I supported and still support the war in Afghanistan. Iraq however is another matter entirely...
This is a rant that I rather hoped I wouldn't have had to write. You see, about a fortnight ago I sat down to write something about current affairs that was brimming with optimism. I didn't expect it to be hugely difficult; my personal and professional life are good, and I expected my general good mood to be reflected in what I wrote. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I was wrong. That particular rant is still sitting in my Drafts folder gathering whatever passes for dust in a computer hard drive. And it's not like I didn't try; I started the damn thing 2 weeks ago and I've come back to it 8 or 9 times since. In that time I've managed to add one sentence. As I'm sure you can understand, this has caused no small amount of frustration; I've been banging my head against a brick wall trying to figure out a way to write down what I wanted to say. And now I've stopped trying. Why? Well, happy though I am with my life at the moment, it seems that I was rather foolish to think that this would allow me to obscure world events in the same fluffy pink fog that envelops one when one is personally very happy indeed. So I thought that I'd try a different angle; what in the hell is going on in the world that won't allow me to conclude a rant with the words "Hey, everything is going to work out just fine! Relax! Enjoy your life!"
Amazingly enough, the source of my deep-seated concern lies over the Atlantic in the personage of the US Government. (I was going to say a little something to stress that, despite my loathing of their current government, I'm not anti-American. However, seeing as the type of person who would scream at me for being some sort of Arab-loving, liberal, commie, subversive idiot would do so if I did anything less than praise the Land of the Free unconditionally whilst ignoring the catalogue of hypocrisy, arrogance, and political shortsightedness that has become the trademark of the Republican and Democrat parties...well, you'll excuse me if I'm inclined to think "Fuck 'em" and plough on regardless). The reasons why I am growing increasingly nervous are neither new nor particularly special to America. It's just that the possible consequences are enough to allow me to preserve my hard-won veneer of cynicism in the face of my actually being genetically indistinguishable from a pig in shit these days.
So, what the hell am I talking about? Astoundingly enough, bearing in mind that I'm talking about a government who's leader is widely regarded as heroic in his efforts to push back the boundaries of incumbent stupidity (and as he has Ronnie "Alzheimer" Reagan to compete with, this is no mean feat...) I'm talking about America doing it's level best to start another war. Apparently Afghanistan was merely an appetiser to those good old boys in the White House; all it did was give them a taste for blowing the hell out of little brown people attending wedding parties. The main dish is, of course, Iraq.
Here in the UK, we have been made vaguely aware that Dubya is trying to whip the nation into the kind of jingoistic fervour required to get popular support for a war. I say vaguely because the mainstream media, perhaps aware of the significance of the UK being drawn into a conflict that has barely any international support and that is almost certainly illegal under international law, has spoon-fed the great British public with stories of such huge significance as "Man Feels Queen's Arse" and "Big Brother’s Jade: Why I'm not a Minger". I don't mean to denigrate people for lapping up these stories (because I know I do), and I don't mean to sound as paranoid as I actually am, but doesn't it concern anyone that, whilst our attention has been distracted ("Hey, dumbass! Look at the pretty story! You looove Pop Idol...listen to Will wax lyrical about the significance of whatever sweltering turd he's inflicted on the charts! You think animals are cuuute...here, here's a story about some poor whales getting beached and nice people trying to save them, isn't that nice? Yep, the world sure is great folks, so don't you worry about a thing. And especially don't worry about what YOUR government that YOU allowed into power are doing, 'kay?") ,that nice Mr. Blair has all but choked on Dubya's dick in his eagerness to involve the UK in a war against Iraq? I mean Jesus Christ, one can almost hear the sucking noises on the rare occasions that Blair is on TV explaining how we're going to be backing America all the way.
Now then; why should anyone care that a war on Iraq seems to be imminent? Who cares if Saddam Hussein is toppled from power? What does it matter if America is choosing to fight the good fight and release the Iraqi people from virtual slavery? I'll deal with America's motivation for wanting a war in a moment, but firstly I have to confess; I'd love to see a change of regime in Iraq. I have a long-standing hatred of dictators and totalitarians and it would be a delight to see the moustachioed old bastard standing trial for the long, LONG list of atrocities that he is responsible for. However, these things have to be done in a certain way. When the first Gulf War was fought, it was fought with a UN mandate and an international coalition with America at it's head. There was a clear objective, widespread support from Iraq's neighbours in the Middle East, and whatever opposition to war that could be mustered was quickly marginalised due to it's impressive refusal to accept the facts and the reality of the situation. This war, if it is fought, will do so without reference to the UN, a coalition consisting of some gung-ho American and some reluctant British troops, no objective beyond "Saddam must Die!", and no support (in fact, there will probably be active opposition) from Iraq's neighbours. This time, it's not the opponents of war who have closed their eyes to reality.
