Today represents my last day in my current job as I leave for pastures new on Monday (well, a new department anyway). As I'm going to be getting trained how to actually do my new job for a few weeks, I shall be scaling down the frequency of these rants for a while. I hope to be able to at least manage 1 per week although it all depends on time available.
Still, what a day to go out on. Yesterday was a momentous day for France. A day that will add rich texture to the proud history of this mighty nation, a day that will long be spoken of in reverential and awed terms. It was the day that rural incest and inbreeding was brought up to date for the 21st century. I am referring to the 62-year-old (!) French woman who became pregnant through IVF treatment in America. Nothing too unusual in that these days. What sets it apart from the other stories of decrepit new mothers is the identity of the sperm donor; it was her brother. Brother, Sister and child live with their elderly mother in a large house in rural France. It is also rumoured that the only reason that they had the child was in order to secure the inheritance of their mothers’ house and (apparently considerable) fortune for the direct bloodline rather than allow it to go to some distant cousins.
As I have already admitted in a previous rant, I am a colossal pervert. However, this story doesn't so much make my flesh crawl as make it complete a 100m sprint in less than 9 seconds; what they have done is grim beyond all belief. The long held stereotype of the country bumpkin introducing you to his wife and sister when only 1 woman is standing there has been reinforced in spades by this hi-tech perversity. Moreover the doctor who performed the treatment, far from being angry at her duplicity (she lied about whose sperm it was) has gone on camera to say that he would do it again! Jesus Christ!! I can see how the gene pool ends up turning into a puddle in the more remote areas of the world (where family trees look like disease ridden stumps) such as Kentucky, Siberia, South Shields etc. But to give people the option of inbreeding via a test tube seems quite extravagantly awful. Trust the French to come up with it...
But fun though it is to bait the French with their incestuous ways and inability to pronounce the word "this" without sounding like a character from 'Allo Allo, I must move on to other things a little closer to home. Specifically to a conflict that, just as it seemed to be on the verge of resolution, has flared up again seemingly inexplicably. Naturally, I refer to Northern Ireland and the riots of the previous 2 nights. Gangs of loyalist and republican youths have been attempting to stone and petrol bomb each other with some determination. Thanks to the efforts of the police however, the only real injuries have been officers trying to keep the two factions apart, a task that it would appear that they have thus far succeeded in.
For the sake of the peace process, this is a good thing. Left wing though I am, it pains me to hear of a police being injured in the line of duty (although not as much as it pains the poor bugger who gets hit by a petrol bomb) so it has to be for a damn good reason in order to cause me to believe that it is for the best. In this case, it has so far managed to prevent either side in Northern Ireland claiming that the other has committed a heinous crime which must be avenged (i.e. one side does something bad that is excused by a previous awful act committed by the other side. In turn, the something bad excuses an atrocity in retaliation for it, and so on until everybody in Ireland is dead...). As neither republican nor loyalist have caused any major damage to each other, they cannot really complain of oppression from the other side (yes, yes; I'm being naive again because we all know both sides will continue to bitterly complain about their respective treatment at the hands of the other).
As both sides have demagogues of pretty much equal ferocity and bigotry, it is of vital importance that we keep their excuses to vent bile and hatred to an absolute minimum. On the loyalist side (technically the side that the British government have been backing all these years, and predominantly Protestant) we have the Rev. Ian Paisley, and a more godawful bigot one cannot hope to find. This is a man who, upon the visit of the Pope to Ireland, stood in the background bellowing "I denounce you as the Antichrist!" (which even I thought was a bit much...) until he was removed. And this is the man claiming to be the voice of his people (as opposed to whose people I wonder...?) and worse still, the man who is supposed to be on "our" side. I'd rather stand side by side with Dr. Harold Shipman than that horrendous cluster of evil that goes under the description of a man. That bastard has never once denounced the violence by Protestants against Catholics, nor has he even made the pretense of opening dialogue with them (presumably he thinks they're too busy offering worship to the antichrist...). This man must not, repeat *not*, be allowed to become the mouthpiece of the loyalist community or we can look forward to many more years of violence and despair.
On the republican side, we no longer have a single spokesperson. The duties are taken up as a collective by Sinn Fein (amongst others; they are not the sole representative of the Catholic community by any means, but they are the ones who represent those most willing to resort to violence). Their most public figures are Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Both of them were considered to be terrorists until recently and the public treated their words with contempt and derision. And yet nowadays they speak with honeyed reassurances and they talk reason and sense. Yet this men are meant to be the voice of the IRA who are (rightly in my opinion) despised as terrorists and criminals. Why is it that they are the ones who are making most of the peaceful overtures (procrastinating over weapons notwithstanding)? Why is it that the loyalists side who have suffered under the terror of the IRA for 20 years are the ones least willing to compromise?
Could it be because, whichever way you look at it, the Catholic (a generalisation as they are not all Catholics but let's stick with it for now) population of Northern Ireland have been discriminated against in favour of the Protestant (ditto) population since the word go. Whether in be in terms of jobs, benefits, or quality of life, the Protestants have long since held the upper hand. A compromise would mean losing some of this advantage, and the likes of Ian Paisley (Snr and Jnr since the old bugger has spawned a clone) will fight bitterly against this. Unfortunately, the main lesson that has been learned from the British occupation has been the sneering attitude toward the "natives" and the belief that because they are allied with the occupying power, they are better than those who are not.
The fact that trouble has started so early is a truly ominous and distressing omen. Marching season will soon be on us, and the Orangemen will insist on once more forcibly reminding the Catholic population of Northern Ireland that their "side" was victorious over the Papists at the Battle of the Boyne. Who were led by King James II. In 1690. Now I may just be being a little picky here, but it strikes me that perhaps after 300+ years, the Orange Order might just have let it go. But no, they insist on reminded everyone of a division that existed in history, and by doing this they only serve to keep that division in place. It would be the equivalent of a march from Sunderland through to Newcastle City centre to commemorate a football victory from 100 years ago. It doesn't matter any more, and times have moved on, but if the denizens of Newcastle were reminded of this year after year, there would be anger there, and each march would ensure it was kept simmering. Good things are being achieved by the peace process and this is the nearest that Ireland has been to peace since Henry II invaded almost a thousand years ago (well, in the 11 hundreds anyway). I hope that the people of Ireland learn from the hatred and horror of that great weight of history, and find themselves more inclined to bring it to an end so that a new and peaceful chapter in their history can be written. It would be a travesty if that same history remains the gulf between the 2 opposing sides. In either case, as long as the Paisley clan are sidelined and ignored, I suppose I shall glean some satisfaction from that.
Saturday, 23 June 2001
Friday, 22 June 2001
Dumb and Dumber
A rant that was the product of a bad day at work.
Okay, maybe this is just me and maybe I'm just being a touch elitist here. If so, I will welcome any corrections and complaints and apologise for any offence whatsoever that is caused. But please consider this honestly and sincerely; Are the general public getting stupider or what? I've heard all sorts of complaints from the great and good about the "dumbing down" of English culture and have dismissed them out of hand. However, having worked in a job where I have contact with the great British public every single day for a little under 2 years, I am rapidly rethinking that opinion.
As you may know, I work on a helpline for a software company. Essentially, people have a problem with their software or with their accounts, they ring us, we work out what the problem is, we work out how to solve it, then we relay this information to the customer. This sounds incredibly straightforward does it not? And in an ideal world it would be. This, as I have come to regretfully accept, is not an ideal world. If it were, people would be able to explain clearly and correctly the exact circumstances leading up to the problem occurring. They would not, repeat *not* ring up and simply say, "My computer's not working." "What is the exact problem please sir?" "Well...it's broken and you need to fix it."
