Politics: Not Boring

I have mixed and confused feelings when it comes to voting. On the one hand, I believe everyone should be compelled to vote. On the other, I can see exactly why so few people have faith in the power of the vote.





It’s about that time of the year when the weather gets duller. The skies become greyer with each passing hour, the leaves have long since stopped being a myriad of colours, and chill winds blast icy needles through anyone unfortunate enough to be caught outside. All in all, it seems like the perfect time to talk about politics.

Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.

But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?

Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.

Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”

So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?

It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.

So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.

And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.

Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.

This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.

So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).

So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?

You know you gotta have faith

Since I was a teenager, I've been fascinated with the idea of faith (and yes, I was something of a geeky teen...). At first, it was religious faith that interested me. I couldn't for the life of me understand why otherwise sensible and rational people would live their lives according to a set of principles that evolved over a thousand years ago, the lynchpin of which was a mythical father figure of who's existence there is no proof at all. I wanted to know what drove these people to their conclusion that a particular faith was best suited to them, what made them reject the alternative faiths on offer, and most of all I wanted to know whether these gullible fools would be interested in buying these magic beans I had for sale.

But as time has passed, I've thought about faith a little more (which just goes to show how boring life can be in Newcastle) and I've gradually and belatedly come to realise that faith isn't just limited to religion. We are constantly encouraged to show faith in, for example, our employers who have our best interests at heart, so have faith and don't ask too many questions about why pay rises are heading the same way as the Dodo. Or our government; Tony Blair and Dubya in particular are fond of using their opportunist religious principles to support their calls for us to have faith in them, so don't look too closely at what they're doing because it'll all work out for your benefit, honest. Unsurprisingly, we in the west are now completely cynical about having faith in anything; in general we greet whatever new soul-sapping announcement is guaranteed to make ones life that little bit less enjoyable with black humour and a wry smile. On the plus side, this means that religion no longer has the influence it once did on everyday life. On the down side, it means that we are losing the most important item of faith that we have; faith in ourselves.

Of course, I say that we're losing that aspect of faith; it has never exactly been widespread anyway. If one looks back through history, we've never really been encouraged to have any faith in ourselves as individuals. It has always suited whoever was on the top of the social heap to make us think that, in order to make anything out of our lives, we would need to rely on those in charge. The message has always been "Trust in your leaders, because if you don't then the world will turn to sloppy dogshit". We're indoctrinated with that belief and have been since the dawn of civilisation. Because of that, it is a very special person indeed who has enough faith in himself or herself to take chances in their life and follow a different path from the norm. And, human nature being what it is, those rare and precious few invariably take up a position in what could loosely be termed the ruling classes of society and become part of the same system that tries to keep people down.

Now, I'm not enough of an anarchist to follow this train of thought through to the conclusion "We need no leaders if we all have faith in ourselves". Frankly, although I think the idea that we could live in a world without leaders is a lovely one, human nature being what it is, we'd almost certainly find ourselves in a situation that closely resembled hell on earth. But on the other hand (and this is a very naive thing to say), surely having large numbers of self-confident people who are willing to think for themselves is good for society as a whole? How can it profit a government to keep the population timid and meek, accepting of their lot in life no matter how indifferent it may be?

The obvious answer is, of course, because the ruling classes are not interested in anyone other than themselves. The general populace needs to be kept fearful and paranoid in order to keep them in power? No problem; just look at the constant propaganda we see in the media telling us to be afraid of bombs and of evil terrorists. Look at the Anthrax scare in America ("No, please no! Not anthrax!! Not the disease that is easily curable by anti-biotics!! Nooooooooo!!!"), or the pointless evacuation exercise that took place in London last weekend. We would seem to faced with a contradiction; the people we elect to power to serve our interests will gladly sacrifice those interests in order to remain in power. All because we don't have enough faith in ourselves to stand up and say "Actually, I'm not happy with the way things are being done." We fear being ridiculed for doing so, and that fear and lack of faith keeps us paralysed and allows those fortunate enough to have a measure of control over their lives to extend that control over ours.

Not surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to discontent. In particular we are seeing that discontent among the people of the Islamic world, who have long been burdened with oppressive and unrepresentative governments who use religious faith as a tool for political control. To put things in perspective, I'm sat here complaining about the lack of control I am afforded in my life, but at least I am not in danger of being imprisoned by my government for doing so. Yet how is this discontent being expressed (or at least, how is the majority of that discontent being expressed)? By putting faith in organisations that remain equally unrepresentative of their supporters and have their own agenda which invariably involves replacing the current ruling classes of their society with the leadership of the organisation. This is true of Al-Quaida in all it's many and varied forms, of Hamas, of Islamic Jihad, of the ultra-violent Islamic rebels of North Africa. All of these so-called revolutionaries are equally dependant on discouraging people from having any faith in themselves, and encouraging them to believe that their problems can only be dealt with by the leaders of the organisation.

In abusing the trust of the very people whom they are meant to serve, governments are effectively sowing the seeds of their own destruction. We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullbollocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. Isn't it time to stop placing all of our hopes in groups who couldn't care less about us, and only view us as a means to gain power and control over their own destiny? Isn't it time we started to think a little more of ourselves, of our own potential, and act on it? Or will we simply wait for the group of our choice to tell us that it's okay to have a little self-belief? Time will tell I suppose, but I can only hope that we start to believe in ourselves long before there is no other option.

You are NOT welcome here

This came from a mixture of genuine concern that Iraq would collapse into a bloodbath as soon as coalition troops left, and the incredibly patronising and parochial belief that we (The UK) could make even the slightest difference to that inevitability.



So then; Iraq.

I find myself following a rather odd school of thought these days when it comes to Iraq. On the one hand I still believe that the whole war was not much more than a fairly shabby land grab. The Hutton enquiry is starting to hint at just how many lies and half-truths we were told by our government in order to get support for the war. The various reasons that were used to justify it have been all but discredited (WOMD: Where are they? Links to Al-Quaida: there are now more Islamic militants operating in Iraq than there were before the war. Liberating the people of Iraq: How come the US and UK are happy to support other brutal dictators across the world?), and we are left with the rather depressing sight of politicians using smoke and mirrors to try and help us forget just how questionable all of the evidence actually was. If you've been following the '45 minutes' row between the BBC and the government you might have noticed that...well, its not hugely important. Happily the Hutton enquiry might help bury that little bout of handbags and allow more investigation of how questionable the intelligence was in the first place

Okay, so that's a quick summary of why I don't think the war should have happened in the first place. With all that said, I also find that I don't actually want the coalition troops to leave Iraq now that they're there. And why not? Well, not because I'm taking smug satisfaction in seeing the UK troops making a far better job of peacekeeping than the US army (though I'd be lying if I said I wasn't...patriotism sometimes shows itself in the most absurd ways). No, it's because I'm inclined to think that the whole country would collapse into a pretty spectacular bloodbath if our troops did just pack up and leave.

