World Conflict Day

I still say we should rename Guy Fawkes Night to World Conflict Day, and make it a global event.




Okay, I'll make a promise from the outset; I'll not mention anything about Afghanistan, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, bombing, or indeed anything about the whole mess over there at all. Apart from just there obviously. One thing I will say about it is, where the hell has Dubya been hiding? He's managed to hove into view again briefly (apparently he and Blair shared a "Kodak Moment" yesterday; can I really be the only person who finds their "special" relationship suspiciously homo-erotic?) but before yesterday I hadn't heard a peep from him in weeks! What in God's name has he been up to? There are a few possibilities; he did say that he was going to do whatever it took to defeat terrorism, so maybe his Chiefs of Staff realised that it would take him shutting up and not interfering? Or, as he took more time off in his first 6 months of office than any other President in history, maybe he was just working on getting his golf handicap down (hell, maybe that's the sole reason for his anguish at the WTC tragedy in the first place; as he watched the planes smashing into the twin towers he knew, just knew, that this was a new age and that nothing would be the same again. Now, more than ever before, the country that he had solemnly sworn to serve needed a leader who can guarantee scoring at least 3 under par during a crisis...)

Anyway we in England had our annual opportunity to experience what living in a war zone is like; Guy Fawkes Night. We too got to enjoy 6 hours of explosions in the background. There were fireworks that looked for all the world like the tracer fire of anti-aircraft weapons. And, just like in Israel and Northern Ireland, we also had morons with only the vaguest idea of how to use the explosives that they carried being guided round the streets by their desire to see somebody getting hurt. Whilst my brother and I pondered the irony of celebrating Bonfire Night during the current war it occurred to us; instead of having the 5th of November as a celebration of the smashing of the Catholic plot to blow up Parliament (thus limiting it to the UK) why don't we redesignate it "World Conflict and Terrorism Day"?
After all, the conspirators were religious fanatics (so were some of their targets but that is by the by...) who wanted to commit a terrorist action that, had it succeeded, would have been the WTC attack of the 17th century. If we extend this celebration around the world, then we can all experience what it is like to live under bombardment in, for example, the Lebanon or Iraq. I suppose we could make it even better by getting the nations that normally pound the shit out of each other to not kill each other for that day. Instead they can pile up dummies dressed in the ethnic costume of their choice into a large pyre and enjoy the same quasi-pagan fun that we in the UK do. The Guy can be the current hate figure of that particular nation, so American Bonfires would have Osama Bin Laden and Israeli's would perch Yasser Arafat atop theirs. This would also help stop the accusations that November 5th is an anti Catholic festival because the Guy wouldn't necessarily be the ubiquitous Mr Fawkes. Speaking personally, I'm more than happy to dispel the accusations altogether. Next November I intend to take a trip to Northern Ireland and set light to Rev. Ian Paisley. If you think about it the fat bigoted piece of shit has done more for world conflict than poor old Guy, so why not?
It seems that I'm not the only one who has world conflict on his mind. I understand that Prince Charles was attacked in Latvia by an anti war protester. If we ignore for a second the fact that attacks by anti war protesters are right up there with Pro-Life supporters murdering doctors in terms of irony, should we perhaps be concerned that the heir to the throne was put in a situation where he could be assaulted? No. No we shouldn't. And why? Because the "attack" consisted of his being slapped in the face with a bunch of flowers being wielded by a (rather good looking actually...) Latvian woman.
What is it about Prince Charles that leads to him being singled out by the surrealist movement for special attention? When he was in Australia someone tried to shoot him...with a starting pistol! Now he's in Latvia being attacked by a flora-bearing redhead who thinks that she's making a powerful international statement whereas in fact she's doing nothing more worthy than make me think "Hmm, I wonder if they're all as good looking as that in Latvia? Maybe I'll check out flight prices..." which probably wasn't her intention. If only all would be assassins were of this mindset then the world would be a much better place. If you think about it then it is highly unlikely that World War 1 would have broken out if Gavrilo Princep had tried to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand by throwing a telephone in the shape of a lobster at him. And I daresay that we'd be a lot better disposed toward Mr Bin Laden if his acolytes had contented themselves with trying to melt clock faces over the World Trade Centre.
I'm actually rather ambivalent about his heir-to-the-throne status as well. I mean, he seems like a nice chap and all, but wouldn't it be much better if we could elect our next King or Queen? They'd get the job for life obviously and they would have to be our nations representative, the person who encapsulates what it means to be British. I've already got a list of candidates; Sven Goran-Eriksson would be the obvious choice, and perhaps with him as our head of state we could look forward to a more relaxed way of life involving lots more public nudity. Jim Davidson would be another possibility, as his election would almost certainly lead to him declaring war on France, which can only be a good thing. We could even go for Thatcher as most Americans think that she's the Queen anyway. But my personal choice would have to be tourettes syndrome hero Joey Deacon, star of "John's not Mad" and a particularly brilliant edition of Blue Peter when I was about 5. The idea of the next meeting of the Commonwealth heads of state being punctuated by occasional outbursts of "Fucking wanker" and "Pissflaps" is a beautiful thing and I hope that one day my vision will become reality.
I do find it a little strange that we still have archaic methods of choosing leaders or people of importance now that we're in the 21st century. There are Royal families all over the world that rely on primogeniture (the custom of everything being inherited by the eldest son; yes, I did have to look it up). Even the Pope is chosen by a ballot of the Cardinals although I still think that the job should be advertised in the normal way, and I've already got my CV written and ready to send as soon as old John Paul number 2 finally shuffles off this mortal coil. I happen to think that I'd be able to bring a lot to the job of Pope and I hope that I'll at least get through to the interview stage. Admittedly I'm only doing it because I think it would be a good way to pick up women ("Hey girls. Got any Catholic in you? D'you want some?") but hey, Jesus did preach love so I suppose I could justify myself on those grounds. Regardless of that, I'm serious when I say I'm going to apply for the job and, as the current incumbent isn't long for this world, I should get a chance to do it soon. I figure that if the Bishop of Newcastle was polite enough to respond to my ranting then the Vatican are bound to give me some sort of response. And when they do you'll be the first to read it.