Oh well, obviously if it's broken then I know exactly what you need to do. You need to stop wasting my precious time, energy, and breath with your complete ignorance of what the hell is going on with your machine! Do they think that I'm somehow magically going to be able to figure out the problem from that? Or are they so touchingly naive as to think that there can only be one type of problem with a computer (if only...)? So hence, it can be quite alarmingly difficult to actually get the information out of a person in the first place, and it is positively torturous when that person is completely incapable of answering simple questions ("So whereabouts in the program were you when the problem occurred?" "I was in the program." "Okay, we've established that, now which screen were you on please?" "I told you, I was in the program! Are you thick or something?") I don't know if anyone has done a study of blood pressure levels of helpline staff compared to the rest of the country but I have a strong suspicion that the results would be rather telling...
Anyway, the actual solving of the problem tends to be by far and away the easiest part of the job because one only has to rely on ones own ability. The next (and usually most stress inducing) problem is actually explaining the solution to the logheaded, bogbrained, hogfaced bastard at the other end of the phone. On most occasions, I have to guide a customer through different stages and different screens on their computer. Now I will make clear that I do not begrudge anybody who is not au fait with computer terminology. After all, if they were a computer expert then they would not need to ring a helpline, so a certain level of ineptitude and the need for guidance is both understandable and forgivable. However, I do resent it when people are utterly incapable of following simple instructions or, in the most desperate of cases, reading what is written on a screen. If I were to ring for help, I would do exactly what I was told by the disembodied voice on the other end of the phone. Can anyone explain to me why I might want to question, cast doubt, and criticise every instruction I am given? Or why, upon being told quite clearly to click onto button A, I repeatedly click onto button B and still insist that I am doing what I am told?!?!
But still more terrifying than any of the above is the helpline's worst nightmare; the customer so stupid that they don't realise how stupid they are, moreover they assume that because they don't understand what they are being told, that the person giving them the information must be incredibly thick! To that end, these moronic living brain donors get angry and lambaste me because the office brain cell is currently residing in the Yucca plant in the corner and they are incapable of comprehending, for example, how they cannot perform a certain task in the computer because it is physically impossible. I realise that I am a poster boy for arrogance, but even I bow down to someone who is so immensely arrogant as to always assume that if I don't understand something, then the person relaying that information must be stupider than I.
All of the above is merely my experience in my work setting. But I think that the problem occurs because more and more of us are being cosseted (intellectually speaking) and allowed to put less and less thought into our daily lives. Simple little things like a TV program constantly showing the name of an interviewee at the bottom of the screen in case we have forgotten who they were in the last 8 seconds, or warnings on a packet of peanuts saying that the product may contain nuts are proof of this to an extent. When one gets into that way of thinking, it is a small step to expect all of our problems or difficulties to be placed into someone else's hands, and that is what a large number of people whom I speak to every day are like. They make no effort to think for themselves but simply hand over control of their brain to me for the duration of the phone call. I'm not asking for an intellectual revolution (there is nothing so irritating as an intelligent person who knows just how intelligent they are and insist on proving it at every possible opportunity), I'm just asking that people stop and think every now and then before expecting a problem to be solved by somebody else. I don't think I'm asking much by that. Am I?
Okay, maybe this is just me and maybe I'm just being a touch elitist here. If so, I will welcome any corrections and complaints and apologise for any offence whatsoever that is caused. But please consider this honestly and sincerely; Are the general public getting stupider or what? I've heard all sorts of complaints from the great and good about the "dumbing down" of English culture and have dismissed them out of hand. However, having worked in a job where I have contact with the great British public every single day for a little under 2 years, I am rapidly rethinking that opinion.
As you may know, I work on a helpline for a software company. Essentially, people have a problem with their software or with their accounts, they ring us, we work out what the problem is, we work out how to solve it, then we relay this information to the customer. This sounds incredibly straightforward does it not? And in an ideal world it would be. This, as I have come to regretfully accept, is not an ideal world. If it were, people would be able to explain clearly and correctly the exact circumstances leading up to the problem occurring. They would not, repeat *not* ring up and simply say, "My computer's not working." "What is the exact problem please sir?" "Well...it's broken and you need to fix it."
Oh well, obviously if it's broken then I know exactly what you need to do. You need to stop wasting my precious time, energy, and breath with your complete ignorance of what the hell is going on with your machine! Do they think that I'm somehow magically going to be able to figure out the problem from that? Or are they so touchingly naive as to think that there can only be one type of problem with a computer (if only...)? So hence, it can be quite alarmingly difficult to actually get the information out of a person in the first place, and it is positively torturous when that person is completely incapable of answering simple questions ("So whereabouts in the program were you when the problem occurred?" "I was in the program." "Okay, we've established that, now which screen were you on please?" "I told you, I was in the program! Are you thick or something?") I don't know if anyone has done a study of blood pressure levels of helpline staff compared to the rest of the country but I have a strong suspicion that the results would be rather telling...
Anyway, the actual solving of the problem tends to be by far and away the easiest part of the job because one only has to rely on ones own ability. The next (and usually most stress inducing) problem is actually explaining the solution to the logheaded, bogbrained, hogfaced bastard at the other end of the phone. On most occasions, I have to guide a customer through different stages and different screens on their computer. Now I will make clear that I do not begrudge anybody who is not au fait with computer terminology. After all, if they were a computer expert then they would not need to ring a helpline, so a certain level of ineptitude and the need for guidance is both understandable and forgivable. However, I do resent it when people are utterly incapable of following simple instructions or, in the most desperate of cases, reading what is written on a screen. If I were to ring for help, I would do exactly what I was told by the disembodied voice on the other end of the phone. Can anyone explain to me why I might want to question, cast doubt, and criticise every instruction I am given? Or why, upon being told quite clearly to click onto button A, I repeatedly click onto button B and still insist that I am doing what I am told?!?!
But still more terrifying than any of the above is the helpline's worst nightmare; the customer so stupid that they don't realise how stupid they are, moreover they assume that because they don't understand what they are being told, that the person giving them the information must be incredibly thick! To that end, these moronic living brain donors get angry and lambaste me because the office brain cell is currently residing in the Yucca plant in the corner and they are incapable of comprehending, for example, how they cannot perform a certain task in the computer because it is physically impossible. I realise that I am a poster boy for arrogance, but even I bow down to someone who is so immensely arrogant as to always assume that if I don't understand something, then the person relaying that information must be stupider than I.
All of the above is merely my experience in my work setting. But I think that the problem occurs because more and more of us are being cosseted (intellectually speaking) and allowed to put less and less thought into our daily lives. Simple little things like a TV program constantly showing the name of an interviewee at the bottom of the screen in case we have forgotten who they were in the last 8 seconds, or warnings on a packet of peanuts saying that the product may contain nuts are proof of this to an extent. When one gets into that way of thinking, it is a small step to expect all of our problems or difficulties to be placed into someone else's hands, and that is what a large number of people whom I speak to every day are like. They make no effort to think for themselves but simply hand over control of their brain to me for the duration of the phone call. I'm not asking for an intellectual revolution (there is nothing so irritating as an intelligent person who knows just how intelligent they are and insist on proving it at every possible opportunity), I'm just asking that people stop and think every now and then before expecting a problem to be solved by somebody else. I don't think I'm asking much by that. Am I?
Thursday, 21 June 2001
A Short Essay on Killing
There seems to be a massive overload of stories concerning death, destruction, and doom today. Every item seems to be laden with reminders of mortality; the prosecution making their closing speech in the Jill Dando case, the parole hearing of Robert Thompson, the start of an enquiry into Dr. Harold Shipman and his undoubtedly many victims, and the extradition of the bastard who murdered Caroline Dickinson in France 5 years ago. The list seems endless doesn't it? And me being me, it just wouldn't be polite to not pick over the bones (if you'll pardon the expression) of this morbid cluster of soggy horror.
