let down by our supposedly fair system of democracy, and at the risk of sounding like some sort of anarchist, I think it's getting near the time where we need to rewrite the rules so that the system actually works, or risk losing the whole damn thing and having to start again.
You may think me somewhat...excitable in thinking like this. You may even think I'm completely round the twist. In my defence I would say this; if you had said to a citizen of the Roman Empire living in the reign of the Emperor Trajan (about 100AD) that in a little over 200 years the empire would crack and fall they would have laughed you out of Rome (after having marveled at your funny clothes...and assuming that they understood a word you said as well...actually, this isn't a very good example at all if I analyse it too closely but let's ignore that for now).
The Roman parallel can be drawn with various other points of our society; I have previously made the point that under our democracy, the wielding of power is dependent on being elected by the people. The people are made rather more malleable by a press that helps keeps us stupid and help to think as little as possible (and if that sounds paranoid, bear in mind that The Sun is the best selling newspaper in this country) and so the process of election of our leaders becomes little more than a vacuous popularity contest. On that basis, the current government will do whatever it takes to keep them popular with the people in order to get themselves re-elected. As they are in power for less than 5 years, they have to do something within that time in order to keep the masses satisfied, and so they will always take a quick and temporary solution over a difficult to implement but ultimately long term solution. We don't have a society, we have a 5-year cycle.
In Rome before the emperors the same held true. The wielders of supreme power were known as Consuls. The citizens elected them for 1-year terms. The citizenry could be influenced by bribery and so the process of election of their leaders became a contest between the rich. However, as the people then were rather more fickle than they are now, no Consul would ever take for granted being re-elected (before the first Dictator of Rome, a bloke named Marius, no-one had been Consul more than 7 times) and so would not authorize any public works that would not be completed within their term. This short-term thinking led to the gradual, almost imperceptible decline and fall of the Roman Republic, then the Empire afterwards.
You may have heard of the saying "He who does not heed history is doomed to repeat it". To an extent, this is true, although not entirely. Circumstances now are not exactly the same as they were then; we do not have endless waves of Barbarians threatening our borders (unless you count the French...) and they do not have complexity of Global Economics and Globalisation. I've also oversimplified one or two points from Roman History so as to save you from excruciating boredom. But the basic principles are there. I would say that Rome initially had the right idea in that they limited the right to vote to citizens. In principle, this was a sensible move, although they went about it the wrong way because they used predominantly financial criteria to decide who became a citizen. In today’s world where we have 1 man = 1 vote, this means that you and I can vote for our leaders. At the risk of sounding like an elitist, this also means that the any Tasha Slappa and charva over the age of 18 can also vote. If someone appeals to the lowest common denominator then they will get elected. Quite frightening really, isn't it?
So what is to be done? Once again, Laidler cops out and states that he doesn't rightly know. Some sort of citizenship exam would be a good idea but as to how to implement that, I couldn't say. To save me from the accusation of being in favour of a Nazi-like state, I should also make it clear that any such system would have to ensure that people who don't have the vote have all of the same rights (bar voting of course) and treatment on the same level as those who do. By saying that, and knowing human nature the way I do, I've undoubtedly consigned the whole thing to the status of "Pipe-dream".
Regardless of what needs to be done to remedy the current democratic crisis, I hope that I have at least gone some way to impressing on you that there is one. I wholeheartedly believe that there is, and I dearly hope that there is something that can be done to make the transition from this system to whatever is coming next a little easier than the upheavals that were suffered by Rome. As in all things, time will tell.
Tuesday 5 June 2001
Evictions and Elections
Written at a time when both Big Brother and the idea of the Tories winning were novelties.
Have you had much of a chance to watch TV recently? If so you will doubtless be aware that by the end of this week, a voting process will have taken place. The choice is a one that is currently dividing the nation and has seen heated debate throughout the media. Both of the main candidates have their supporters and detractors, although the more sensible observers are already discussing the merits of tactical voting, and what the future could possibly hold once all the votes are counted. Yes, the first nominees for eviction from Big Brother have been announced.