I've arrived at this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite what those war-hungry little bags of sh*t on the political right would have you believe, I'm immensely happy to see the end of Saddam's regime in Iraq. However, the one advantage to having he and his delightful family in charge of the country was that it kept a lid on all of the other tensions that were simmering away. Admittedly, he did this by torturing and murdering large numbers of people, but because of his organised brutality a lot of disorganised brutality didn't happen.

Now that Saddam has gone, what is to stop that disorganised violence from taking a grip of Iraq? I mean, what would stop the Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq from continuing the ethnic battles that have simmered since Iraq's creation? What would stop Turkey taking what it sees as it's dues in Northern Iraq? What would stop the Shia and Sunni Moslems from extending their disagreements on the best way to love ones fellow man, to the violence that is a hallmark of religious disagreement?

The only thing at the moment that would stop it is the coalition troops. We've not heard much from the Kurdish area of Iraq, and that is thanks in the main to the presence of the troops. So far, Turkey have been discouraged from making any aggressive moves by the presence of US soldiers. And although the Arab population are being none-too-gently persuaded by the Kurds to get off their land, it is at least being done with a certain measure of restraint (certainly compared to the poison gas that Saddam used to persuade the Kurds to move in the first place) thanks to the presence of American Troops. Neither have we heard much about religious strife, though the continuing and increasingly confrontational proclamations of the Shia clerics in Iraq make it pretty clear that it is still an option.

In fact, all we generally do hear about in Iraq is the mounting body count of allied troops, or the absolute ineptitude of some or them in their peacekeeping duties. With regard to the former, more troops have died since the war ended than did during the war itself. Many people on the political left are using this as ammunition for their belief that the war should not have happened. To an extent, I agree with them. But it's also being used to justify why the coalition should pull out of Iraq altogether. Now to me this seems like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. The political left gave several very valid humanitarian reasons in the arguments as to why the war should not start. Yet some of them seem happy to ignore the inevitable humanitarian disaster that would occur if the troops did leave. I like to win arguments (no, really), but I stop short of wanting to win them at the cost of thousands of innocent dead. That seems a high price to pay for the privilege of saying "I told you so".

As to the ineptitude...well, lets not mince words here; most of those accusations have been levelled at American troops in central Iraq (particularly Baghdad). It's unfair to say that they are the only troops at fault; anyone familiar with the UK's history in Northern Ireland will have little difficulty believing that the killing of UK troops in Basra was due in part (or perhaps in it's entirety) to heavy handedness on the part of the soldiers. But by and large, the media are concentrating on the US troops.

Now I'm not going to defend them; they've made some horrendous cockups (at the cost of innocent Iraqi's being killed; not an ideal way to make the locals think well of the troops) and I would hope that the troops involved will be held accountable. Neither does the claim "Well, they're soldiers and not peacekeepers so what do you expect?" hold much weight with me. Peacekeeping duties are part of a soldier’s role in peacetime, so if it's a part of their job then it's not too much to ask of them to do it properly.

However, I am going to sympathise with them to a certain extent. Iraq is a powderkeg of a country, and keeping a lid on it using methods other than the brutality of Saddam must be one hell of a difficult task. All in all, it seems to me that the incidents where troops sow more fear and mistrust in Iraq are outweighed by the (largely unreported) incidents where there is no trouble to speak of. Admittedly, I could be wrong in that regard; maybe the troops are endlessly adding to the tension in Iraq. But the fact that there have so far been no en masse riots running for days would seem to indicate that most of the troops are doing a good job most of the time.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although the legality of the war and continued occupation is questionable at best, the reality of the situation is that somebody's troops need to be there. Not that anyone should expect either the US or UK to be too concerned with trifling little niggles such as international law; Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two British civilians held at Guantanamo Bay) are apparently about to confess to a war crime. Bearing in mind that America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war? There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners? America is successfully applying the rules to others but not to themselves.

Anyway, griping aside the reality of this situation is that the UN still don't have a role, so for now it has to be the coalition. The alternative is not a very pleasant thought.

My little runaway

I was trying to say something about the sexualisation of children in this rant. Whether I succeeded or not is a matter for debate.




You may or may not be aware of the UK headlines today. Shevaun Pennington, a 12-year-old girl from Wigan, has run off to France with 31-year-old Toby Studebaker, a former US marine. Apparently the two of them met over the Internet, both pretended that they were in their late teens, and at least one of the two met with the other with thoughts of marriage and children on their minds.

Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;

"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'

Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.

Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?

Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".

She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave the first shit, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.

Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.

Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick bastard won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.

Do ya think I'm sexy?

The play was called Cooking With Elvis, and if you ever get a chance to see it I urge you to do so. It's hilarious and moving in equal measure. And you'll see a man get his cock out. Who could ask for more?



In a couple of month’s time, I will be in a play that will find me onstage and as naked as the day I was born. Naturally, were it not for the fact that I'm so damned sexy, I'd be shitting my pants to the point of overflowing. And predictably enough, everyone whom I've told has asked "Aren't you embarrassed?". To which the answer is "No; should I be? Do I have anything to be embarrassed about? It's my body, I'm rather fond of it, and if other people want to come along and have a look at it...well, more power to 'em!"

But, me being me, all those blushing and giggling questioners did set me off thinking; why do we seem to have such a huge hang up on body image in our society? Especially where women are concerned, but increasingly with men as well. I mean, we live in a time when the NHS farts and collapses every time there is a flu epidemic, but where men can also have operations to implant fake muscles into their chests. I'm a first class pervert, and am the first to admit that I have no problem with silicon breasts. But silicone pecs...is it just me, or does that seem like vanity taken to the point of parody?

Everyone, men and women, seems to feel that they are under increasing pressure to have a certain shaped body, a particular size waist, a specific weight range. Why is this? As far as I can see, it seems to be down to insecurity about ourselves and the way we look. But when did self-centred vanity become the accepted way to express this insecurity? Did we, as a society, inch slowly towards that all by ourselves? Or did we receive a helping hand along the way?

Naturally, when looking for something to blame for a fault in society, we will turn our attention to the media. The media gets a lot of bad press (if you'll pardon the pun) in this regard; I'm sure everyone is familiar with the somewhat schizophrenic approach taken by the print media towards body image. On page 4 we will be told of the anguish caused by the increase in anorexia and bulimia among young women, and what could perhaps be done to stop it. Then page 5 will, in scandalised tones, launch an epic flurry of claws and handbags at whichever celebrity happens to have been snapped with his/her stomach being anything less than washboard flat.