The Jill Dando case is taking up a huge amount of column inches in the media at the moment, and by heaven it holds all the interest and fascination of a damp horsefart. As far as I can gather, the whole matter seems to be revolving around the discovery of a quarter of a particle of gunpowder residing on the clothing of the accused, Barry George (a.k.a. Bulsara). That and the fact that he's a bit of a sad and lonely man who lives his life through the life of celebrities (in other words, he almost certainly had a subscription to Hello! magazine...). Throughout the trial we've also been informed of a number of other possible assassins, ranging from Serbs sent by Arkan (a now deceased warlord) to the criminal underworld (who were presumably sick of Crimewatch UK and couldn't get to Nick Ross).
Unfortunately, no one in the country gives a shit about whether he did it or not. Seeing as how we have the collective attention span of an elderly and rather arthritic care home resident, Jill Dando is old news. We have a whole range of other unpleasant events to distract us now. And besides, it's not as if she was an A list celebrity. We've got plenty of mid 30's blonde female presenters with little or no personality to speak of, so losing one isn't exactly a major televisual tragedy. By the same token, the trial of her supposed murderer is not a major event by any means. Who among you has genuinely missed her from your TV screen? No-one; not whilst we've got vapid Carol Smiley to fill the role anyway...Of course the murder of anyone is a tragic thing, but the media seem to failed to have noticed that, with the exception of the over 60's, the trial of her murderer is no more meritorious and newsworthy than the trial of a murderer of a local man or woman. Oh how cruel and fickle celebrity can be...
As I've already went on about the Bulger killers at some length previously, I shall try and be brief concerning Robert Thompson's parole hearing. Needless to say there are protests the length and breadth of the land, some fully understandable (Jamie Bulger's mother has appealed for anyone who comes into contact with the 2 boys once released to make their identities public), others less so (mass protests outside parole board offices).
Due to the nature of the original crime, these latter set of do-gooders really do serve to cause me the same level of irritation as an unwiped smear of shit around one's ringpiece. If you'll recall, Jamie was led to his death from a crowded shopping mall and led through the streets of Liverpool. He was crying according to those who saw him, and was visibly distressed and upset.
Where the fuck were all of these placard-bearing do-gooders when Jamie was being dragged to his early grave? We have any amount of people screaming for so called justice now, why didn't they want to get involved then? Probably because they don't want to admit to the fact that a society so messed up that bystanders will casually allow this sort of thing to happen may just have a few serious problems, and it's much easier to assuage collective guilt by demonising the killers and venting hatred (either for them or for themselves) in a noisy and public manner. Maybe they just don't want to admit that we're all as much to blame for failing James (and the countless other victims of abuse) as those who commit the crimes themselves by continually being bystanders and turning a blind eye.
One could make a link between the public turning a blind eye and the damage it causes, and a professional body not being sufficiently responsible for monitoring it's members. Certainly, that is one of the factors involved in allowing Dr. Harold Shipman to top the league for all-time UK serial killers. Because of the amount of self-regulation within the British Medical Association where GP's are concerned, a psychopath such as Shipman was allowed to kill as he desired (and he desired a lot if the figures concerning his final tally are accurate; numbers in the mid 300's are being bandied about as conservative estimates).
But the point is, he is a psychopath and one cannot expect to be able to regulate for people such as him. Although his case has demonstrated that GP regulations do need tightening, I hope that this will not be taken as a reason to introduce mountains of red tape and paperwork in the name of ensuring that a one off situation is guarded against in the future. The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" is a one that springs to mind...
And finally we have the extradition of a Mr. Francisco Arce Montes from Miami to France in order to face trial for the rape and murder of Caroline Dickinson, a schoolgirl who met her awful fate whilst on a school trip to Brittany. It would appear that Montes, a Spaniard, is a prolific and worldwide pervert, thought to be responsible for a string of rapes in Swansea, the murder in France, and sex crimes in the USA. I find it frightening that one man can go on a worldwide orgy of rape and murder and entirely escape detection for so long. It was only coincidence that he was even caught (a US immigration officer recognised his name in an immigration service bulletin; he only recognised the name because he had been on holiday in Britain and had seen Montes' name in a newspaper as a possible suspect).
The fact that law enforcement is still almost wholly limited to nation states allows such a thing to happen. In America, a gentleman named Henry Lee Lucas took advantage of the fact that individual states in the US did not compare or swap records of unsolved crimes. Had they done so they would have found that a number of unsolved crimes in their various states fit into the same pattern. Lucas killed over 30 before he was caught, and the US authorities learned their lesson and co-operation has markedly increased between police in different states. That was in just one (albeit a large) country. The worldwide potential for murder and mayhem by one reasonably cunning man or woman is, I would suggest, even more worrying. But still the police of each individual country will regard one another with suspicion and contempt, and more people like Montes will continue to kill and rape undetected. I think we owe ourselves more than to allow this.
So then, 4 different murders and 4 different problems with society in each individual case. It would seem that be it apathy at the trial of a murderer, people doing nothing to help because "they don't want to get involved", professional incompetence, or failure of organisations to co-operate, we as a whole are not actually doing very much to safeguard against the horror of finding out that your friend, your husband or wife, your parents etc. has been cruelly taken from us. Though it is the murderer who does the deed, to a certain extent it is us who allow it to happen.
The Jill Dando case is taking up a huge amount of column inches in the media at the moment, and by heaven it holds all the interest and fascination of a damp horsefart. As far as I can gather, the whole matter seems to be revolving around the discovery of a quarter of a particle of gunpowder residing on the clothing of the accused, Barry George (a.k.a. Bulsara). That and the fact that he's a bit of a sad and lonely man who lives his life through the life of celebrities (in other words, he almost certainly had a subscription to Hello! magazine...). Throughout the trial we've also been informed of a number of other possible assassins, ranging from Serbs sent by Arkan (a now deceased warlord) to the criminal underworld (who were presumably sick of Crimewatch UK and couldn't get to Nick Ross).
Unfortunately, no one in the country gives a shit about whether he did it or not. Seeing as how we have the collective attention span of an elderly and rather arthritic care home resident, Jill Dando is old news. We have a whole range of other unpleasant events to distract us now. And besides, it's not as if she was an A list celebrity. We've got plenty of mid 30's blonde female presenters with little or no personality to speak of, so losing one isn't exactly a major televisual tragedy. By the same token, the trial of her supposed murderer is not a major event by any means. Who among you has genuinely missed her from your TV screen? No-one; not whilst we've got vapid Carol Smiley to fill the role anyway...Of course the murder of anyone is a tragic thing, but the media seem to failed to have noticed that, with the exception of the over 60's, the trial of her murderer is no more meritorious and newsworthy than the trial of a murderer of a local man or woman. Oh how cruel and fickle celebrity can be...
As I've already went on about the Bulger killers at some length previously, I shall try and be brief concerning Robert Thompson's parole hearing. Needless to say there are protests the length and breadth of the land, some fully understandable (Jamie Bulger's mother has appealed for anyone who comes into contact with the 2 boys once released to make their identities public), others less so (mass protests outside parole board offices).
Due to the nature of the original crime, these latter set of do-gooders really do serve to cause me the same level of irritation as an unwiped smear of shit around one's ringpiece. If you'll recall, Jamie was led to his death from a crowded shopping mall and led through the streets of Liverpool. He was crying according to those who saw him, and was visibly distressed and upset.