Looking back on that paragraph, it's quite obvious that I was trying to be a bit clever and ambiguous in order to make you think I was talking about the General Election. However, it occurs to me that when one bears in mind the projected percentages of people who will vote a lot of people would probably have assumed that I was talking about either Big Brother or Survivor anyway. I may even have reminded you about the election itself, so low has its profile been in comparison. What a waste of a perfectly adequate journalistic device. Bugger...
Although, perhaps not such a waste after all. It certainly puts our priorities as a nation into perspective. According to some poll or other, more people aged 18-25 will vote for the Big Brother eviction than will vote in the General Election. To put it another way, we care more about a gameshow than we care for who runs our country. Now I like Big Brother and watch it frequently, but as it does not and is not likely to directly affect my quality of life in the future, it comes a fairly distant second to Thursday’s election for me. I also appreciate just what a boring little git that makes me sound like, but please let me explain...
At the risk of repeating myself from earlier rants, it is very important that we get up of our collective backsides and go to the polling stations on Thursday. Even if you're going to vote Tory, you should go to the Polls. Christ, turn up and write "Wibble" and draw pictures of flowers on the ballot paper if you like (were it not for the LibDems I'm damn sure that's what I would do...) just please turn up!
If it seems a little strange that I should be so vehement about this (as I'm not noted for getting my proverbials in a twist about many things), then perhaps I should throw a few figures at you. I'm aware that it is said that you can prove anything with statistics, but you can prove anything with facts as well, and that is what the following are.
It is estimated that 40% of the voting population will not cast a vote at this election. Of course, that does mean that the majority of people will, and in that sense we're doing better than American democracy can manage at the moment. But 40% is a hell of large minority. To put it into perspective, Hague needs a swing of about 9% in his favour to win. That's not very much at all! And that also makes it eminently possible that we could wake up on Friday morning to see a shorter and almost 67% gittier looking PM grinning back at us from outside 10 Downing Street. I'd call that a much scarier prospect than any challenge Big Brother can throw at someone...
Now, I'd imagine that the 40% don't vote because they either can't be bothered or because they think it won't make a difference. To address the latter point first, it most certainly does make a difference. Perhaps not if one limits oneself to thinking in terms of Conservative versus Labour, but if those 40% were to vote LibDem, we'd have a LibDem government. Aside from the fact that this would be rather funny because they would panic if they did get into power (I can picture Charles Kennedy being awoken by a phone call in the early hours of Friday morning..."Hello...yes.... we’ve WHAT?! Are you sure? You do know that this is LibDem HQ don't you?") this would be a good thing for democracy in general. Even if more people voted for any of the other parties, it would perhaps cause the big two to think a bit more carefully about how they form their policies during the next parliament as it would be clear that they run the risk of either having to share power with a third party (The Labour-LibDem axis facing the Conservative-Monster Raving Loony Alliance) or losing any chance of power altogether.
As to the former point, short of using electrified cattle prods to shift people from their sofa's that are perfectly molded to their backsides and forcing them to take 5 minutes of their attention away from the one eyed beast that is their God, I see little that can be done. Unless...
Why not simply combine reality TV with the election? At the beginning of the election campaign we put all of the leaders of the major parties in the Big Brother house to be observed 24 hours a day. We can have Tony, Billy, and Charlie in there, and we don't have to stop with Big Brother. If we stick a couple of scantily clad lingerie models in with them we can incorporate Temptation Island. Don't give them any food except rat meat, rice, and whatever insects and grubs they can catch and hey presto, we have Survivor in there as well! Not only will the percentage of votes increase (Because votes will also be able to be cast by phone, thus catering for anyone who doesn't want to leave their house for anything other than work or the pub) but also we'll have the best and most entertaining election campaign in History! Surely that has to be worth voting for.
