This was a reaction to 7/7, and also reflects my growing unease that the majority of both left and right wing camps couldn't give a shit about the cost in human lives.
The last 7 days have been what might be euphemistically referred to as "Interesting Times". What with bombings in London, riots in Belfast, and the re-emergence of the Mullet as a fashion statement, it's almost like being in the 1980's again. All we need is for the country's 27 remaining miners to go on strike and get beaten to a bloody puddle by some overly zealous policemen, and the illusion will be complete.
Upon hearing of the bombings, I confess that my first reaction was "My word; the French Olympic Bid team really ARE bad losers aren't they?". Self-congratulatory sarcasm soon gave way to a somewhat despairing sense of helplessness; I go on at great length about the War on Terror, and it's destablising effect on the security of ordinary people like you and me. Yet here was something that was happening as a direct result of the WoT, and I couldn't do jack sh!t except talk about it. Did this prove that Dubya and Tony's little crusade does have a basis in reality? Or was it a case of proving my point for me; that the only reason a War on Terror is "necessary" is because that self same War has increased the likelihood of terrorism across the western world?
Before any of that though, I think it's worth making the following couple of points; firstly, in the aftermath of the bombs in London, the way that both the emergency services and ordinary Londoners dealt with it left me awestruck with admiration. The sense of calm, of stoicism, of a determination not to panic...I'm not going to try to claim these traits as part of any notion of national character. But I am going to say that, to a very large extent, they defeated the purpose of any such terrorism. I'm sure that the sense of anger and outrage will grow in the coming weeks, but as a knee-jerk reaction to a dreadful event, one cannot fault it.
Secondly, both Blair and Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London) struck exactly the right note in their responses. The former displayed his usual stage-managed affront and outrage, but his language was both temperate and soothing to the nation at large in my opinion. He displayed that nebulous quality called "statesmanship", and for all the gallons of vitriol I have in reserve for Blair, that was what was needed from a Prime Minister. Livingstone on the other hand cut through the bullsh!t and called the bombings exactly what they were; a cowardly and indiscriminate attack on ordinary people. The bombings would not make life more difficult for the people who make the decisions that generate the outrage that provides extremists with their recruits (if one is of an extremely paranoid mindset, one could make a case for it making their lives easier...). All it did was create a little pocket of misery, nothing more.
So then; what does last weeks bombing say about the War on Terror? Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is that the bombing indicates that the Iraqi land grab has made the world a far more dangerous place. I've found that a lot of the more Pro-war people whom I talk to with any regularity are claiming that the bombing proves that the Anti-Terror legislation brought in by the government was not just a tactic to keep people uncertain and afraid, but something that was desperately necessary. My response is always the same; how did that "duck and cover" style pamphlet of last year help prepare us for the bomb? And how could putting tanks in public places (as was done in the terror drill of not so long ago) made even the slightest of differences to the events of last Thursday? How would ID cards have prevented the bombs exploding?
The only planning that made any difference was the quiet preparations of the emergency services for terror attacks, and those plans pre-date the ludicrous and unwinnable WoT. Not one of the high profile "WOOOO....darkie terrorists will murder your budgie!! Vote for us and we'll keep you safe!" announcements made by the government made a blind bit of difference to the bombs going off.
I also think that the government's reaction to anyone who attempted to draw a link between the WoT and the bombing backs up what I'm trying to say. George Galloway expressed outrage at the bombs and the devastation to ordinary Londoners, but made it clear that it was an inevitable price of the WoT. And the government...launched the kind of ferocious and highly personal attack on him that they usual try to condemn when made by the likes of Galloway. Note, however, that they did not try to give any hard factual reasons why he was wrong. The LibDem leader Charles Kennedy made much the same point yesterday, and faced a similarly smear-heavy/fact-lite attack. Dear Lord, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) stated the obvious in his condemnation of the bombing; his words were presented by many news organisations in a "Look what the evil foreign man is saying" kind of fashion, but they couldn't present anything in the way of facts as to why he was wrong.
And the response of the pro war faction of politics? "Oh, it didn't take long for the 'I told you so' brigade to start crowing about this, did it?" Well...no, it didn't. Does that made them wrong, or do you simply hate to admit they have a point? Leaving aside this sour grapes on the part of those in favour of war, that did get me thinking about something else...