Where the fuck were all of these placard-bearing do-gooders when Jamie was being dragged to his early grave? We have any amount of people screaming for so called justice now, why didn't they want to get involved then? Probably because they don't want to admit to the fact that a society so messed up that bystanders will casually allow this sort of thing to happen may just have a few serious problems, and it's much easier to assuage collective guilt by demonising the killers and venting hatred (either for them or for themselves) in a noisy and public manner. Maybe they just don't want to admit that we're all as much to blame for failing James (and the countless other victims of abuse) as those who commit the crimes themselves by continually being bystanders and turning a blind eye.
One could make a link between the public turning a blind eye and the damage it causes, and a professional body not being sufficiently responsible for monitoring it's members. Certainly, that is one of the factors involved in allowing Dr. Harold Shipman to top the league for all-time UK serial killers. Because of the amount of self-regulation within the British Medical Association where GP's are concerned, a psychopath such as Shipman was allowed to kill as he desired (and he desired a lot if the figures concerning his final tally are accurate; numbers in the mid 300's are being bandied about as conservative estimates).
But the point is, he is a psychopath and one cannot expect to be able to regulate for people such as him. Although his case has demonstrated that GP regulations do need tightening, I hope that this will not be taken as a reason to introduce mountains of red tape and paperwork in the name of ensuring that a one off situation is guarded against in the future. The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" is a one that springs to mind...
And finally we have the extradition of a Mr. Francisco Arce Montes from Miami to France in order to face trial for the rape and murder of Caroline Dickinson, a schoolgirl who met her awful fate whilst on a school trip to Brittany. It would appear that Montes, a Spaniard, is a prolific and worldwide pervert, thought to be responsible for a string of rapes in Swansea, the murder in France, and sex crimes in the USA. I find it frightening that one man can go on a worldwide orgy of rape and murder and entirely escape detection for so long. It was only coincidence that he was even caught (a US immigration officer recognised his name in an immigration service bulletin; he only recognised the name because he had been on holiday in Britain and had seen Montes' name in a newspaper as a possible suspect).
The fact that law enforcement is still almost wholly limited to nation states allows such a thing to happen. In America, a gentleman named Henry Lee Lucas took advantage of the fact that individual states in the US did not compare or swap records of unsolved crimes. Had they done so they would have found that a number of unsolved crimes in their various states fit into the same pattern. Lucas killed over 30 before he was caught, and the US authorities learned their lesson and co-operation has markedly increased between police in different states. That was in just one (albeit a large) country. The worldwide potential for murder and mayhem by one reasonably cunning man or woman is, I would suggest, even more worrying. But still the police of each individual country will regard one another with suspicion and contempt, and more people like Montes will continue to kill and rape undetected. I think we owe ourselves more than to allow this.
So then, 4 different murders and 4 different problems with society in each individual case. It would seem that be it apathy at the trial of a murderer, people doing nothing to help because "they don't want to get involved", professional incompetence, or failure of organisations to co-operate, we as a whole are not actually doing very much to safeguard against the horror of finding out that your friend, your husband or wife, your parents etc. has been cruelly taken from us. Though it is the murderer who does the deed, to a certain extent it is us who allow it to happen.
Wednesday, 20 June 2001
Uninteresting Times
A bored and (to be honest) uninteresting look at the news of the day.
There are so many little bitty stories today and so little to really get ones teeth into. Obviously there are certain things that catch the eye as there always is. And I can always trust the Tory party to get me out of a jam when it comes to thinking about what to write; Alan Clark wrote in his diaries before the fall of Thatcher that he thought the Conservatives might be about to have one of it's "periodic bouts of epilepsy". That was over 10 years ago, and I think we can now safely say that the Tories have now been thrown into the bath and we can now put our washing in, such is the violence of their thrashing.
Of course, it's not all bad news for the poor dears. No, not a bit of it; Anne Widdecombe has announced (with customary bad grace and bitterness) that she will not stand for the leadership of the Conservatives. The announcement was greeted with expressions of regret from the right wing, a certain satisfaction from the left, whilst a troupe of munchkins were seen dancing through Lambeth singing "Hey-ho the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead!" So it would appear that the contest for the job will be exclusively between people who are almost certainly human beings (although it is a shame as they have a tradition of including aliens in their leadership battles; John Redwood was obviously a relation of Mr. Spock and I suppose it is possible that Iain Duncan-Smith could be one of the mysterious Sith alluded to in The Phantom Menace...time will tell I suppose).
But even that bloated old whore of a party can only provide so much entertainment in one day, and so in barely 2 paragraphs, I once more find myself desperately in search of something vaguely interesting happening in the world. Surely it can't be too difficult? We live in a world where wars (both civil and international) mar every continent, where famine is rife as food rots uncollected in European grain mountains, and new diseases cause the unlucky to expire in spectacular and uncomfortable looking ways. The history books of tomorrow are being filled with all manner of events that will be regarding as interesting times by those who read them. And what is the best that I can do?
A mildly amusing item on a 35 year male old teacher (Paul Tramontini) who faces charges of abducting a 15 year old female pupil (Katherine Baillie) and spending the last year living on the run with her in Italy. I despair, I really do...but on with the story! Okay then, thoughts on this one. Well, firstly the happy couple are from Portsmouth. Well...at least it wasn't her Dad. What!?! My only experience of people from Portsmouth has given me the impression that they really need to expand their gene pool before the whole city becomes nothing more than a collection of mutants who play the banjo really well and where a white water canoeing trip would be perilous in the extreme. Surely we should rejoice that any child born of their union may have the correct number of limbs, digits, and (in the worst area's of the city) eyes.
Okay then, secondly the gentleman in question is a maths teacher. Well, at least he's gone some way to dispelling the stereotype of the boring maths teacher who still lives with their mother. For far too long now the market on unstable and rebellious teachers has been cornered by English and Games teachers and it's about time that a blow for equality was struck. Admittedly I'd imagine the blow experienced by Mr. Tramontini was of a different sort altogether, but the principle remains solid (as did he whilst receiving the blow I'd imagine...).
And finally we have Miss Baillie herself. She was 15 when she left the country with Mr. Tramontini and is now 16 and sporting a new blonde hairdo and "mature" attitude. Thoughts on her...well, if I was going to endanger my career and my personal liberty...well, don't take this wrong now but...you'd think he would have picked someone a little better looking. I mean, having seen some of the photo's of her, it's not even if she's one of the new breed of 15 year old schoolgirls whose sole purpose seems to be to make men think thoughts that they really shouldn't if they want to be regarded as decent members of society. She looked (and still looks) like a gangly young teenage girl; no bust and no bum, and certainly not womanly looking. One assumes that the only reason they returned was because she had started looking a little old for his tastes...
If only more teachers would take it upon themselves to behave disreputably for my own personal amusement then surely the world would be a happier place. Alas, such is the plight of the education system that most teachers just can't seem to find the time to behave in as stupid a manner as I require to get a cheap laugh. Unlike everybody's favourite good ole' boy Dubya who seems to be basing his entire domestic and foreign policies solely on what will make me laugh the hardest in a mix of glee and horror.
After all of the ballyhoo and biscuitbrained media madness of the Tim McVeigh execution last week, Juan Raul Garza will become the second federal prisoner to be executed by Dubya. Bearing in mind that until he came along, America's federal government had managed to avoid executing anyone since 1963, 2 within a month sets a pretty impressive (and yet faintly scary) precedent. One cannot but help feeling a little sorry for poor JRG; he was initially sentenced to death in Texas so his penultimate right of appeal ultimately lay within the state before he appealed to the President. Alas for him, throughout the time he was awaiting execution Dubya was the governor of Texas. And so when faced with numerous calls for clemency as President, he's not exactly in a hurry to stop an execution he endorsed (along with 151 others in his time as governor).