In the past, I've always had the same opinion when it comes to criticising any media for what they do; if you don't like it, don't read or watch it. There's not exactly a dearth of newspapers, lifestyle magazines, TV, or radio programs to choose from, so choose one more to your liking. After all, we're adults and are capable of making our own choices. That is still my opinion, but I have had cause to add a caveat to it; sometimes we have no choice in the matter. Sometimes something permeates so many different parts of the media on so many levels that we're left with little option but to be aware of it. There can't be many people in the UK who remain blissfully unaware of the continuing saga of Victoria Beckham, her appearance, her weight, and her husband (and anyone who has stayed unaware is a lucky, lucky bastard...). However, just because we are all aware of something, doesn't mean we have to actually pay any attention to it, or give it any credence.

(As a side note, I should really confess that I've found myself modifying my opinions of films or albums based on favourable write-ups in magazines. Curiously, I'm not really ashamed to admit that...maybe that's just because I've never read a magazine that's told me I should be)

The thing is though, if it is the media, then why do we go out and buy or watch the image-obsessed dross that is cluttering up newsagents and TV stations? I mean, they wouldn't be successful if we had no interest in them, yet we weekly spend a sum equivalent to the third world national debt on ladmags/'lifestyle' mags (as women insist on calling the froth that fills the pages of Cosmo et al)/scandal rags. It seems odd that the media gets so much of the blame for our growing obsession with body image, when one could build a convincing case that they are merely responding to what the public wants.

Which leads us to the obvious question; why is this what the public want? Why do we want the perfect body, even at the expense of having a remotely enjoyable life. I mean, I've known a few people with eating disorders, and the misery that they caused themselves trying to sculpt their body to someone else’s idea of perfection far outweighed any misery they had felt for being overweight/ugly. To me, it seems bizarre that no-one stops to think "Hang on; I only weigh as much as a packet of crisps now, I have hunger pains all the time, and my body chemistry is completely screwed due to malnutrition. Hmm...yeah, I must be happy with my weight!".

I'm taking the proverbial to an extent there; eating disorders are a mental illness, and expecting someone to think logically about anything when in the throes of mental illness is unreasonable of me. Couldn't we therefore say that society's body image hang up is a widespread form of mental illness? Well...perhaps, but not everyone with an obsession over body image ends up with an eating disorder. So perhaps it is a mistake for me to think of this hang up of society as something to be diagnosed and then treated.

I'm starting to ramble more than usual, so I shall draw things to a close now. And as per usual, I find that I've raised more questions in my own head than have been answered. The one thing I remain sure of, and hope I've gone some way to impressing on you, is that society is spending a disproportionate amount of its time being concerned with what is not much more than petty vanity. Surely we're all better than that.

Aren't we?

Rape

Very recently, I found myself arguing with a friend about rape laws in the UK. I found this rather strange, as usually most arguments about rape laws tend to go something like along the following lines:

"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'

And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.

One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.

Of the women whom I've met in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.

A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing shite tries to make you feel like the whore of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?

I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are shite right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".

Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.

For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a whore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".

Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a fucking ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.

More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or whores with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.

More random thoughts

Some more random thoughts about the war:

Seeing the people of Iraq celebrating the end of Saddam's regime was a fantastic sight. Anyone who still, despite this, managed to snort with derision and launch once more into the numerous (and in some cases, well founded) reasons that the US is doing the Arab world a disservice must be hard hearted indeed.

So, no Weapons of Mass Destruction were used. None were found (so far). No Al-Quaida training facilities have been unearthed. Yet the sophistry and spin would have you believe differently. We have been told that "Materials likely to be used for chemical weapons" have been discovered. Would it sound less impressive if it were pointed out that the average public swimming pool, with it's reasonably large stock of chlorine, has materials that could be used in chemical warfare?

This morning also saw the announcement that Abul Abbas, the Palestinian who planned the terrorist hijack of a cruise liner some 16 years ago (during which a paraplegic American hostage was murdered), has been captured in Baghdad. No doubt this will be touted as proof of terrorist links to Saddam's regime. Proof? Erm...well, not really. Abbas had renounced violence, had been allowed by the Israeli government (not noted for it's forgiving attitude toward Palestinian terrorists) to visit Gaza numerous times, and America had dropped the warrant for his arrest. If this is proof that the Iraqi government has links to terrorism, then we in the UK must be guilty of the same thing. More so in fact, as we have Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (former IRA members) in our Parliament.

The looting in Iraq's major cities seems to be dying down (if only because there is nothing left to steal). Some people have seen fit to blame the coalition forces for the looting. Which is true in that it was they who overthrew the Ba'ath regime. But bearing in mind that there are 25,000 troops in Baghdad who need to control 5 million people, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty minded and pathetic of those most fervently anti-war voices to try and lay all the blame for this at the coalitions door? We're talking about a nation that has suffered oppression of the worst sort, so it's not entirely surprising that we are now seeing the most basic expression of newly acquired freedom (i.e. Do What Thou Wilt is the whole of the law). And a few troops are expected to police it? Please; I’m opposed to this ugly little land grab, but if you're going to be anti-war then at least try and keep within spitting distance of reality.

Has anyone, at any point, sat Dubya down and explained the principles of diplomacy to him? He and his administration seem incapable of expressing themselves by any means other than threats. Worried about your allies not supporting your actions? Threaten them with a trade embargo. Worried about countries that border the one you've invaded offering sanctuary to people you want captured? Threaten them with war. Worried about Arab's from elsewhere in the middle-east fighting US troops in Iraq? Threaten each and every nation that the originated from.

America is now condemning (and, naturally, threatening) Syria for sheltering members of the former Iraqi government. Is this the same America that has trained, equipped, and if things go horribly wrong, offered sanctuary to Christ knows how many South and Central American tinpot dictators over the past few decades?

One of the major objections to this war was that the US was being very selective in which dictators it was removing. However, couldn't the bullishness and threatening language emanating from Washington at the moment be interpreted as the US answering that very criticism? If America did turn this oil war into some sort of crusade against dictatorships, wouldn't that be a good thing in principle (if not in practice)?

Speaking of crusades, why is Dubya doing his very best to prove the fears of the Islamic world correct by only bullying Moslem countries? I mean, I hate to bang on about this but North Korea and Israel are not exactly behaving like angels, yet they continue to be left to their own devices. Anyone would think that certain members of the Bush and Blair governments want terrorism to increase in order to limit personal liberties. I'm not entirely sure I believe that myself, but one can certainly see why many other do.

There seems to be some sort of religious tension in Iraq at the moment. A senior Shiite cleric was murdered a few days after he returned to Iraq from the UK. Yet another cleric was given 48 hours to leave Iraq. And the Shiite’s seem to be the most vocal out of all Iraqi groups opposed to US involvement in setting up a new government. I suspect that there is more than meets the eye here.