Amidst all the inevitable "He said, she said" bickering resulting from this bombing and the reasons that it happened, I've seen very little from either side talking about compassion for the poor sods who lost lives, limbs, and loves as a result of the bomb. The initial messages of "Christ, is everyone okay?" have given way to the apportioning of blame. In fact, the only mention of compassion I've read since the first 24 hours after this squalid little murder was on the website where the Extremist organisation claimed responsibility for the bombing. Apparently it was proof of Allah's mercy and compassion; clearly their definition of those words differ somewhat from mine.
But then again, should I be surprised? A lot of the talk about the Iraqi people suffering the equivalent of a daily London bombing (at least) is, although clearly well intentioned, usually the precursor to a political statement about how this PROVES that Dubya and Blair are pure, moronic evil. I'm just as guilty of doing that (in defence of that school of thought, I would say that at least we acknowledge the human cost of the land grab. The coalition refuses to even keep a count of how many Iraqi civilians are killed in the name of securing their freedom...), so I find myself rather shamefaced even as I make the criticism.
It seems that, in amongst all the partisan discussions that use loss of life or the threat of it that are used to fuel the pro and anti war ideologies, we very easily forget the important thing; the loss of life itself. I've seen people say that the bombing shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things because, hey, look at all the poor Iraqi's being murdered by the coalition bombing. By the same token, I also heard someone advance the charming opinion that Iraqi loss of life shouldn't be given as much weight as the loss of Western ones because their history means they don't place the same value on life as we do. Both of these arguments have their intellectual merits, but as statements of humanity and empathy they are about as worthwhile as a charity drive for Windsor family. What the hell happened to the very basic idea that killing people, for whatever reason, is a fundamentally bad thing to do?
But no; the deaths of 50+ people in London has, together with the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, New York, Madrid, Sudan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Russia, Chechnya, (I could go on but you get the idea...), those deaths have become one more aspect of a cause for people who, if they're honest, care more about being proved right than about the death and misery. Be they the lunatic fringe of the left (one of whom claimed, within hours of the bombs going off, that it was clearly CIA who had planted them; had he been referring to the fact that Al-Quaida only exists because of the CIA, he would have had a point...), or the lunatic fringe of the right (Ann Coulter's claim that the whole War on Terror can be ended by "killing their leaders and converting the rest to Christianity" never fails to raise a chuckle and a cold sweat), or all points in between, we all seem to lose sight of the fact that people are dying for no reason than someone, somewhere, wants to be proved right.
Maybe I'm just mellowing in my old age and coupledom, but I don't think a human life is a fair price to pay for a group of people to say "HA! I KNEW I was right!". If ideas aren’t worth dying for (and I don't believe they are), then they're not worth killing for either. By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of the WoT (damn sure I'm still going to do so...), just try to keep in mind that some things are more important than our opinions, however justified we feel them to be.
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
Friday, 15 April 2005
Election Fever
In just a few weeks, we in the UK will get to choose which group of egocentric, self-serving, utterly corrupt and venal suits full of fuck all will enrich themselves at our expense. Even as I write this, the various political leaders are trolling round the country, engaging in whatever piece of populist bullshit they think will dazzle the plebs enough to get them off their cellulite-ridden, Netto-fuelled arses and waddle to the nearest polling station to cack-handedly scrawl an X next to the liar of their choice. It's that most fabulous of times in the political calendar; it's the General Election.
I suppose the first thing that needs to be said from my point of view (aside from "Jesus Christ, have I REALLY been churning out vitriol for over 4 years? I've just re-read the rants I wrote leading up to the last election and...well, I was hoping I'd have grown less angry over the years. Not, as it would appear, more so...) is that in this coming election we at least have the illusion of greater choice. Last time round, it was a one horse race between Labour and nobody else. The Tories were being lead to national mediocrity by a smirking Yorkshire dwarf named Hague. The Libdems...well, let's be honest here; not many people either knew or cared what the Libdems were up to, and were only dimly aware that a plump, ginger Scots gentleman was quietly campaigning for people to vote for him. If you lived in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales, you had the additional choice of that nation's Nationalist party. It was obvious that Labour would walk to victory, and as such it was difficult to care (though God knows, I tried to...).
This time round, things are looking somewhat different. The political map seems to have opened up a little; aside from the above mentioned parties (of whom more later) we also have the increasing influence of the various "Darkies are bad and evil and should all be deported before they rape your budgie and bomb your Gran" parties; UKIP, the BNP, and Kilory's Veritas (or Vanitas to give it it's more accurate name) form the vanguard of this movement. The net effect of all of these parties will almost certainly be to steal a chunk of the chav vote from the Tories and Labour. Whether or not they actually gain anything in terms of Parliamentary seats is another matter; I suspect not, as they're all squabbling for votes among the same target group. However, there is a good chance that they will steal Labour and the Tories' thunder on immigration by splitting the racist vote 4 ways and rendering it irrelevant. Which would make this the single only worthwhile thing that Kilroy has ever achieved in his thus far worthless life.