Have you had much of a chance to watch TV recently? If so you will doubtless be aware that by the end of this week, a voting process will have taken place. The choice is a one that is currently dividing the nation and has seen heated debate throughout the media. Both of the main candidates have their supporters and detractors, although the more sensible observers are already discussing the merits of tactical voting, and what the future could possibly hold once all the votes are counted. Yes, the first nominees for eviction from Big Brother have been announced.
Looking back on that paragraph, it's quite obvious that I was trying to be a bit clever and ambiguous in order to make you think I was talking about the General Election. However, it occurs to me that when one bears in mind the projected percentages of people who will vote a lot of people would probably have assumed that I was talking about either Big Brother or Survivor anyway. I may even have reminded you about the election itself, so low has its profile been in comparison. What a waste of a perfectly adequate journalistic device. Bugger...
Although, perhaps not such a waste after all. It certainly puts our priorities as a nation into perspective. According to some poll or other, more people aged 18-25 will vote for the Big Brother eviction than will vote in the General Election. To put it another way, we care more about a gameshow than we care for who runs our country. Now I like Big Brother and watch it frequently, but as it does not and is not likely to directly affect my quality of life in the future, it comes a fairly distant second to Thursday’s election for me. I also appreciate just what a boring little git that makes me sound like, but please let me explain...
At the risk of repeating myself from earlier rants, it is very important that we get up of our collective backsides and go to the polling stations on Thursday. Even if you're going to vote Tory, you should go to the Polls. Christ, turn up and write "Wibble" and draw pictures of flowers on the ballot paper if you like (were it not for the LibDems I'm damn sure that's what I would do...) just please turn up!
If it seems a little strange that I should be so vehement about this (as I'm not noted for getting my proverbials in a twist about many things), then perhaps I should throw a few figures at you. I'm aware that it is said that you can prove anything with statistics, but you can prove anything with facts as well, and that is what the following are.
It is estimated that 40% of the voting population will not cast a vote at this election. Of course, that does mean that the majority of people will, and in that sense we're doing better than American democracy can manage at the moment. But 40% is a hell of large minority. To put it into perspective, Hague needs a swing of about 9% in his favour to win. That's not very much at all! And that also makes it eminently possible that we could wake up on Friday morning to see a shorter and almost 67% gittier looking PM grinning back at us from outside 10 Downing Street. I'd call that a much scarier prospect than any challenge Big Brother can throw at someone...
Now, I'd imagine that the 40% don't vote because they either can't be bothered or because they think it won't make a difference. To address the latter point first, it most certainly does make a difference. Perhaps not if one limits oneself to thinking in terms of Conservative versus Labour, but if those 40% were to vote LibDem, we'd have a LibDem government. Aside from the fact that this would be rather funny because they would panic if they did get into power (I can picture Charles Kennedy being awoken by a phone call in the early hours of Friday morning..."Hello...yes.... we’ve WHAT?! Are you sure? You do know that this is LibDem HQ don't you?") this would be a good thing for democracy in general. Even if more people voted for any of the other parties, it would perhaps cause the big two to think a bit more carefully about how they form their policies during the next parliament as it would be clear that they run the risk of either having to share power with a third party (The Labour-LibDem axis facing the Conservative-Monster Raving Loony Alliance) or losing any chance of power altogether.
As to the former point, short of using electrified cattle prods to shift people from their sofa's that are perfectly molded to their backsides and forcing them to take 5 minutes of their attention away from the one eyed beast that is their God, I see little that can be done. Unless...
Why not simply combine reality TV with the election? At the beginning of the election campaign we put all of the leaders of the major parties in the Big Brother house to be observed 24 hours a day. We can have Tony, Billy, and Charlie in there, and we don't have to stop with Big Brother. If we stick a couple of scantily clad lingerie models in with them we can incorporate Temptation Island. Don't give them any food except rat meat, rice, and whatever insects and grubs they can catch and hey presto, we have Survivor in there as well! Not only will the percentage of votes increase (Because votes will also be able to be cast by phone, thus catering for anyone who doesn't want to leave their house for anything other than work or the pub) but also we'll have the best and most entertaining election campaign in History! Surely that has to be worth voting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)