Anyway, they represent pretty much all of the vaguely interesting news that is kicking around today. Strange how they all seem to involve someone else’s misfortune isn't it? I mentioned interesting times earlier on, and there is a curse that any readers of Terry Pratchett will be familiar with along the same lines. "May you live in interesting times", meaning of course that anything that seems interesting from an outside point of view is uniformly unpleasant for those who are actually experiencing it. In news terms, today is rather slow and boring. In real terms few people have died, there have been no major disasters, and in general everything is running smoothly. So why do I feel so cheated? Ah well, there's always tomorrow...
There are so many little bitty stories today and so little to really get ones teeth into. Obviously there are certain things that catch the eye as there always is. And I can always trust the Tory party to get me out of a jam when it comes to thinking about what to write; Alan Clark wrote in his diaries before the fall of Thatcher that he thought the Conservatives might be about to have one of it's "periodic bouts of epilepsy". That was over 10 years ago, and I think we can now safely say that the Tories have now been thrown into the bath and we can now put our washing in, such is the violence of their thrashing.
Of course, it's not all bad news for the poor dears. No, not a bit of it; Anne Widdecombe has announced (with customary bad grace and bitterness) that she will not stand for the leadership of the Conservatives. The announcement was greeted with expressions of regret from the right wing, a certain satisfaction from the left, whilst a troupe of munchkins were seen dancing through Lambeth singing "Hey-ho the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead!" So it would appear that the contest for the job will be exclusively between people who are almost certainly human beings (although it is a shame as they have a tradition of including aliens in their leadership battles; John Redwood was obviously a relation of Mr. Spock and I suppose it is possible that Iain Duncan-Smith could be one of the mysterious Sith alluded to in The Phantom Menace...time will tell I suppose).
But even that bloated old whore of a party can only provide so much entertainment in one day, and so in barely 2 paragraphs, I once more find myself desperately in search of something vaguely interesting happening in the world. Surely it can't be too difficult? We live in a world where wars (both civil and international) mar every continent, where famine is rife as food rots uncollected in European grain mountains, and new diseases cause the unlucky to expire in spectacular and uncomfortable looking ways. The history books of tomorrow are being filled with all manner of events that will be regarding as interesting times by those who read them. And what is the best that I can do?
A mildly amusing item on a 35 year male old teacher (Paul Tramontini) who faces charges of abducting a 15 year old female pupil (Katherine Baillie) and spending the last year living on the run with her in Italy. I despair, I really do...but on with the story! Okay then, thoughts on this one. Well, firstly the happy couple are from Portsmouth. Well...at least it wasn't her Dad. What!?! My only experience of people from Portsmouth has given me the impression that they really need to expand their gene pool before the whole city becomes nothing more than a collection of mutants who play the banjo really well and where a white water canoeing trip would be perilous in the extreme. Surely we should rejoice that any child born of their union may have the correct number of limbs, digits, and (in the worst area's of the city) eyes.
Okay then, secondly the gentleman in question is a maths teacher. Well, at least he's gone some way to dispelling the stereotype of the boring maths teacher who still lives with their mother. For far too long now the market on unstable and rebellious teachers has been cornered by English and Games teachers and it's about time that a blow for equality was struck. Admittedly I'd imagine the blow experienced by Mr. Tramontini was of a different sort altogether, but the principle remains solid (as did he whilst receiving the blow I'd imagine...).
And finally we have Miss Baillie herself. She was 15 when she left the country with Mr. Tramontini and is now 16 and sporting a new blonde hairdo and "mature" attitude. Thoughts on her...well, if I was going to endanger my career and my personal liberty...well, don't take this wrong now but...you'd think he would have picked someone a little better looking. I mean, having seen some of the photo's of her, it's not even if she's one of the new breed of 15 year old schoolgirls whose sole purpose seems to be to make men think thoughts that they really shouldn't if they want to be regarded as decent members of society. She looked (and still looks) like a gangly young teenage girl; no bust and no bum, and certainly not womanly looking. One assumes that the only reason they returned was because she had started looking a little old for his tastes...
If only more teachers would take it upon themselves to behave disreputably for my own personal amusement then surely the world would be a happier place. Alas, such is the plight of the education system that most teachers just can't seem to find the time to behave in as stupid a manner as I require to get a cheap laugh. Unlike everybody's favourite good ole' boy Dubya who seems to be basing his entire domestic and foreign policies solely on what will make me laugh the hardest in a mix of glee and horror.
After all of the ballyhoo and biscuitbrained media madness of the Tim McVeigh execution last week, Juan Raul Garza will become the second federal prisoner to be executed by Dubya. Bearing in mind that until he came along, America's federal government had managed to avoid executing anyone since 1963, 2 within a month sets a pretty impressive (and yet faintly scary) precedent. One cannot but help feeling a little sorry for poor JRG; he was initially sentenced to death in Texas so his penultimate right of appeal ultimately lay within the state before he appealed to the President. Alas for him, throughout the time he was awaiting execution Dubya was the governor of Texas. And so when faced with numerous calls for clemency as President, he's not exactly in a hurry to stop an execution he endorsed (along with 151 others in his time as governor).
Anyway, they represent pretty much all of the vaguely interesting news that is kicking around today. Strange how they all seem to involve someone else’s misfortune isn't it? I mentioned interesting times earlier on, and there is a curse that any readers of Terry Pratchett will be familiar with along the same lines. "May you live in interesting times", meaning of course that anything that seems interesting from an outside point of view is uniformly unpleasant for those who are actually experiencing it. In news terms, today is rather slow and boring. In real terms few people have died, there have been no major disasters, and in general everything is running smoothly. So why do I feel so cheated? Ah well, there's always tomorrow...
Tuesday, 19 June 2001
Clean Air is for Pussies
From the days when our biggest Dubya-related worry was Kyoto.
I find myself rather irksomely weary today. Perhaps this is because of the unnaturally gray and lifeless sky that has no business being there on a June day. It could be the incessant dripping that did a most wonderful job of ensuring my efforts at getting to sleep consisted of staring at the inside of my eyelids for 3 hours. However, as I am one of those dreadful people who lie awake worrying about the current state of world, and as I am vindictive by nature, I rather think I shall lay the blame directly at Dubya's door.
Yes, the leader of the free world and the winner of the "Closest resemblance to a Bonobo Monkey by a President" award 2001 is visiting Europe (Yurp as he doubtless refers to it) to try and cajole us into accepting his plans for the Son of Star Wars defence system whilst simultaneously telling us that we can take our environmental treaties and shove them up our collective Yurpean arse (or ass, seeing as he's a plain speaking Texan...). I refer to the Kyoto treaty, negotiated between President Clinton and the EU and just awaiting ratification. Or at least it was until Dubya promised all of his friends in the Oil and Energy business that he wouldn't sign it.
And why would he do such a thing? Well, the treaty states that all signatories will reduce carbon emission levels (basically a catchall term for greenhouse gasses) by 5.2% of 1990 levels, and that they will do so by 2012. Dubya has refused point blank to do so, stating in his defence that the treaty is "fatally flawed". And I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point; the treaty has one major flaw that I amongst many others would wish to see rectified before it is brought into force as a piece of international law. It is far too weak! 5.2% is a tiny little drop in a vast and gaseous ocean. What would it actually achieve other than giving a few ministers a chance to indulge in a bit of backslapping and perhaps allowing their respective governments to claim the green vote?
But let's ignore that rather trifling point for now as it only serves to distract from an otherwise legitimate rant about one of my favourite whipping boys (and as one of the Mormons said to me yesterday, "You shouldn't get too bogged down with the facts because they'll distract you from the truth"). The fact remains that the EU are at least willing to take a step, however small, toward reversing our rather annoying habit of treating the planet like a vast dumping ground for all manner of waste and poison. America, responsible for producing 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, isn't even willing to make such a tiny effort simply because they don't want to do anything that might "harm the economy".