There would also seem to be a racial war brewing in the north of Iraq. The Kurds have wanted their own country for years (Kurdistan is divided between Iraq and Turkey at the moment). There has already been fighting between Kurds and Arabs in the northern city of Mosul, and the Turks make no secret of the fact that they would regard annexation of Northern Iraq by themselves as preferable to a Kurdish nation. This all adds up to more interesting times.

If you want a blueprint of what will happen in Iraq now that the war is basically over, look no further than Afghanistan. The US promised millions in aid to the fledgling Afghan government. Would you care to guess how much has been set aside for them in Dubya's most recent budget? Approximately....nothing. Zero. Not a sausage. Afghanistan is still in chaos; chances are that Iraq will be just as messed up as a nation this time next year. Add to that the possibility of racially and religiously motivated conflict within the country, and one has cause to worry that this conflict is just the beginning of the bloodshed.

Am I alone in wanting this whole thing to be over so we can have something on the news other than War? After all, we have other things to think about. Things like the global spread of the SARS virus, the faltering Northern Ireland peace process, and the trial of Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley...actually, can we keep the war going as long as possible?! Okay, so soldiers and civilians are dying every day, but it makes for more positive viewing and reading than any other world events...

Random thoughts about war

Some rambling and generally confused thoughts about the last week:


We've been at war for a week now, and already I've seen more information about the conflict on the news than I've ever read or watched about the 1st and 2nd world wars. I don't know how the troops can get on with fighting out there with all those journalists in the way. And is anybody else wondering when Sky News will be asking the military if they can mount cameras on troops' helmets? After all, they've already done their level best to turn this war into a large scale game of "Command and Conquer", so they may as well go the whole hog and try to get some sort of "Medal of Honour" thing going on as well. After all, since the last Gulf War there have been huge advances in game technology, and the news channels have to compete with the Playstation 2 to get the attention of their audience.

In the space of that week, the Dubya-Blair position has gone from "This will be over in a few weeks" to "Don't be surprised if we are fighting for months". Is anyone else getting the impression that the UK and US governments are entirely clueless about what to do now that their war is not running on schedule? Incidentally, does it annoy anyone else to hear pampered politicians, who's idea of a war zone is their wife finding out about them nobbing some fat-titted parliamentary researcher, refer to the troops doing the fighting as "we"? Unless you want to follow Winston Churchill's lead and go out there to fight this war yourself, enough with the 'we' already.

Bearing in mind that Saddam is loathed by millions of his own people, how much of a pigs ear must the coalition have made of this conflict to inspire not the Iraqi conscripts to fight ferociously. We were being told (and, in the face of all the evidence, are still being told by the likes of Rumsfield) that the biggest problems we would face would be how to look after the expected thousands of deserters. Also, if the US led invasion is so 'welcomed' by the people of Iraq, how come thousands of Iraqi's who left their homeland because they feared being killed by Saddam's troops, are returning home to join that same army and fight off the allied forces?

The parading of allied troops on Al-Jazeera was a chilling thing to watch; especially now that it appears Iraqi soldiers publicly executed some of them. However, the words of Dubya et al concerning "the humane treatment of POW's" rang rather hollow to me. If Saddam declared that the captured troops were not POW but 'illegal non-combatants' (because the UN hasn't sanctioned this war and so it could be said to be illegal under international law), and if he held them somewhere that was not Iraqi territory, does that then mean that he can do with them as he pleases? After all, that is exactly what America has done with the Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, and 2 of them have been beaten to death in Guantanamo Bay since they were taken there. If American troops are torturing foreign soldiers, can anyone give any good reason why Iraqi soldiers would be compassionate enough not to mistreat their prisoners?

If this war has nothing to do with oil, then why was securing the main Iraqi oilfields one of the first things US troops did? And why did Dubya make a point of stating that Saddam would be charged with war crimes if the oil fields were set ablaze as they were in Kuwait?

Whenever we hear of a friendly fire incident involving US troops firing on UK or other US troops, we roll our eyes skyward and tut at the gung ho inability of their army to keep their trigger fingers under control, and mentally file the information away as confirmation that the Americans could not find their backsides with both hands and a map. Yet when British troops kill other British troops in a friendly fire incident, it is a tragic accident that couldn't be avoided, and that sort of thing must be expected in a modern war.

Jack Straw actually did something worthwhile and raised the point that the Moslem world are quite remarkably annoyed that we're going to war with Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, yet we leave Israel alone when they are just as guilty of this. If anything good were to come out of this war, it would be the US and UK actually following through on their commitment for Palestinian statehood. That would stop terrorism to a far greater degree than this war, as it would rob the Islamic extremists of one of their main causes for recruiting.

If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, then he's going to use them against allied forces. After all, he has nothing to lose at this stage. If we take that logic a step further, does that mean if no WOMD are used then this war could have been avoided had the weapons inspectors been allowed to finish their work? Or will there be another series of barefaced lies from the American and British governments concerning how Saddam was 'definitely a threat to world peace'?

I know I'm anti war and everything, but was I the only one who felt weirdly proud of our troops when the war started? I mean, this isn't exactly the most popular war in the history of the world, but they're there and they're doing their job to the best of their ability. What's more, they're doing it with equipment so substandard that many soldiers have had to buy their own boots, and use their own mobile phones to communicate with other troops. I wish we weren't using well-trained and brave soldiers to give a veneer of legitimacy to the machinations of an unelected oil spiv.

Who are the Bad Guys?

If we're talking about international diplomacy, the answer is "Everyone who isn't you".



You can hardly fail to have noticed that very soon (perhaps even by this time tomorrow) the second Gulf War will be kicking off. It's an eagerly awaited rematch that will pit the nation ruled by an unelected man who shows flagrant disregard for the rule of law and acts in the interests of whatever will line his and his backers' pockets instead of the people he supposedly serves, against Iraq.

Okay, so I'm anti war. That in itself should not be a surprise. It seems that everybody and their mother is queuing up to give reasons why the war shouldn't happen. Not least among the anti-war voices is that of France. They and the US/UK pro-war camp have indulged themselves in all manner of name calling and bitchslapping since it has become clear that the one will oppose the other, come what may. And I don't know about you, but it instills me with confidence to know that the most powerful single nation in the world is ruled by people who react to somebody disagreeing with them by calling them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" and declaring them as the biggest threat to world peace other than Iraq itself. Good to know that calm, rational heads are doing the thinking in American government.