On the left of the spectrum, we have the Respect coalition. The most visible member of this group is the former Labour member and current MP, George Galloway. They are fighting on an anti-war, anti-Labour bullshit platform, and have the potential to do rather well in the London seats they're fighting. Despite his pandering to the (I suspect, imaginary) Pro-Life tendencies of the Moslems who make up the vast majority of Respect's target audience, I rather like Mr. Galloway. Unlike many current members of the Labour party, he purports to be a socialist. What's more, he's survived the barrage of mud slung his way as a result of his opposition to the Iraqi land grab and come out of it smelling more rose-like than at any other time in his career. Whilst I don't agree with all of his principles, the mere fact that he has any raises him a cut above most MP's.
The final element outside the big 3 (well...big 2 and a half) parties, is the rise of the Independent Candidate. Since Martin Bell's unseating of the Hamilton's from their fief, Independent Single-Issue candidates have started popping up and doing rather well. Dr Richard Taylor is currently the member for Wyre Forest, and was elected solely on the promise of fighting cuts to the local Kidderminster holiday. This time round, we have the likes of Reg Keys, standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. His campaign is based on debating the lies Blair told to take us to war. Also there is Demitrious Panton, who is standing against the Children's Minister (what the hell does a Children's Minister do? Visit schools in order to patronise children? Shout "Nyer Nyer, Michael Howard smells of wee!" in the Commons?) and basing his campaign on her failure to accept responsibility for an abuse scandal during her time as leader of Islington Council. These candidates are what I would call "wild cards". They may not get enough votes to win, but they will almost certainly take enough votes off the MP's they're standing against to cause a headache. As such, I find that I adore these people for no other reason than they inject a little uncertainty and (in a deeply boring way) some excitement into the election.
And so that leaves us with the main parties. The Tories, the Libdems, and Labour. To make things clear, I'm now a fully paid up member of the Libdems, so I suppose it's going to be pretty obvious where my sympathies lie. Even so, I still think it's worth having a look at all three in as objective a manner as a shouty and bilious man such as myself can manage.
Firstly we have the Tories. Well...it seems that, according to the polls, they've pulled their socks up and are now no longer the laughing stock they have been over the last 10 years. And how have they done this? Mainly by appointing a man to whom "scruples" is nothing more than a vaguely amusing parlor game from the 80's, as their election Guru. The gentleman in question is named Lynton Crosby. It was he who suggested that the "Pigs might Fly" poster produced by Labour was Anti-Semitic. Apparently, because Michael Howard is Jewish, portraying him as a pig is an act of Anti-Semitism. Obviously, this had to be explained to everyone, otherwise they might have missed what an inflammatory and racist poster it was. Needless to say, Crosby's entire campaign strategy is negative, and revolves around smearing all opponents with as many slurs as possible, whilst ratcheting up the populist rhetoric (i.e. shouting "Foreign Types are coming to steal your way of life!!" from the highest hills) in the meantime. As strategy goes, I personally find it repellant, but it seems to be working. It could almost make your forget about the doctored photographs, the admission that the Tories are lying about their spending plans, the budgetary sums that don't add up, the fact that Michael Howard is the man who was asked the same question for about 5 minutes on National TV and constantly evaded answering it, and the fact that Anne Widdecombe found him to be creepy (ANNE WIDDECOMBE for God's sake...).
Next up, the Libdems. They seem to have taken a rather odd step in their campaign to become worth noticing; they're campaigning on the basis of what they think the country needs, rather than what the opinion polls suggests the country wants. Naturally, in an age where self-interest and "What's in it for me?" have been raised to such a level that even Machiavelli would blush at having to praise it, this is political suicide. Or so it would seem. The Libdems can claim, with some justification, to be the only genuine opposition. When one looks at the policies and behaviour of Labour and the Tories these days....well, it's rather like the closing lines of Orwell's "Animal Farm;
"(they) looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".