That is a frequently used piece of doublespeak that could best be translated as "all of my friends and fund-raisers in big business will have to spend a tiny fraction of their gargantuan profits in order to achieve this goal, and they prefer their profits to stay in their pockets." In other words the man elected to look after and safeguard the best interests of the people of the US is using his power and influence in order to safeguard the interests of about 50 of them; the 50 being industrialists and company bosses. It's not as if the money that they save will filter down to the workforce either, and lest you doubt that then perhaps we can discuss the comparative figures for pay rises given to bosses and redundancies amongst workers in the last 10 years?
I won't presume to bore you (or at least no more than usual) with the many and varied environmental reasons that Dubya's actions are a stupendously bad thing. Suffice to say that we can look forward to more earnest yet boring programs about why the world continues to be a god-awful smog filled place, and kiss goodbye to a snowballing number of flora and fauna species. Cheers Dubya, you're really building for the future of America and the World aren't you, you corrupt, money hungry, spineless, traitorous little shit of an excuse for a man.
It's not as if this is particularly good business. I was always told that one should shear ones sheep so that one can continue making a profit from them year after year. As big business continues to tear through resources and produce more and more waste it becomes more difficult for them to actually sustain those profits because there are less raw materials available and they're not getting renewed as they once were due in part to the amount of toxic crap that is churned out. They're not shearing the sheep; they're ripping the skin off and leaving the corpse to rot in the field.
Now I'm all too aware of just what a whining liberal environmentalist I sound as I write all of this, but fear not. I am not about to break into that old chorus of "What kind of world are we leaving for our children?!" complete with wringing hands and watery eyes. Frankly I couldn't give the first toss about our children right now; the world of the future is their problem, and good luck to them! I'm concerned about the world that I live in now and I'd quite like to be able to go outside without having to check the pH level of the air that I'm breathing. That's not too much to ask really, is it?
I find myself rather irksomely weary today. Perhaps this is because of the unnaturally gray and lifeless sky that has no business being there on a June day. It could be the incessant dripping that did a most wonderful job of ensuring my efforts at getting to sleep consisted of staring at the inside of my eyelids for 3 hours. However, as I am one of those dreadful people who lie awake worrying about the current state of world, and as I am vindictive by nature, I rather think I shall lay the blame directly at Dubya's door.
Yes, the leader of the free world and the winner of the "Closest resemblance to a Bonobo Monkey by a President" award 2001 is visiting Europe (Yurp as he doubtless refers to it) to try and cajole us into accepting his plans for the Son of Star Wars defence system whilst simultaneously telling us that we can take our environmental treaties and shove them up our collective Yurpean arse (or ass, seeing as he's a plain speaking Texan...). I refer to the Kyoto treaty, negotiated between President Clinton and the EU and just awaiting ratification. Or at least it was until Dubya promised all of his friends in the Oil and Energy business that he wouldn't sign it.
And why would he do such a thing? Well, the treaty states that all signatories will reduce carbon emission levels (basically a catchall term for greenhouse gasses) by 5.2% of 1990 levels, and that they will do so by 2012. Dubya has refused point blank to do so, stating in his defence that the treaty is "fatally flawed". And I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point; the treaty has one major flaw that I amongst many others would wish to see rectified before it is brought into force as a piece of international law. It is far too weak! 5.2% is a tiny little drop in a vast and gaseous ocean. What would it actually achieve other than giving a few ministers a chance to indulge in a bit of backslapping and perhaps allowing their respective governments to claim the green vote?
But let's ignore that rather trifling point for now as it only serves to distract from an otherwise legitimate rant about one of my favourite whipping boys (and as one of the Mormons said to me yesterday, "You shouldn't get too bogged down with the facts because they'll distract you from the truth"). The fact remains that the EU are at least willing to take a step, however small, toward reversing our rather annoying habit of treating the planet like a vast dumping ground for all manner of waste and poison. America, responsible for producing 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, isn't even willing to make such a tiny effort simply because they don't want to do anything that might "harm the economy".
That is a frequently used piece of doublespeak that could best be translated as "all of my friends and fund-raisers in big business will have to spend a tiny fraction of their gargantuan profits in order to achieve this goal, and they prefer their profits to stay in their pockets." In other words the man elected to look after and safeguard the best interests of the people of the US is using his power and influence in order to safeguard the interests of about 50 of them; the 50 being industrialists and company bosses. It's not as if the money that they save will filter down to the workforce either, and lest you doubt that then perhaps we can discuss the comparative figures for pay rises given to bosses and redundancies amongst workers in the last 10 years?
I won't presume to bore you (or at least no more than usual) with the many and varied environmental reasons that Dubya's actions are a stupendously bad thing. Suffice to say that we can look forward to more earnest yet boring programs about why the world continues to be a god-awful smog filled place, and kiss goodbye to a snowballing number of flora and fauna species. Cheers Dubya, you're really building for the future of America and the World aren't you, you corrupt, money hungry, spineless, traitorous little shit of an excuse for a man.
It's not as if this is particularly good business. I was always told that one should shear ones sheep so that one can continue making a profit from them year after year. As big business continues to tear through resources and produce more and more waste it becomes more difficult for them to actually sustain those profits because there are less raw materials available and they're not getting renewed as they once were due in part to the amount of toxic crap that is churned out. They're not shearing the sheep; they're ripping the skin off and leaving the corpse to rot in the field.
Now I'm all too aware of just what a whining liberal environmentalist I sound as I write all of this, but fear not. I am not about to break into that old chorus of "What kind of world are we leaving for our children?!" complete with wringing hands and watery eyes. Frankly I couldn't give the first toss about our children right now; the world of the future is their problem, and good luck to them! I'm concerned about the world that I live in now and I'd quite like to be able to go outside without having to check the pH level of the air that I'm breathing. That's not too much to ask really, is it?
Monday, 18 June 2001
Funny chaps, Women.
I can't claim to understand the female of the species. This was my particular attempt to understand 2 women whom I know.
Despite my good weekend I find that once more something troubles me and occupies my thoughts, nagging at me in much the same way that a wife would. Although I consider myself something of an empathic sort and pride myself on my ability to relate to pretty much anybody, lately I find that women are confusing and bemusing me more and more with each passing day.
Now I should clarify a couple of things before I even get started; this is not going to be a diatribe about what funny chaps women are. Nor do I intend to whinge endlessly about the fact that I have thus far failed entirely to pull for about the last 6 months (although I could of course complain bitterly about that at quite some length and the next time I'm horribly drunk with friends I intend to do so!). Rather I wish to pass comment on one or two elements of the female psyche that I find utterly baffling, probably because I am but a mere man and thus have no chance of fully plumbing the dark depths of women's thought processes. As always, it goes without saying that I don't mean to cause any offence by what I write.
There are two things in particular that I found myself thinking about more and more; women who stay with men who are abusive to them is the first, women with eating disorders is the second (my oh my, I can just sense the chuckles building up in you as you've read that...). Now that I come to think about it, neither domestic violence nor anorexia is the sole domain of the fairer sex. There are men who suffer from one, the other, or both. However, in general both are associated with women and it is on that basis that I shall proceed.
Okay then, deep breath and here we go...firstly we have good old-fashioned domestic violence. Can anyone out there at all possibly explain to me what the hell possesses women to stay with a man who hits them? I really just do not get it at all, and I am starting to lose count of the amount of young, attractive, and strong willed women who waste their lives with idiots whose only way of expressing themselves is with their fists (if for no other reason than I can't understand why they'd stay with them when lovely me is young free and single...).