Actually, since I've mentioned that "Threat to world peace" point, I may as well clear something else up. Iraq is not, has never been, and shows no sign of becoming a threat to world peace. It doesn't have any missiles capable of launching nuclear or biological agents (the only ones we definitely know that Iraq has are Anthrax and perhaps Smallpox. We know about them because the US and UK sold it to them in the first place...) more than 150 miles. Unlike North Korea, which admits to trying to develop Nuclear Weapons, can launch the missiles as far as Japan, and has actually threatened a nuclear attack against America if any sanctions are imposed on it. Iraq is a threat to its neighbours, certainly. However, if we agree that any threat to stability is in the Middle East is a threat to world peace then we are forced to accept that the US and UK are in fact the biggest threat to world peace that we currently face. Iraq is also a threat to it's own people, but seeing as how Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, the UK in Northern Ireland, and Burma to name but a few are also a threat to their own people, it seems strange how only Iraq are being picked on now.

If, as has been suggested but not proved, Iraq were harbouring Al-Quaida terrorist cells, and that is the reason for the coming war, then I wouldn't want to be in the CIA right now. After all, they trained Osama bin Laden and many of the Mujahdein who became Al-Quaida to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Of course, as the head of the CIA used to be George Bush Senior then I doubt we'll see any blame being attached to them. Besides, if Dubya threw his Dad into prison for aiding public enemy number 1 then who would tell him what to do?
And if support for terrorism is a prerequisite to being invaded by the US, does that mean we can declare war on them for all the money that was donated to the IRA? Maybe Nicaragua will invade America for supporting its Contra rebels? Or will we find that China will start hostilities with the rest of the world for buying goods from Taiwan, an area that they consider a rogue state?

And seeing as the more simplistic supporters of the coming war usually fall back on their emergency argument of "You must be Saddam's best friend if you don't support the war" at this point (they're very predictable in that respect; it's like their brains have some sort of glass case with "In case argument is rebutted, break down and bleat the following refrain..."), then let me make something else clear. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime in Iraq should be viewed with the same distaste as one would reserve for being vomited on by a tramp that has drunk more than his usual share of meths. Getting rid of him would be a wonderful thing. Doing it without bombing and murdering thousands of innocent people would be better still. We're always boasting about our special forces. Why not use them? An assassin's bullet right now would save a lot of unnecessary carnage later. And it would give the Iraqi people a chance to have a say in their own destiny rather than having one dictator replaced with another who is more to America's liking.

So, realistically, and taking all the various factors into consideration, has anyone come up with a reason for this war, and a one that stands up to scrutiny, that doesn't involve oil? I mean lets be honest here, the US economy is in thrall to oil. To the extent that they basically have to kowtow to Saudi Arabia and prop up an increasingly unpopular regime in order to guarantee their supply. To the extent that the government are prepared to force wildly unpopular measures such as drilling in the Alaskan National Park for oil on their people? A successful war would guarantee cheap oil supplies for the next 20 or so years.

Okay, so it's about the oil. Lets forget for a moment the standard pro-war rebuttal ("It's not about oil!!" 'So, what is it about?' "Ummm...dunno, but it's not oil!") of that argument and accept it as the most plausible of the reasons for this war (I can't bring myself to believe that Dubya is about to send men and women to their deaths in order to get revenge for an Iraqi assassination attempt on his Dad about 10 years ago...). The thing is, if we apply that rule to the US (and by 'that rule' I mean "Where is the money"; if you can find where the money is involved in any given situation then you have invariably found the motivation for the coming event) then we should also apply it across the board. After all, the US and UK are not the only nations who's leaders are motivated more by profit than peace.

And so the first place to look when we're being evenhanded is at the opposition to the war. Obviously I can't pretend to know the motivations of everyone opposed to what is going to happen. So we have to look at the countries predominantly opposed. They are Russia, Germany, and France. Are they opposing the US out of a sense of duty to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Were they aghast at the news that American soldiers have beaten 2 Al-Quaida suspects to death in Guantanamo Bay since their capture in Afghanistan? Will these 3 nations demand that Dubya and Blair face war crimes trials if they start a war without UN backing? Does anyone think I would have written this many questions if the answer to any of them had been yes?

Both Russia and France currently have very favourable oil deals with Iraq. These deals will quite probably get torn up once Hussein is toppled, and the two nations don't want to lose their oil. Hence, they oppose the coming war. Germany's opposition stems more from domestic reasons. The chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder, was facing the prospect of defeat in his country’s elections. One "I oppose war at all costs, me. Go on; vote for me again!" speech later, and Schroeder had the backing of Germany's Green party, and so was able to form a coalition to stay in government.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that, when it comes to world diplomacy and shabby situations like this one, there is no "good" and "bad" guy. Diplomacy is just one country fucking another one. Sometimes it's all done rather nicely, with romantic meals and flowers and sweet nothings. Other times it's thrust up the arse with no Vaseline and little warning. But it's always the same theme; one side wants what the other side has. France and Russia getting upset about international law? They must have been rolling in the aisles in Rwanda and Chechnya when they heard that one!

Iraq is now facing the choice between being gently screwed by France and Russia, or roughly screwed by the UK and the US. Either way, both sides are destabilising and destroying the UN for reasons of pure self-interest. When the League of Nations went down in the 30's, world war followed. Some will tell you that it doesn't matter, that the UN is already as good as dead, that the League of Nations didn't matter much in the first place. These are the same self important, blinkered, and cheerfully non-thinking mindmesses that didn't see why there was a problem with the League allowing Japan and Germany to invade whatever nations they saw fit to conquer. The only problem with my desire to say "I told you so" to them is that we will have to live through interesting times in order for me to do so.
As with the last war, can we just get this one over with please?

A working life

Judging by how my own career has advanced since writing this, I think it was something that spurred me on to try and advance myself up the career ladder.



Working: Isn't it just the most joyous period of your life? Coming in to whatever your place of employment happens to be, spending a 3rd of the day there for at least 5 days a week, being appreciated for the work that you do, and leaving with the satisfaction of a job well done. Yes, working life in the 21st century is a good life!

And they, ladies and gentlemen, are the most sarcastic few sentences that I have ever written in my natural life! Indeed, I don't think I could have told a bigger lie had I said that the coming war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil. Working in the 21st century, and I hope you know this and I suspect you do, is not that many rungs on the ladder above slavery in the 1st century. Naturally I would imagine that you are rather...resistant to that idea. Well, maybe I'm completely wrong to think that, but I find myself believing it more and more these days. So please, hear me out before deciding that I'm talking utter nonsense...

Firstly I'll declare my own bias; though the conditions where I work have started to improve recently and though I now find myself getting some more management responsibility and (eventually) more money, generally speaking I get the same pleasure from my job as I would from having my eyeballs wrenched out and licked clean by a leper's dog. Without getting too graphic, you can safely assume that I'm not really of a mindset to be delighted at the working environment that I and the millions like me find ourselves in.