The Libdems are the only major party to have given any real opposition to Labour on taxation, the Iraqi Land Grab and subsequent whitewashes, Student Loans and Top up fees, Law and Order...the list goes on. What's more, they seem to genuinely care about doing the best for the country; they're still attempting the necessary evil of engaging with Big Business, but seem to be at least trying to do so in a way that will make some attempt to rein in the corruption that is rife in dealings between Business and Politics. Of course, I could be just being naive, and they'll turn out to be just as big a bunch of lying mongdongs as Labour and the Tories. ~shrug~ The only way we'll find out is by voting for them.
Finally, we have Labour. Nobody seems to trust Tony Blair these days. The fact that he dished up the biggest selection of lies since Hitler's post-Sudetenland "I have no further territorial claims to make" porky of 1938, in order to take us to war in Iraq seems to have played a large part in that. However, it doesn't seem to have played a big enough part. There seems to be an attitude of "Oh yeah, he lied to us about sending in our army to slaughter brown people by the thousand in order to remove a dictator who we kept in place for years until he stopped obeying orders...but I'm sure he can be trusted on more important things. Like our money.". They say that every man has his price. It would seem that our price is an extra 100 quid a year or thereabouts. In exchange for that, we'll cheerfully turn a blind eye to whatever act of genocide Blair wants to cheerlead for. In respect of our money, Gordon Brown is the biggest boon the Labour party could hope for. As a chancellor, I like him; he has the thankless task of pandering to Big Business whilst trying to introduce socially fair economic policies, and maintaining economic stability all the while. That he does this very well is worthy of respect (that he does so in a job so apocalyptically boring is also to his credit). But I can't help feeling rather sad at how mercenary we seem to be as a nation that we can be bought off giving a shit about human rights in exchange for a little bit of money.
One final note; every single party seems to be using fear as a cornerstone of it's campaign. I suppose it must be the post 9/11 effect, but it's strange to see Kilroy telling us to be scared of anyone brown (ironic when one considers his tan), Respect telling us to be scared of Labour's Totalitarianism, the Tories telling us to be scared because if Labour win then darkies will commit acts of murder in a funny accent, and Labour telling us to be scared that, if the Tories won, we'll all be killed in our sleep by Arab turrists. The only party who don't seem to be doing this so far are the LibDems. They're concentrating on the good that they can do. And that, more than anything else, probably ensures that they won't see government in my lifetime.
Of course, bearing in mind how utterly wrong I was about the last election when I ranted about it, this could all be complete cockrot. Time will tell.
I suppose the first thing that needs to be said from my point of view (aside from "Jesus Christ, have I REALLY been churning out vitriol for over 4 years? I've just re-read the rants I wrote leading up to the last election and...well, I was hoping I'd have grown less angry over the years. Not, as it would appear, more so...) is that in this coming election we at least have the illusion of greater choice. Last time round, it was a one horse race between Labour and nobody else. The Tories were being lead to national mediocrity by a smirking Yorkshire dwarf named Hague. The Libdems...well, let's be honest here; not many people either knew or cared what the Libdems were up to, and were only dimly aware that a plump, ginger Scots gentleman was quietly campaigning for people to vote for him. If you lived in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales, you had the additional choice of that nation's Nationalist party. It was obvious that Labour would walk to victory, and as such it was difficult to care (though God knows, I tried to...).
This time round, things are looking somewhat different. The political map seems to have opened up a little; aside from the above mentioned parties (of whom more later) we also have the increasing influence of the various "Darkies are bad and evil and should all be deported before they rape your budgie and bomb your Gran" parties; UKIP, the BNP, and Kilory's Veritas (or Vanitas to give it it's more accurate name) form the vanguard of this movement. The net effect of all of these parties will almost certainly be to steal a chunk of the chav vote from the Tories and Labour. Whether or not they actually gain anything in terms of Parliamentary seats is another matter; I suspect not, as they're all squabbling for votes among the same target group. However, there is a good chance that they will steal Labour and the Tories' thunder on immigration by splitting the racist vote 4 ways and rendering it irrelevant. Which would make this the single only worthwhile thing that Kilroy has ever achieved in his thus far worthless life.
On the left of the spectrum, we have the Respect coalition. The most visible member of this group is the former Labour member and current MP, George Galloway. They are fighting on an anti-war, anti-Labour bullshit platform, and have the potential to do rather well in the London seats they're fighting. Despite his pandering to the (I suspect, imaginary) Pro-Life tendencies of the Moslems who make up the vast majority of Respect's target audience, I rather like Mr. Galloway. Unlike many current members of the Labour party, he purports to be a socialist. What's more, he's survived the barrage of mud slung his way as a result of his opposition to the Iraqi land grab and come out of it smelling more rose-like than at any other time in his career. Whilst I don't agree with all of his principles, the mere fact that he has any raises him a cut above most MP's.