Of the women I know who were (or still are) in this type of relationship, I have noticed one or two common factors. Firstly, they are not as emotionally hard as they may pretend to be. Without exception, the men seem to be able to ensnare them by an act of abject misery on the rare occasions that their victims pluck up the courage and common sense to leave them. They use an act, which blends together all of the best elements of whining to demonstrate his weakness; saying they can't live without you which gives the impression that he loves her; occasionally they'll even weep and apologise for their previous behavior in order to show repentance; without exception it finishes on the promise that things will be different this time (indeed, it usually is; they tend to have learned their lesson by this point and only hit the women where the bruises won't show...).
This always seems to work because the women end up feeling guilty about leaving the pathetic little heap of DNA in such a state. So back they go, and the violence starts again (although sometimes it takes as much as month for the man to return to his usual ways). And what is more, the women tend to end up convincing themselves that they somehow need this man in their life! Who are these men, and why haven't they all been hired as salesmen? Anyone who can convince a woman that what she really needs is to be thrown through a door and have her face pulped could surely sell ice to the Eskimos.
I'm sure that their respective friends have already said it to them, but they *really* don't need anyone like that in their lives. If it is a fear of loneliness that keeps them with an abusive man then I can assure you that it is not as bad as a regular beating and the feeling that one is worthless. If it is the feeling that the violence is somehow their fault (because a lot of these men claim that the women somehow make them violent; fair enough if they greeted their husbands with a hearty kick in the testicles followed by a barrage of abuse then perhaps the men would have a point, but otherwise...) then they really need to improve their feelings of self worth, and that is never going to happen whilst with a man who treats them so utterly dreadfully.
I am given to understand that for whatever reason a woman convinces herself that she loves the particular monster that she is with, one of the main reasons that they stay and suffer the endless abuse is the conviction that their man will change. They will *never* change, not ever. Not whilst they remain so cowardly as to refuse to address their own inadequacy that leads them to take out the misery for their own failings on their partner. And that is what I think is at the root of why men lash out at their partners. I think that for a very personally and deeply shameful reason (no, I'm not a women beater; lets face it, if I tried to beat the lady I currently live with I would find myself with innumerable broken bones and ruptured organs and bloody good thing too!).
After I'd split from my girlfriend, we found ourselves enjoying a heated and drink fueled argument. The insults raged, the furniture was assaulted, and the ornaments flew with gay abandon. And then, in order to convince the good lady that I was the man that she really needed in her life, I pinned her to the wall and screamed at her for about half a minute. I count that as possibly the most unforgivably stupid thing that I have ever done in my life (and I'm including the time I ate 3 ladybirds for a bet when I was 5). Eventually the abject terror on her face made it's through my alcohol soaked synapses. I had never felt as bad before or since as I did when I realised I was responsible for putting her in fear of a physical assault from me. I still haven't forgiven myself and though I have been utterly absolved by my ex, I hope that the only reason that she has forgiven me is because I despise what it is that I did and I have taken steps to address the issues that caused it to happen in the first place. However, I suppose it could just as easily be for the reasons that I have detailed so far and that saddens me, because it shows just how easy it seems to be for women to fall into the mindset of the abused.
Our second fun packed topic is eating disorders. Anorexia, Bulimia, and Body Dismorphic Disorder are the main ones that I'm referring to, but in real life it is difficult to categorise a sufferer so neatly, so I will only refer to them in general terms. Again this is mainly the province of women, especially in the media which seems to be both chief offender and public informant when it comes to this topic.
Again, I cannot claim to be anything other than utterly bemused by someone willingly starving themselves, inducing vomiting, or hacking their flesh to ribbons. We are told that the media is to blame because they impose unrealistic standards on women and continually bombard them with images of young, slim, beautiful women with not a flaw in sight. I don't completely accept that; okay so the women in magazines look fantastic. It is their job to look fantastic, and have none of you ever heard of airbrushing? The editor of Loaded (the archetypal ladmag) freely admits that cellulite and blemishes are regularly airbrushed out of pictures of models and celebrities in their pants. Also, if sufferers are so deeply influenced by the women they see in magazines, why can't they look up from their copy of Cosmo and take a look around them. They will see hundreds of thousands of women who do not look as if they have just stepped off the catwalk. They will be all shapes and sizes (and yes some of them will be thin; some women just are) and the vast majority of them will look good, be they size 8 or size 18.
It seems pretty unrealistic to blame the media for eating disorders when it represents a comparatively small percentage of our daily visual intake. There has to be more to it than that. I think that if it ties in to anything, it must be a self-esteem problem. Perhaps they think that they can only be attractive when thin, and somehow they always think that they are fat regardless of their weight and appearance. A lady whom I know with an eating disorder told me that whenever she looked in a mirror she saw a dumpy and overweight woman with flab on her arms and legs, saddlebags on her thighs, and a spare tire round her stomach. She's 8 and a half stone. At her worst she was less than 8 stone and looked skeletal and frail. She now looks fantastic, but still worries that she is too fat and unattractive, and this makes every day a battle for her.
At the risk of sounding flippant, I have to say that I find it difficult to find a hollow eyed, gaunt faced and grey skinned skeleton in any way erotic. Nor is the idea of a woman vomiting a tremendously exciting prospect (unless you are like a certain friend of mine who has a fascination with roman showers, but that is by the by) and yet women still do this to themselves in the name of beauty. I think I speak for a lot of men when I say that I prefer a woman who looks like a woman as opposed to a half-starved pre pubescent. So if it's not the media, and if they are so misguided as to believe that men want them to look the way they end up looking, what causes them to think in that way?
Clearly it is something deep rooted in both the individual and our society as a whole (for it is so widespread now that it cannot be a case of hundreds of thousands of women simultaneously developing these disorders individually) and it is not for me to unravel such a Gordian knot. Both domestic violence and eating disorders occur and are propagated by a lack of self esteem, so for some reason a lot of women don't feel as good about themselves as they ought. This is not a good state of affairs, and by blaming scapegoats such as the media we are doing everyone a dis-service. Once again, it is the standard finding that there is something wrong in our society, and we need to find out what it is and how we can best remedy it. Otherwise we can look forward to more bruised and scrawny women wiping their vomit flecked lips clean whilst they cry at how worthless they are. That is not right.
Despite my good weekend I find that once more something troubles me and occupies my thoughts, nagging at me in much the same way that a wife would. Although I consider myself something of an empathic sort and pride myself on my ability to relate to pretty much anybody, lately I find that women are confusing and bemusing me more and more with each passing day.
Now I should clarify a couple of things before I even get started; this is not going to be a diatribe about what funny chaps women are. Nor do I intend to whinge endlessly about the fact that I have thus far failed entirely to pull for about the last 6 months (although I could of course complain bitterly about that at quite some length and the next time I'm horribly drunk with friends I intend to do so!). Rather I wish to pass comment on one or two elements of the female psyche that I find utterly baffling, probably because I am but a mere man and thus have no chance of fully plumbing the dark depths of women's thought processes. As always, it goes without saying that I don't mean to cause any offence by what I write.
There are two things in particular that I found myself thinking about more and more; women who stay with men who are abusive to them is the first, women with eating disorders is the second (my oh my, I can just sense the chuckles building up in you as you've read that...). Now that I come to think about it, neither domestic violence nor anorexia is the sole domain of the fairer sex. There are men who suffer from one, the other, or both. However, in general both are associated with women and it is on that basis that I shall proceed.