Secondly, seeing as I'm using them for a comparison, it's worth seeing just what kind of conditions slaves in the 1st century had to endure. Back then, the number one slave-owning people were our old friends the Romans. The keeping of slaves by all social classes was commonplace; anyone who was anyone had at least one personal slave, and the rich landowning classes had legions of slaves in their household. But their lot was not entirely as bad as we may think. My image of a Roman slave incorporated endless misery, whips and torture, being kept in near starvation, and living in perpetual fear of losing one's life due to the whims of ones master. Whilst this was very occasionally the case, generally speaking a slave’s life was not as bad as the various movies make out.

There were numerous laws in place to protect slaves from ill treatment by their masters. Every slave had to be properly fed and housed. Sick slaves had a right to medical treatment. And all slaves had the prospect of winning freedom from their masters and making the most of their lives; in later years, even Roman Emperors were sons of freed slaves. So whilst they were not exactly living in ideal conditions, they were at least guaranteed a full belly and a reasonably safe and uneventful life to the extent that many preferred slavery as it at least guaranteed them a roof over their head at the sufferance of their masters.

Now then, what of our own working lives? Well, if one were to replace the word 'slave' with employee and 'master' with employer then chances are the above paragraph isn't a million miles away from what we have. Perhaps it's even an improvement on your current lot. For example, sickness at work. If you are feeling unwell (perhaps you have a touch of flu or your stomach is rebelling against you. For the record, I'm talking about GENUINE illness here...), will your employer accept that you are unfit for work and make the necessary allowances? Or will they put pressure on you to turn up anyway, make veiled threats about your future at the company if you do not, and generally do their best to make you feel like a criminal for wanting to stay at home and recover? Jesus, at the company I work for there was an HR person who used to turn up at people's houses to check on them if she felt that they weren't sufficiently ill! At least Roman slaves were left in peace when they suffered an illness.

Also, if you were to ask the reasons why people are in the jobs that they currently have, what do you think the most common answer would be? Is it going to be job satisfaction? The salary? One's co-workers? Or is it going to be because we feel so beholden to whatever debts we've accumulated (mortgages, loans, and the other sundry costs of being an adult) that we are pathetically grateful to our employers due to our need for a steady, unbroken cashflow? To the extent that we will put up with any amount of crap from them? Because, in fact, we prefer to have a roof over our head? A roof placed there thanks to our masters...sorry, employers.

Meanwhile, even as we in the small world are concerning ourselves with such wonderment as whether or not we can afford some new electronic baubles and gadgets, big businesses and corporations are finding strange and inventive ways to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever on their embarrassingly large profits. So whilst we are being exhorted to work harder for the benefit of the company, not only are we paying the price in terms of leisure time lost (how many companies 'encourage' their staff to work longer hours?), stress (on the rise in the workplace according to statistics), and general unhappiness. No, we're also paying the price in terms of a greater tax burden. In effect, the harder we work the less we will be paid. And if you doubt any of that, ask yourself this question; if the company you work for has been doing well in the marketplace, have you yourself seen your job and conditions improve at a similar rate? Or has it gotten that much worse?

And if their profits should fall, will it be the company director who placed the company in such peril, and who can probably afford a few months out of work, that loses his job? Or will it be you or I? We may not be in perpetual fear of losing our lives due to the whims of our employers, but who can say that they have never had sleepless nights at the prospect of losing our jobs? And having been in that position myself, I can assure you that it is NOT a nice feeling at all. We may say that we are free men and women, but we really are not much more free than a Roman Slave; if our employers say jump then no matter who you are, the only thing you will think of asking is "How high?"

So why has it come to this? Speaking personally, I've always been under the (obviously misguided) impression that work should be for the benefit of society as a whole. The more society benefits, the better our lives in general will become. Yet we're living in a time of failing public services, shrinking investment in the national infrastructure, and the prostitution of our welfare state to the demands of big business (or "Public-Private Partnerships" as I believe they're laughably called). Our working lives would seem to be for the benefit of a very few people at the top of the heap.

I'm not disputing the right of a company to make full use of the spirit of free enterprise and do as well for itself as it possibly can. But genuine enterprise is just naked, rapacious capitalism with its hair combed and a nice shirt on. It is about cash, pure and simple, with no consideration of responsibilities toward society as a whole. So whilst it is the right of a company to maximise their profits at any cost, it is the duty of society's guardians to ensure that this is not done at the expense of the men and women in that company's employment. And d'you know who society's guardians are? That would be the government that we elect.

And that makes the whole situation...mostly our own fault really. We, who sit about on apathetic backsides and reassure ourselves that our votes won't make a difference whilst bitterly complaining about what the bastards at work have done now, are to blame for our own working conditions. On the plus side, that gives us something that no Roman slave ever had; the ability to change things. Whether we use it or not is another question entirely. On that note, I bid you an enjoyable day at the office.

Dead Air

So called because of the book that inspired this little rant.



This will probably rank as the shortest rant I've ever done. Actually, it probably doubles up as a test for whether or not you're suffering from compassion fatigue. Read the statistic below (courtesy of a book called Dead Air by a superb writer named Iain Banks), and see if it makes you feel angry. Or guilty. Or nothing at all. I'd like to think we'd all feel something of the first two but I have a feeling that, in order to ensure that we can satisfy ourselves that today is much the same as yesterday and that we're living a blameless life, we'll probably slip into that 3rd category with barely a whisper of complaint from our conscience.

Are you ready? Ok, here goes...

Remember how horrified you were when you saw the Twin Towers collapsing? And how the idea of those people throwing themselves out of the upper floors to their death gave you an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach? Maybe you even felt a few pangs of unwelcome empathy with the hundreds of people trapped there who knew that death was upon them. Well, let us just put it into perspective:

Every 24 hours, approximately 34 thousand children die in the world from the effects of poverty (chiefly from malnutrition and disease). So that's 34 thousand children (I'm not including the adults here, just the children) dead each day across the world. As I'm sure you're sick of hearing from those well-meaning lefty types (whom none of us really like because they're such doomsayers, and they maybe occasionally remind us of how idealistic we perhaps once were) those deaths are needless. I've been writing this on and off for 2 hours by the way, so that's about 2800 dead since I wrote the first word. And they are dying in a world that could feed and clothe and treat them all, with a workably different allocation of resources, but who'd prefer to allocate resources to more important things. Such as ensuring that enough beef gets to McDonalds, or that our employers can keep their profits nice and large. I may sound smug and self-righteous in saying that, but I'm no better; what do I do to make a difference other than spewing endless words that might make you think but won't make you change anything about the way you live.

Meanwhile the latest estimate is about 2800 people died in the Twin Towers, so it’s like that ghastly, grey-billowing, double barreled fall, repeated twelve times every single day; twenty four towers, one per hour, throughout each day and night. Full of children. But it's okay! We don't need to worry about it! It almost all happens in the 3rd world, South America, and Asia. As such, there is almost no danger of seeing it on our TV screens, so that’s almost the same as it not being real! And it's just as well too; after all, George Bush was so upset by the carnage and loss of innocent life at Ground Zero that he felt the need to declare Police Action on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. If he knew about this daily death toll...well, the armies of the US and UK would never sleep! They'd be invading the countries that allow this to happen (because allowing death on that scale in the name of lining the pockets of a particular government is at least as evil as killing thousands in a tower block, right?) and toppling their governments at the rate of 1 a week!