The final element outside the big 3 (well...big 2 and a half) parties, is the rise of the Independent Candidate. Since Martin Bell's unseating of the Hamilton's from their fief, Independent Single-Issue candidates have started popping up and doing rather well. Dr Richard Taylor is currently the member for Wyre Forest, and was elected solely on the promise of fighting cuts to the local Kidderminster holiday. This time round, we have the likes of Reg Keys, standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. His campaign is based on debating the lies Blair told to take us to war. Also there is Demitrious Panton, who is standing against the Children's Minister (what the hell does a Children's Minister do? Visit schools in order to patronise children? Shout "Nyer Nyer, Michael Howard smells of wee!" in the Commons?) and basing his campaign on her failure to accept responsibility for an abuse scandal during her time as leader of Islington Council. These candidates are what I would call "wild cards". They may not get enough votes to win, but they will almost certainly take enough votes off the MP's they're standing against to cause a headache. As such, I find that I adore these people for no other reason than they inject a little uncertainty and (in a deeply boring way) some excitement into the election.
And so that leaves us with the main parties. The Tories, the Libdems, and Labour. To make things clear, I'm now a fully paid up member of the Libdems, so I suppose it's going to be pretty obvious where my sympathies lie. Even so, I still think it's worth having a look at all three in as objective a manner as a shouty and bilious man such as myself can manage.
Firstly we have the Tories. Well...it seems that, according to the polls, they've pulled their socks up and are now no longer the laughing stock they have been over the last 10 years. And how have they done this? Mainly by appointing a man to whom "scruples" is nothing more than a vaguely amusing parlor game from the 80's, as their election Guru. The gentleman in question is named Lynton Crosby. It was he who suggested that the "Pigs might Fly" poster produced by Labour was Anti-Semitic. Apparently, because Michael Howard is Jewish, portraying him as a pig is an act of Anti-Semitism. Obviously, this had to be explained to everyone, otherwise they might have missed what an inflammatory and racist poster it was. Needless to say, Crosby's entire campaign strategy is negative, and revolves around smearing all opponents with as many slurs as possible, whilst ratcheting up the populist rhetoric (i.e. shouting "Foreign Types are coming to steal your way of life!!" from the highest hills) in the meantime. As strategy goes, I personally find it repellant, but it seems to be working. It could almost make your forget about the doctored photographs, the admission that the Tories are lying about their spending plans, the budgetary sums that don't add up, the fact that Michael Howard is the man who was asked the same question for about 5 minutes on National TV and constantly evaded answering it, and the fact that Anne Widdecombe found him to be creepy (ANNE WIDDECOMBE for God's sake...).
Next up, the Libdems. They seem to have taken a rather odd step in their campaign to become worth noticing; they're campaigning on the basis of what they think the country needs, rather than what the opinion polls suggests the country wants. Naturally, in an age where self-interest and "What's in it for me?" have been raised to such a level that even Machiavelli would blush at having to praise it, this is political suicide. Or so it would seem. The Libdems can claim, with some justification, to be the only genuine opposition. When one looks at the policies and behaviour of Labour and the Tories these days....well, it's rather like the closing lines of Orwell's "Animal Farm;
"(they) looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".
The Libdems are the only major party to have given any real opposition to Labour on taxation, the Iraqi Land Grab and subsequent whitewashes, Student Loans and Top up fees, Law and Order...the list goes on. What's more, they seem to genuinely care about doing the best for the country; they're still attempting the necessary evil of engaging with Big Business, but seem to be at least trying to do so in a way that will make some attempt to rein in the corruption that is rife in dealings between Business and Politics. Of course, I could be just being naive, and they'll turn out to be just as big a bunch of lying mongdongs as Labour and the Tories. ~shrug~ The only way we'll find out is by voting for them.
Finally, we have Labour. Nobody seems to trust Tony Blair these days. The fact that he dished up the biggest selection of lies since Hitler's post-Sudetenland "I have no further territorial claims to make" porky of 1938, in order to take us to war in Iraq seems to have played a large part in that. However, it doesn't seem to have played a big enough part. There seems to be an attitude of "Oh yeah, he lied to us about sending in our army to slaughter brown people by the thousand in order to remove a dictator who we kept in place for years until he stopped obeying orders...but I'm sure he can be trusted on more important things. Like our money.". They say that every man has his price. It would seem that our price is an extra 100 quid a year or thereabouts. In exchange for that, we'll cheerfully turn a blind eye to whatever act of genocide Blair wants to cheerlead for. In respect of our money, Gordon Brown is the biggest boon the Labour party could hope for. As a chancellor, I like him; he has the thankless task of pandering to Big Business whilst trying to introduce socially fair economic policies, and maintaining economic stability all the while. That he does this very well is worthy of respect (that he does so in a job so apocalyptically boring is also to his credit). But I can't help feeling rather sad at how mercenary we seem to be as a nation that we can be bought off giving a shit about human rights in exchange for a little bit of money.