Essentially, America is talking about ignoring the will of the rest of the world and doing what it wants because it believes it to be the right thing. Again, not necessarily a bad thing (as Winston Churchill discovered), but why exactly is the US government so determined to stick 2 fingers up to the world and behave in a manner not unlike the sports 'jock' stereotype that can be found in every bad American teen movie since the 70's? There are two schools of thought on this. One says that America is being true to the ideals of freedom and democracy on which it was founded, that it is acting in the defence of a poor and oppressed people and...I'm sorry, even as I was typing that I found myself chuckling. It's quite clearly a large and unmistakable pile of bullshit isn't it? The land of freedom and democracy has toppled democratically elected governments on a whim and, as a result, reduced the freedom available to huge swathes of people across the planet. They've done plenty to advance the cause of oppression (currently they're opposing an international agreement to end the use of torture by governments. There reason for doing so is that they don't want foreign observers allowed into US prisons. Way to stamp moral authority on your regime Dubya...), so all the protestations by Rumsfeld et al that they're doing this for apple pie and liberty sound rather hollow.
The other school of thought is a little fragmented, but runs thus; America is currently reaping the whirlwind caused by decades of corporate greed. The stockmarket is crashing, people's savings and pensions are being devalued to the point of worthlessness, and all the while a few CEO's are stuffing their cavernous pockets with money. Unsurprisingly, people are not happy about this. When they are not happy, they tend to register their disapproval in the time-honoured tradition of blaming the president for everything. Dubya's approval rating is falling (something that, after September 11th, no-one thought would happen for years) and he needs something that will send it shooting back up to election landslide levels. Happily, his Dad left unfinished business in Iraq, and so what better way to make people forget about their raped economy than a war with a country that coincidentally has huge oil reserves. What would help repair the economy better than a new supply of oil that would free America from it's need to keep it's Arabian allies sweet?
This sounds a little more believable, doesn't it? Perhaps a little too harsh in places (I can't bring myself to believe that their government is composed entirely of soulless monsters who believe in nothing more than their own self interest), but all in all it's a hypothesis that holds a lot of water. So that is what America is doing. It is willing to risk causing civil wars across the Middle East, a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and a ruining of the economy that will make the current crash seem like a particularly nice dream involving 4 Playboy Playmates, some whipped cream, and a red snapper. All because a group of stupid white men want to cling on to their power and influence in America, and fuck the rest of the world if they don't like it. Yet the UK is supporting all of this. And I'll bet most of us didn't even know that we were.
It does seem that war is inevitable. It also seems that we in the UK are going to be part of it. If that does happen, then I'm patriotic enough to want 'us' to win; only a fool would wish defeat on his own country. But if I'm honest, I wish that Tony Blair would grow some balls and tell Dubya that we want no part of his attempt to win the approval of his Daddy and the American Public. We've supported his War on Terror, and that is all well and good. But we avoided the first Vietnam, so it would be nice if we could avoid their next one. Let's not support his War on Common Sense, eh?
Wednesday, 31 July 2002
Tuesday, 23 July 2002
Censorship
I have genuinely used the example in the last paragraph of this rant. Try it with a right wing friend; you'll laugh yourself sick at their reaction.
For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne shite that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative crap. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous bitch tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering tits who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne shite that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative crap. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous bitch tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering tits who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
Tuesday, 9 July 2002
More Drugs
Well, I've just returned from my holidays during which I spent a fantastic weekend at Glastonbury festival. Things are going well in both my love life and career. The friends I now have are about as dear to me as friends can be. And if that weren't enough, I've got 2 new playful pet cats. Bearing in mind how well things seem to be going for me right now, it would be churlish and ungrateful of me to work myself up into the state of indignation that I need to write these rants.
If there is one thing that has been getting up my nose recently, it's drugs. And unfortunately, I don't mean in a good way. After a year which has seen an MP (a conservative MP at that) calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the setting up of Amsterdam style cannabis cafes in the UK and, if reports of tomorrows announcement by the Home Sec David Blunkett are to be believed, the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug (meaning that possession would no longer be an arrestable offence), I was beginning to think that perhaps the powers that be were starting to see that perhaps smoking a spliff wouldn't bring about the collapse of civilisation. As per usual, fate and the media have conspired to vomit out more bilious bad news for the express purpose of ruining my day.
The Tories (and one Labour MP) are saying that the cannabis trial scheme in Lambeth, whereby cannabis users are basically left alone in order to free up police resources so that they can tackle the problem of hard drugs, is a failure. They say it is a failure because "it encourages drug taking". I look forward to the next release from Tory central office, when I expect them to declare that legalised alcohol encourages drinking, cigarettes encourage smoking, and chocolate encourages lardy fat bastards. I mean, for fucks sake! Have the Tory leadership allowed their brains to lie fallow for the summer? It smacks of opposing an issue for the sake of opposing it, and it certainly shows their lack of political daring and acumen.