Except of course, they don't. We have the luxury of not worrying about people dying of Malnutrition. Then we invade countries where that is a very real danger, we chastise them for...well, no one is really sure what we're chastising them for (if it was about weapons of mass destruction, then how come North Korea is getting millions of dollars of aid from America, and not invaded? If it was about flouting UN resolutions then Israel would be equally in the shit), and we add to the death toll whilst making sure that they stay poor and stay hungry. All in the name of a few more millions being added to a company’s profit margin.
And then we wonder why they hate us. Sometimes, despite my best attempts at optimism, I can't help noticing just how fucking stupid we all are.

Anyone for Iraq

I got this one TOTALLY wrong. A right war for the wrong reasons. And don't get me started on the lack of a plan for after the invasion...



So then, this Iraq business: what's going on? (hey, it's a miserable Monday morning; what do you expect to be on my mind?!)

Well, firstly of course we should look at the good news. Firstly, there are now UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They are doing their job rather well (despite attempts by Dubya's cronies to smear the reputation of Hans Blix, the chief inspector. So desperate are they for the oil...erm, I mean for the war, that they leaked numerous stories to the press questioning his ability, his impartiality and, as we're talking about the Republican right here, probably his sexuality) and should have conducted numerous inspections at hundreds of sites by the time January 27th, the deadline for the inspectors' first report, rolls around.

Secondly, Iraq actually bothered themselves to produce what they say is a full and complete list of all weapons in the country. As both Europe and America could check the veracity of this document by simply having a look at the receipts for the millions of pounds worth of weapons that we sold to Iraq in the 80's, one would hope that Iraq would have provided a full and complete list.

Finally, the nations of the Gulf are quietly starting to make it clear that they will comply with any fresh UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq should they fail to comply with the program of inspections. The prospect of a Middle-Eastern conflagration of pant-shitting proportions has thus receded somewhat, though one should always remember that the will of the Middle Eastern governments does not always (or in some cases, ever) represent the will of the Middle Eastern people.

Okay, so that's the good news. Well...good if you're anti-war in Iraq anyway. However, as is always the case, there is ample bad news to balance it out. And that bad news has led to my amending my rather fervent belief that we should not be joining Dubya in his quest to get more oil by means of force. But I'll get to that presently; for now, on with the bad news from the Gulf:

First of all, the weapons inspectors are not getting what they call "genuine co-operation". In other words, it looks like that nice Mr. Hussein is going to stall and procrastinate just like he did last time. That will mean that America will have all the reasons they need to attack. With luck, they'll bother themselves to get a fresh UN resolution to authorise such a course of action, but don't hold your breath expecting them to do so.

If that were not enough, despite this lack of co-operation the weapons inspectors have still been able to find some weapons that were not declared by Iraq. They only amounted to a few empty chemical warheads, but that would seem to be an indicator that Iraq does indeed have or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, this alone is pretty much all America needs to attack. Maybe it's not strictly speaking the "smoking gun" that Dubya is itching for, but it's close enough.

Finally, and probably most convincingly, the build up of American (sorry, Allied) forces in the Gulf is now so large that it would be economic suicide not to use them. The reason being, once you've spent so much money getting an Army to the other side of the world, feeding them, and equipping them, it would be disastrous for that money to effectively be poured down the drain by not using them. In other words, no matter what is said in the UN, no matter what else the inspectors find (or don't find) in the coming weeks, and no matter what Dubya's speechwriter tells him to say, it would seem 99% certain that there is going to be a war. If we take it as read that there is going to be a war, there would seem to be only one pertinent question.

What the hell are we going to do? By 'we' I mean the UK. At the moment, our Glorious Leader Blair is taking a lot of criticism from both domestic and overseas critics. As the leader of a supposedly left wing political party, many of his own supporters are uneasy to say the least about our taking part in a war of questionable motivation. And as America's only ally, he is being accused of lending legitimacy to the actions of a...well, I don't have enough time to list the derogatory terms that have been applied to Dubya, but I'm sure you get the idea. This would appear to be a lose-lose situation for Blair and the Labour party in general.

However, this is not necessarily the case. At the moment, various dignitaries of sundry other nations are pontificating at length about what SHOULD be done to Iraq. Deposing Saddam and replacing it with a regime that will treat the Iraqi people with the respect and dignity due to them as human beings comes (rightly) top of this list. All of these nations seem to have the rather sweet and naive belief that, once America has done the business and deposed of Saddam (assuming that they do; a recent US military war game exercise that was essentially a dry-run for the war ended in embarrassment when the Iraqi side inflicted massive losses on the American team), they will listen to these mainly European anti-war advocates when it comes to drawing up the plans for a postwar government in Iraq. This view is about as far removed from reality as the idea that Dubya is a statesmanlike leader who wants peace.

Can you explain to me just why America's leadership will be inclined to share responsibility for the running of this oil-rich country? The American people will be almost as one in supporting their government’s rejection of any outside interference. After all, it will have been their country who did the fighting (though if we're brutally honest, it won't be their country that provides most of the corpses...), and as Americans are by and large a patriotic bunch, it will take barely any rabble-rousing and demagoguery to shift public opinion to the "Fuck you, we're going to do what we want!" mindset of the Dubya and his merry men.

As a brief interjection, lest you still doubt that this war is about oil and not, as the rhetoric would have it, improving the lives of innocent Iraqi's and removing an unelected and brutal dictator, I would point to the fact that the US today offered amnesty to all of the "evil and brutal" Iraqi leadership if they give up without a fight. Not exactly the actions of a nation who wish to bring an evil man to justice (though Operation Paperclip and similar initiatives, which saw Nazi scientists being granted amnesty by the Allies in exchange for their knowledge, shows that justice has never been high on the agenda in international relations...). And should we believe that a US sponsored Iraqi leadership would be any better? Why not ask the people of Uzbekistan, who's current paranoid despot, Karimov, is one of the world leaders in human rights abuses...but who, thanks to his decision to allow US troops to be stationed in his country, enjoys the full support of the US government. Maybe these two facts don't add up to a dim future for Iraq no matter who wins, but history would tend to suggest that they do. Unless....

Well, unless Tony Blair actually has does possess the morals and conscience that he has rammed down our throats at every opportunity. If we are the only other nation involved in an attack on Iraq, then we're the only other nation with the authority to have any say in a postwar Iraqi government. And that might actually mean that Dubya doesn't get things entirely his own way as he did in, for example, Afghanistan (where you can now barely get moved for American Oil men who are involved in setting up the new government).