One final note; every single party seems to be using fear as a cornerstone of it's campaign. I suppose it must be the post 9/11 effect, but it's strange to see Kilroy telling us to be scared of anyone brown (ironic when one considers his tan), Respect telling us to be scared of Labour's Totalitarianism, the Tories telling us to be scared because if Labour win then darkies will commit acts of murder in a funny accent, and Labour telling us to be scared that, if the Tories won, we'll all be killed in our sleep by Arab turrists. The only party who don't seem to be doing this so far are the LibDems. They're concentrating on the good that they can do. And that, more than anything else, probably ensures that they won't see government in my lifetime.
Of course, bearing in mind how utterly wrong I was about the last election when I ranted about it, this could all be complete cockrot. Time will tell.
Wednesday, 30 March 2005
Onward Christian Soldiers
In common with almost every sentient being outside of America, I despise the Evangelical right. This was my attempt at a reasoned argument against the set of wankers.
Okay; it's now nearly April 2005. The US Presidential elections were held back in November 2004. I think I've just about calmed down enough to talk about what that unbelievably christawful result might now mean for the rest of us. Why did I need so long to cool my enflamed hate gland? Well, because the aspect of Dubya's election victory that I'm going to talk about is the increasing power of the Christian Right.
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
Okay; it's now nearly April 2005. The US Presidential elections were held back in November 2004. I think I've just about calmed down enough to talk about what that unbelievably christawful result might now mean for the rest of us. Why did I need so long to cool my enflamed hate gland? Well, because the aspect of Dubya's election victory that I'm going to talk about is the increasing power of the Christian Right.
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
Monday, 24 January 2005
Blue Monday
A generalised whine about the perils of rose-tinted glasses.
Today is January 24th. The most depressing day (according to scientists) of the most depressing month of the year. And to cap it all, it's a Monday too. January is like the longest Monday in history, so to actually be stuck in the middle of a January Monday is something akin to purgatory. So I need to do something to distract me from this christawful dog’s ringpiece of a day.
I suppose it's unfortunate for me that I have no enemies to distract me. That would be the best solution, as it would undoubtedly give me something to focus all my hatred on, and put my hopes and desires in that context too. Having someone whom I hate and fear with all of my heart would probably make the day seem much easier to deal with. Do you know what I mean? No? Well, if you can bear to stay with me on this one, you very soon will do.
Whilst reading through a magazine recently, I noticed that it referred to the years of the Cold War as a "golden age for peace in the western world". I re-read the piece, just to make sure it hadn't been soaked in some sort of invisible irony. Apparently the author was completely serious. He felt that the 40 odd years of cold-sweating fear of nuclear war constituted a golden age. I've mentioned this to one or two people, and it seems he's not alone in that opinion. An awful lot of people feel less secure now than they did then. Why?
Well, it's my belief that the reason for today's world being considered far more dangerous than that of 20 years ago is that we don't have a monolithic, seemingly unstoppable enemy to distract us from our everyday fears. During the Cold War, we all grew up and grew older on the understanding that the USSR was, at any moment, going to kill us all. They were, as far as I was concerned, plotting to take over the whole world (that's what happens when you get your early political theory from your mother...) and either enslave us all, or turn us to atomic dust. When one has all that on ones mind, it's sorta difficult to concentrate on the everyday existential ennui and torpor that is a feature of the post millennial western world.
But the cold war ended with the 80's. And did we all explode in happiness at the release of this nightmarish pressure? Did we hell. If one looks at the popular culture of the UK and (especially) the US through the 90's, one is struck by just how many disparate groups we were being told to be frightened of. It's as if, free of the burden of hate and fear at long last, all we wanted was something else to be scared of. Is it a coincidence that the most popular TV series of the decade was the X-Files, a show which told us that something was indeed out there, and given half a chance it was going to abduct and anal probe us with satanic glee? In fact there was something of a rash of shows that tried to convince America that they had to look to the skies to find their next enemy. However, pretty much every show through the 90's that did try to create a new enemy almost always fell back to the exact same plot; it was the government wot really did it.