The reason I say this is because their major complaint is that some people are buying their cannabis from dealers who also try and sell them harder drugs. No shit Sherlock! Why, who would imagine in this land where free enterprise and profit have been worshipped by successive governments for 30 years, that a dealer would try and sell someone a drug that will mean more profit for him? However, rather than use this complaint as a platform to push for decriminalisation (to which most people are...well, not opposed to; only the Daily Mail brigade provide any objections and they rather spoil their case by talking reactionary old shit about cannabis and crack cause the same damage for most of the time) and thus increase their popularity among the young (a large and mainly untapped source of votes), they simply spew out the same tired lumps of froth about how all drugs are banned, and how cannabis is a "gateway drug" that leads on to harder drugs (question; how many people were drunk when they first tried drugs? Most of you? Hmm...and yet we never hear complaints of beer being gateway drugs do we?). Their best argument seems to be "Well, it's not that bad for you, but it leads you into other things that are!", and the only people it appeals to are a small and vocal minority.
And if that were not enough, I now find that Blunkett's announcement concerning drug laws tomorrow is not a bold statement by a political party intent on change. It is, in fact, the rather soggy underpants of a drunk and incontinent old tramp. Sure, cannabis is being reclassified as category C. However, the sentences for dealing cannabis are to be doubled. So what we are being told is that it's alright to use the drug, but you're not allowed to buy it. I hate to break this to anyone with an ounce of idealism in them, but we're not getting a country where personal liberties that don't infringe on the rights of others are being increased. No, if I'm optimistic we're getting a rather badly performed sleight-of-hand trick where we think our little freedom's are being increased, but in fact nothing is changing at all. If I'm pessimistic (and, depressingly, realistic), we're seeing the set up for the return of draconian and illogical drug laws, with the excuse that the half cocked, half arsed pilot scheme in Lambeth didn't work.
Of course, when it comes to draconian and illogical drug laws, we're still quite some way behind our friends across the Atlantic. In some states of the land of the free, possessing enough cannabis for a reasonably pleasant night in is enough to get your arse thrown in prison for 10-20 years. Just recently, the war against terror has given the blockheaded anti-drug propagandists in their government yet another excuse to sink their vampire fangs of guilt and fear into the neck of America. You see, now when you buy drugs you're not just committing a crime. Oh no, you're personally responsible for prolonging the war against terror because the terrorists are getting a lot of their funding from drugs.
To which my response is "Then fucking well legalise them all and make sure that if anyone is going to profit from drugs it's going to be the government!". However, as I accept that I'm in the minority in that respect, I'll move on. It boils my piss that these simpleminded fuckwits honestly believe that the average cannabis smoker is happy to hand over money that aids in the running of any criminal enterprise. Speaking personally (and for most dope smokers I've ever met in my life), I absolutely LOATHE having to go to some of the places I do in order to buy cannabis. This is almost certainly going to sound like an intellectual's fear of the working class, but I don't like going to a shitty estate to buy a quarter ounce from somebody who may do me the pleasure of burgling my house later in the week. I hated defending the little fuckstack's in court and I hate having to be all matey with them when all I want to do is get out in one piece. This is why I, like many other smokers of my slightly repressed and middle class ilk, prefer to get their dope via a friend who only deals to his friends. It's all very suburban isn't it? And the attempt to remind people like me just where the drug money may be going will not result in a flood of people throwing away their rizla's in a fit of self-loathing. It will result in people being more secretive about it for fear of being demonised by a bunch of morally dubious hypocrites.
Of course, I would be naive if I thought that the twinning of anti-drug propaganda with anti-terrorist propaganda was being done in the interests of reducing drug use in America. America, along with the rest of the western world, has been fighting a rather pointless War on Drugs for years. It's had next to no impact so far, and I don't imagine that the US government expects this latest trick to have much effect on anyone who wouldn't unquestioningly swallow whatever rancid pile of stinking old dog-smeg that they've collectively spunked out in any given week. What it will do is deflect attention rather neatly from another major US source of terrorist income and training; their government.
Was it drug cartel money that paid for Osama bin Laden's training by the CIA in the 80's? Or for Pinochet's CIA sponsored Chilean coup? Or for Dubya's attempt to depose the Venezuelan president a few months ago? (which shows that Dubya handles international politics like Joey Deacon handled a basketball...) Maybe it was drug money that paid for the School of the America's in Georgia, where the glut of Central and South American sadists and murderers who laughably call themselves the governments of their nations can learn the fine arts of torture and murder in the idyllic surroundings of the USA? No? Oh, that's right; it was the US government who sponsored and paid for every last one of those, wasn't it? The War on Terror is nothing more than the US reaping what it's Government has sown worldwide since the end of WWII. The Newer, more Improved War on Drugs is not much more than another way to try and distract attention from this.