Okay then, deep breath and here we go...firstly we have good old-fashioned domestic violence. Can anyone out there at all possibly explain to me what the hell possesses women to stay with a man who hits them? I really just do not get it at all, and I am starting to lose count of the amount of young, attractive, and strong willed women who waste their lives with idiots whose only way of expressing themselves is with their fists (if for no other reason than I can't understand why they'd stay with them when lovely me is young free and single...).
Of the women I know who were (or still are) in this type of relationship, I have noticed one or two common factors. Firstly, they are not as emotionally hard as they may pretend to be. Without exception, the men seem to be able to ensnare them by an act of abject misery on the rare occasions that their victims pluck up the courage and common sense to leave them. They use an act, which blends together all of the best elements of whining to demonstrate his weakness; saying they can't live without you which gives the impression that he loves her; occasionally they'll even weep and apologise for their previous behavior in order to show repentance; without exception it finishes on the promise that things will be different this time (indeed, it usually is; they tend to have learned their lesson by this point and only hit the women where the bruises won't show...).
This always seems to work because the women end up feeling guilty about leaving the pathetic little heap of DNA in such a state. So back they go, and the violence starts again (although sometimes it takes as much as month for the man to return to his usual ways). And what is more, the women tend to end up convincing themselves that they somehow need this man in their life! Who are these men, and why haven't they all been hired as salesmen? Anyone who can convince a woman that what she really needs is to be thrown through a door and have her face pulped could surely sell ice to the Eskimos.
I'm sure that their respective friends have already said it to them, but they *really* don't need anyone like that in their lives. If it is a fear of loneliness that keeps them with an abusive man then I can assure you that it is not as bad as a regular beating and the feeling that one is worthless. If it is the feeling that the violence is somehow their fault (because a lot of these men claim that the women somehow make them violent; fair enough if they greeted their husbands with a hearty kick in the testicles followed by a barrage of abuse then perhaps the men would have a point, but otherwise...) then they really need to improve their feelings of self worth, and that is never going to happen whilst with a man who treats them so utterly dreadfully.
I am given to understand that for whatever reason a woman convinces herself that she loves the particular monster that she is with, one of the main reasons that they stay and suffer the endless abuse is the conviction that their man will change. They will *never* change, not ever. Not whilst they remain so cowardly as to refuse to address their own inadequacy that leads them to take out the misery for their own failings on their partner. And that is what I think is at the root of why men lash out at their partners. I think that for a very personally and deeply shameful reason (no, I'm not a women beater; lets face it, if I tried to beat the lady I currently live with I would find myself with innumerable broken bones and ruptured organs and bloody good thing too!).
After I'd split from my girlfriend, we found ourselves enjoying a heated and drink fueled argument. The insults raged, the furniture was assaulted, and the ornaments flew with gay abandon. And then, in order to convince the good lady that I was the man that she really needed in her life, I pinned her to the wall and screamed at her for about half a minute. I count that as possibly the most unforgivably stupid thing that I have ever done in my life (and I'm including the time I ate 3 ladybirds for a bet when I was 5). Eventually the abject terror on her face made it's through my alcohol soaked synapses. I had never felt as bad before or since as I did when I realised I was responsible for putting her in fear of a physical assault from me. I still haven't forgiven myself and though I have been utterly absolved by my ex, I hope that the only reason that she has forgiven me is because I despise what it is that I did and I have taken steps to address the issues that caused it to happen in the first place. However, I suppose it could just as easily be for the reasons that I have detailed so far and that saddens me, because it shows just how easy it seems to be for women to fall into the mindset of the abused.
Our second fun packed topic is eating disorders. Anorexia, Bulimia, and Body Dismorphic Disorder are the main ones that I'm referring to, but in real life it is difficult to categorise a sufferer so neatly, so I will only refer to them in general terms. Again this is mainly the province of women, especially in the media which seems to be both chief offender and public informant when it comes to this topic.
Again, I cannot claim to be anything other than utterly bemused by someone willingly starving themselves, inducing vomiting, or hacking their flesh to ribbons. We are told that the media is to blame because they impose unrealistic standards on women and continually bombard them with images of young, slim, beautiful women with not a flaw in sight. I don't completely accept that; okay so the women in magazines look fantastic. It is their job to look fantastic, and have none of you ever heard of airbrushing? The editor of Loaded (the archetypal ladmag) freely admits that cellulite and blemishes are regularly airbrushed out of pictures of models and celebrities in their pants. Also, if sufferers are so deeply influenced by the women they see in magazines, why can't they look up from their copy of Cosmo and take a look around them. They will see hundreds of thousands of women who do not look as if they have just stepped off the catwalk. They will be all shapes and sizes (and yes some of them will be thin; some women just are) and the vast majority of them will look good, be they size 8 or size 18.
It seems pretty unrealistic to blame the media for eating disorders when it represents a comparatively small percentage of our daily visual intake. There has to be more to it than that. I think that if it ties in to anything, it must be a self-esteem problem. Perhaps they think that they can only be attractive when thin, and somehow they always think that they are fat regardless of their weight and appearance. A lady whom I know with an eating disorder told me that whenever she looked in a mirror she saw a dumpy and overweight woman with flab on her arms and legs, saddlebags on her thighs, and a spare tire round her stomach. She's 8 and a half stone. At her worst she was less than 8 stone and looked skeletal and frail. She now looks fantastic, but still worries that she is too fat and unattractive, and this makes every day a battle for her.
At the risk of sounding flippant, I have to say that I find it difficult to find a hollow eyed, gaunt faced and grey skinned skeleton in any way erotic. Nor is the idea of a woman vomiting a tremendously exciting prospect (unless you are like a certain friend of mine who has a fascination with roman showers, but that is by the by) and yet women still do this to themselves in the name of beauty. I think I speak for a lot of men when I say that I prefer a woman who looks like a woman as opposed to a half-starved pre pubescent. So if it's not the media, and if they are so misguided as to believe that men want them to look the way they end up looking, what causes them to think in that way?
Clearly it is something deep rooted in both the individual and our society as a whole (for it is so widespread now that it cannot be a case of hundreds of thousands of women simultaneously developing these disorders individually) and it is not for me to unravel such a Gordian knot. Both domestic violence and eating disorders occur and are propagated by a lack of self esteem, so for some reason a lot of women don't feel as good about themselves as they ought. This is not a good state of affairs, and by blaming scapegoats such as the media we are doing everyone a dis-service. Once again, it is the standard finding that there is something wrong in our society, and we need to find out what it is and how we can best remedy it. Otherwise we can look forward to more bruised and scrawny women wiping their vomit flecked lips clean whilst they cry at how worthless they are. That is not right.
Thursday, 14 June 2001
Two Little Boys
This was my response to that godawful email petition that demanded the return of the Bulger killers to prison.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
This is really more of an addendum than anything else really. Yesterday I mentioned the people I thought to be the main candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. It appears that I spoke to soon in dismissing candidates other than those three, as Iain Duncan-Smith is apparently threatening to throw his hat into the arena and stand as well. On that basis, I shall give you a rundown of his history and chances.
Well...erm...oh, yes he was the first British politician to meet officially with a member of the Dubya administration, doing so before even Tony Blair. And he...that is to say he is well known for...uh...yes. Well...anybody watch the telly last night? No? No, there wasn't much on was there...anybody know any good stories at all? No one? It's just that I'm sort of...stumped to be honest. Whatever Mr. Duncan-Smith's good qualities may be, he is undoubtedly hampered by the fact that he is an anonymous suit full to the brim of bugger all. Still, it was nice to see Anne Widdecombe behaving as reasonably as we've come to expect yesterday. She said Portillo was surrounded by "backbiters", which considering his homosexual past could be taken to have a dual meaning...
Anyway, enough of politics; it's clear there's no mileage in that today. The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)