To me, it seemed that we were engaging in a collective national introspection in both the UK and the US. And it doesn't appear that we like what we'd found. According to popular culture, our governments were part of epic, epoch-spanning conspiracies involving any and all semi-mythical bogeymen from Aliens to Aryans. Their only interest was in experimenting on us, or trading us on an intergalactic slave market, or turning us into unthinking consumerist drones. In other words, deprived of someone or something to concentrate our hate on, we all seem to go a little bit hysterical. It didn't matter how outlandish the enemy was (or at least, it didn't to David Icke). All that mattered was that we had one. And for some reason, we seem to need to know who our enemy is in order to feel happy. And if we don't actually have any enemies? Well, we can always rely on the TV to tell us whom we SHOULD be hating.
Of course, it's not just the TV networks who were kind enough to create enemies for us; Governments are pretty good at it too (as an aside, perhaps one of the more annoying things about the likes of David Icke, Alex Jones, and other self-serving conspiracy theorist out there is this; by insisting on ranting at length about how the government are made up of reptilian aliens who practice night-time rape rituals overseen by mythical owls, they make us automatically skeptical of anyone who tries to point out that perhaps those people who are our rulers might just be a bunch of money-hungry hypocrites. Thus it's impossible to call a government into question without being thought of as a little paranoid. Thanks guys.)
Look at the global hysteria about Al-Quaida. Here is a group whose membership numbers a few thousand (perhaps even a few hundred) individuals. They were concentrated mainly in a few camps in countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. But if you listened to the increasingly shrill briefings given by Blair and Bush, they're an evil organisation ran by a supergenius. They have their dark tendrils snaking across the world, ready to sink into and corrupt the purity of our wonderful western way of life (incidentally, has anyone stopped to think why Osama Bin Laden hasn't attacked Holland? After all, according to Dubya, he only hates us for our freedom...). They all have Einstein's intelligence, Hitlers evil, Hercules' strength, and Moses' fashion sense. And seemingly, the only way to beat them is to shoot or bomb everyone in the middle east who's skin is offensively brown whilst trilling mindlessly that anyone who disapproves of this approach "may as well be beheading hostages in Iraq".
It works both ways of course; the fun-loving criminals in Al-Quaida are doing their very best to convince the people of the Muslim world that the US and UK are the twin Luciferian nations of Gog and Magog (if those names aren't proof that the bloke who wrote the Revelations book of the Bible wasn't tripping, I'd like to know what is...) made reality. Both their worldview, and that of Dubya and his Neo-Conservative buddies is nothing more than fearmongering lies. But those lies have so far been persuasive enough to cause war. Why should that be the case when anyone with half a brain can tell that both sets of cockwits are lying?
Could it be because we're all so desperate for an enemy to focus our hate on that we're willing to be so blatantly lied to in order to get one? It's an unpleasant conclusion to come to, but unfortunately it's one that seems to make sense. Nothing unites people like a common enemy; Dubya's re-election would seem to prove that, as would the Labour governments insistence that anything other than an election victory for them will invite a terrorist attack. Maybe we need to remind ourselves that the "golden age" we lived in up to the end of the 80's was not much more than 40 years of holding our breath and waiting for oblivion. That hardly seems like an ideal scenario to go back to.
Today is January 24th. The most depressing day (according to scientists) of the most depressing month of the year. And to cap it all, it's a Monday too. January is like the longest Monday in history, so to actually be stuck in the middle of a January Monday is something akin to purgatory. So I need to do something to distract me from this christawful dog’s ringpiece of a day.
I suppose it's unfortunate for me that I have no enemies to distract me. That would be the best solution, as it would undoubtedly give me something to focus all my hatred on, and put my hopes and desires in that context too. Having someone whom I hate and fear with all of my heart would probably make the day seem much easier to deal with. Do you know what I mean? No? Well, if you can bear to stay with me on this one, you very soon will do.
Whilst reading through a magazine recently, I noticed that it referred to the years of the Cold War as a "golden age for peace in the western world". I re-read the piece, just to make sure it hadn't been soaked in some sort of invisible irony. Apparently the author was completely serious. He felt that the 40 odd years of cold-sweating fear of nuclear war constituted a golden age. I've mentioned this to one or two people, and it seems he's not alone in that opinion. An awful lot of people feel less secure now than they did then. Why?