And lest we forget, getting rid of Hussein would be a very good thing. That is the one thing that both pro and anti war pundits are in total agreement about. It's just that I have a nasty suspicion that if the US was left to this war on it's own, it is extremely likely that the misery of the Iraqi people will continue. As I've said, America doesn't have a good record for installing benevolent puppets in it's client countries (check out http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html if you want confirmation of this), and I don't imagine that anyone in the White House will give a crippled crap about their further suffering in Iraq just so long as the oil is flowing.

For that matter, no one nation has a good record on that sort of thing. It's only when more than one country gets involved that anything is done to address human rights abuses (the Nuremburg trials after WW2 and the current trials of the assorted nefarious Balkan Bastards would seem to be proof of that), and even then I'm not so foolish as to believe that the UK alone would make much difference. Yet if more nations bit the bullet and committed themselves to this inevitable war, we could perhaps ensure that the criminals of Iraq get punished, that the people get some sort of relief from tyranny, and that the criminals in America who pushed this just war for selfish and unjust reasons onto us all don't get the money out of it that they're hoping. All of these reasons are good ones, and that's why I for one am no longer opposed to war. Have fun making your own mind up.

Anti-Americanism

My opinions on this haven't really changed; I abhor those who unthinkingly condemn anything, regardless of whom or what it is. I don't think in these supposedly enlightened times, I'm asking too much to expect people to be able to articulate their hatred. Am I?



I don't know how to say this without shocking you so I'll just come right out and say it; anti-Americanism really gets on my nerves. I really cannot stand the blinkered and unconditional hatred of all things American that spews endlessly and mindlessly from the mouths of people who couldn't actually tell you what it is that they would like done instead, but know that if America wants it then they will oppose it. Even after September 11th (which, when mentioned now, seems like the most ancient of history don't you think?), there were warranted reminders that America's policy in the Middle East had done much to provide the breeding grounds for this seemingly new species of terrorist. They soon degenerated into justifications for why America SHOULD be destroyed. I'm sure you've heard the sort of thing; well meaning types who nod in agreement at how awful the atrocity was only to launch into a learned-by-rote "If you think that's bad, look at what America has done...." spiel.

Which, in itself, isn't so bad; America's various governments are indeed responsible for some horrendous acts across the world. But to listen to some of these people, you'd think that the destruction of the WTC was an act of youthful high spirits ("Cor, what about those terrorists eh? Cheeky little blighters..."), whilst every act of oppression or destruction committed by the US was planned by Satan and executed by the direct descendants of Hitler. I'm not blind to the countless tortures, murders, acts of brutality, and curtailing of freedoms that can be directly or indirectly attributed to America. But neither am I willing to gloss over the degenerate and hate fuelled ideals of Al-Quaida.

Now there's a name you probably won't have read or heard about in a while: Al-Quaida. Remember them? What with all the fuss about Iraq, you may have forgotten that they ever existed, or assumed that they no longer do. Well, sad to say that they are alive and bombing. They are an organisation that has anti-Semitism and totalitarianism at the heart of its beliefs. One only has to look at the effects of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to get a taste of what life would be like with them as the world’s foremost power. They are to Islam what the Nazi's were to patriotism; a good idea twisted to suit the needs of evil men.

You may yet hear some of those rabid anti-Americans mention them, but only to say that the US don't want to mention them as it will distract you from hating Iraq with all of your sheep-like soul. Those same anti-Americans will then forget all about Al-Quaida, and proceed to tell you why you should hate the US. In other words, they will treat you with all the contempt that they accuse the US of treating you with, and try to get you bleating a refrain more to their liking.

To put it another way, I dislike anti-Americanism because many of those who fall into this bracket are exactly what they accuse the US as a whole of being; selfish little fools who disguise their simplistic hatred by dressing it up in high minded motives that fall apart under close inspection. To put it another way, I also dislike them because they allow people to dismiss all criticism of America, be it justified or not. And whilst I am generally pro-American, I have found myself growing more and more disillusioned with the land of the free.

There are a number of reasons for this and I won't presume to bore you with all of them. I think, however, that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, like every other pro-American, I believed the hype about the American dream. Does anyone even remember that any more? Has the world grown so weary and cynical that we say the words with a sneer on our face? It was supposedly the birthright of every American to dream the impossible dream; that they may one day achieve whatever it is that they want, maybe even be President one day, so long as they are willing to work hard to get it.

Now it seems that the American dream is over. It has been dreamt by a select few, and it is THEIR dream, not yours. THEY will achieve whatever they want, and you will be expected to keep your head down and keep yourself busy with 3rd rate dreams; maybe it's that home entertainment system that you've been saving for. Perhaps a new car, or a better house. If that is what you want, you will die content. But don't expect to make a difference, or have any say in the way things are done. That dream is reserved is for the rich, the powerful, the established circle of a few hundred people who don't much care about anything beyond what they want.

When anti-Americans bray their mantra, it is these few to whom they should be addressing their bile. Instead they implicate the whole nation in the shortsighted stupidity of a few men, and so Americans are (understandably) bullish in defending themselves against what appears to be an unwarranted attack. Yet in defending their nation and its actions so unconditionally, they are defending those few men who are only patriotic Americans so long as America can be milked for all it is worth. To steal a literary reference, the American people are akin to Don Quixote. America's elite are the idle and worthless nobility who contribute nothing and take everything. If you really want to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, anti-Americans are the knight who demand Quixote abandon his dreams and return to drudge and normality.

So why should I, or anyone else in Europe, care about America and it's people? Well, partly because the alternatives to American world dominance is perpetual warfare with extremists who think nothing of butchering thousands of civilians in the name of a prophet who preached peace and brotherhood. Or dominance by a nation who, despite having a fifth of all the world within their borders, are not exactly renowned for their love of human rights. For all my desire to see a just and equal world, a tarnished American dream is better than no dream at all. However, it's mainly because the same thing is starting to happen right here.

How many people have given up having any say in the way the nation is run? How many people spend their lives worrying about their job and all of it's mind numbing day to day minutiae rather than sparing just a single thought about whether or not life is really getting better for them? How many people can say that they have ambition beyond getting their next house, or car, or whatever pretty gadget that will make their life easier? Speaking personally, I don't want to be free to do exactly what my increasingly corrupt and self-serving government tell me to do. I would like the freedom to be able to make a difference (and the freedom to not want to make a difference either; I'm realistic enough to accept that politics isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea!). It's not so remote a possibility that someday we will all be like Don Quixote; mocked and abused by rulers who don't care if we live or die. If we can turn anti-Americanism into pro-Freedom, that would be one step on the road to ensuring that such a thing never happens.