Well, it's my belief that the reason for today's world being considered far more dangerous than that of 20 years ago is that we don't have a monolithic, seemingly unstoppable enemy to distract us from our everyday fears. During the Cold War, we all grew up and grew older on the understanding that the USSR was, at any moment, going to kill us all. They were, as far as I was concerned, plotting to take over the whole world (that's what happens when you get your early political theory from your mother...) and either enslave us all, or turn us to atomic dust. When one has all that on ones mind, it's sorta difficult to concentrate on the everyday existential ennui and torpor that is a feature of the post millennial western world.
But the cold war ended with the 80's. And did we all explode in happiness at the release of this nightmarish pressure? Did we hell. If one looks at the popular culture of the UK and (especially) the US through the 90's, one is struck by just how many disparate groups we were being told to be frightened of. It's as if, free of the burden of hate and fear at long last, all we wanted was something else to be scared of. Is it a coincidence that the most popular TV series of the decade was the X-Files, a show which told us that something was indeed out there, and given half a chance it was going to abduct and anal probe us with satanic glee? In fact there was something of a rash of shows that tried to convince America that they had to look to the skies to find their next enemy. However, pretty much every show through the 90's that did try to create a new enemy almost always fell back to the exact same plot; it was the government wot really did it.
To me, it seemed that we were engaging in a collective national introspection in both the UK and the US. And it doesn't appear that we like what we'd found. According to popular culture, our governments were part of epic, epoch-spanning conspiracies involving any and all semi-mythical bogeymen from Aliens to Aryans. Their only interest was in experimenting on us, or trading us on an intergalactic slave market, or turning us into unthinking consumerist drones. In other words, deprived of someone or something to concentrate our hate on, we all seem to go a little bit hysterical. It didn't matter how outlandish the enemy was (or at least, it didn't to David Icke). All that mattered was that we had one. And for some reason, we seem to need to know who our enemy is in order to feel happy. And if we don't actually have any enemies? Well, we can always rely on the TV to tell us whom we SHOULD be hating.
Of course, it's not just the TV networks who were kind enough to create enemies for us; Governments are pretty good at it too (as an aside, perhaps one of the more annoying things about the likes of David Icke, Alex Jones, and other self-serving conspiracy theorist out there is this; by insisting on ranting at length about how the government are made up of reptilian aliens who practice night-time rape rituals overseen by mythical owls, they make us automatically skeptical of anyone who tries to point out that perhaps those people who are our rulers might just be a bunch of money-hungry hypocrites. Thus it's impossible to call a government into question without being thought of as a little paranoid. Thanks guys.)
Look at the global hysteria about Al-Quaida. Here is a group whose membership numbers a few thousand (perhaps even a few hundred) individuals. They were concentrated mainly in a few camps in countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. But if you listened to the increasingly shrill briefings given by Blair and Bush, they're an evil organisation ran by a supergenius. They have their dark tendrils snaking across the world, ready to sink into and corrupt the purity of our wonderful western way of life (incidentally, has anyone stopped to think why Osama Bin Laden hasn't attacked Holland? After all, according to Dubya, he only hates us for our freedom...). They all have Einstein's intelligence, Hitlers evil, Hercules' strength, and Moses' fashion sense. And seemingly, the only way to beat them is to shoot or bomb everyone in the middle east who's skin is offensively brown whilst trilling mindlessly that anyone who disapproves of this approach "may as well be beheading hostages in Iraq".
It works both ways of course; the fun-loving criminals in Al-Quaida are doing their very best to convince the people of the Muslim world that the US and UK are the twin Luciferian nations of Gog and Magog (if those names aren't proof that the bloke who wrote the Revelations book of the Bible wasn't tripping, I'd like to know what is...) made reality. Both their worldview, and that of Dubya and his Neo-Conservative buddies is nothing more than fearmongering lies. But those lies have so far been persuasive enough to cause war. Why should that be the case when anyone with half a brain can tell that both sets of cockwits are lying?
Could it be because we're all so desperate for an enemy to focus our hate on that we're willing to be so blatantly lied to in order to get one? It's an unpleasant conclusion to come to, but unfortunately it's one that seems to make sense. Nothing unites people like a common enemy; Dubya's re-election would seem to prove that, as would the Labour governments insistence that anything other than an election victory for them will invite a terrorist attack. Maybe we need to remind ourselves that the "golden age" we lived in up to the end of the 80's was not much more than 40 years of holding our breath and waiting for oblivion. That hardly seems like an ideal scenario to go back to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)