Which is a shame, because I find it funny. No, actually I find it hilarious. Not the death of innocent people or the muddlesome war. Rather, it is the firmly held belief among some Americans that the imperialistic attitude that was the downfall of the Romans, the Persians, the Imperial Chinese, the Japanese, the British Empire...hell, every nation that has ever held sway over world events and opinion, is a perfectly acceptable one and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it that has me chuckling in that smug way that only a European can manage when discussing America. Of course, I'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if I'm proved right about that (though all recorded history is on my side), so in the meantime, would it really hurt anyone if I sat and had a spliff whilst I'm waiting?
If there is one thing that has been getting up my nose recently, it's drugs. And unfortunately, I don't mean in a good way. After a year which has seen an MP (a conservative MP at that) calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the setting up of Amsterdam style cannabis cafes in the UK and, if reports of tomorrows announcement by the Home Sec David Blunkett are to be believed, the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug (meaning that possession would no longer be an arrestable offence), I was beginning to think that perhaps the powers that be were starting to see that perhaps smoking a spliff wouldn't bring about the collapse of civilisation. As per usual, fate and the media have conspired to vomit out more bilious bad news for the express purpose of ruining my day.
The Tories (and one Labour MP) are saying that the cannabis trial scheme in Lambeth, whereby cannabis users are basically left alone in order to free up police resources so that they can tackle the problem of hard drugs, is a failure. They say it is a failure because "it encourages drug taking". I look forward to the next release from Tory central office, when I expect them to declare that legalised alcohol encourages drinking, cigarettes encourage smoking, and chocolate encourages lardy fat bastards. I mean, for fucks sake! Have the Tory leadership allowed their brains to lie fallow for the summer? It smacks of opposing an issue for the sake of opposing it, and it certainly shows their lack of political daring and acumen.
The reason I say this is because their major complaint is that some people are buying their cannabis from dealers who also try and sell them harder drugs. No shit Sherlock! Why, who would imagine in this land where free enterprise and profit have been worshipped by successive governments for 30 years, that a dealer would try and sell someone a drug that will mean more profit for him? However, rather than use this complaint as a platform to push for decriminalisation (to which most people are...well, not opposed to; only the Daily Mail brigade provide any objections and they rather spoil their case by talking reactionary old shit about cannabis and crack cause the same damage for most of the time) and thus increase their popularity among the young (a large and mainly untapped source of votes), they simply spew out the same tired lumps of froth about how all drugs are banned, and how cannabis is a "gateway drug" that leads on to harder drugs (question; how many people were drunk when they first tried drugs? Most of you? Hmm...and yet we never hear complaints of beer being gateway drugs do we?). Their best argument seems to be "Well, it's not that bad for you, but it leads you into other things that are!", and the only people it appeals to are a small and vocal minority.
And if that were not enough, I now find that Blunkett's announcement concerning drug laws tomorrow is not a bold statement by a political party intent on change. It is, in fact, the rather soggy underpants of a drunk and incontinent old tramp. Sure, cannabis is being reclassified as category C. However, the sentences for dealing cannabis are to be doubled. So what we are being told is that it's alright to use the drug, but you're not allowed to buy it. I hate to break this to anyone with an ounce of idealism in them, but we're not getting a country where personal liberties that don't infringe on the rights of others are being increased. No, if I'm optimistic we're getting a rather badly performed sleight-of-hand trick where we think our little freedom's are being increased, but in fact nothing is changing at all. If I'm pessimistic (and, depressingly, realistic), we're seeing the set up for the return of draconian and illogical drug laws, with the excuse that the half cocked, half arsed pilot scheme in Lambeth didn't work.
Of course, when it comes to draconian and illogical drug laws, we're still quite some way behind our friends across the Atlantic. In some states of the land of the free, possessing enough cannabis for a reasonably pleasant night in is enough to get your arse thrown in prison for 10-20 years. Just recently, the war against terror has given the blockheaded anti-drug propagandists in their government yet another excuse to sink their vampire fangs of guilt and fear into the neck of America. You see, now when you buy drugs you're not just committing a crime. Oh no, you're personally responsible for prolonging the war against terror because the terrorists are getting a lot of their funding from drugs.
To which my response is "Then fucking well legalise them all and make sure that if anyone is going to profit from drugs it's going to be the government!". However, as I accept that I'm in the minority in that respect, I'll move on. It boils my piss that these simpleminded fuckwits honestly believe that the average cannabis smoker is happy to hand over money that aids in the running of any criminal enterprise. Speaking personally (and for most dope smokers I've ever met in my life), I absolutely LOATHE having to go to some of the places I do in order to buy cannabis. This is almost certainly going to sound like an intellectual's fear of the working class, but I don't like going to a shitty estate to buy a quarter ounce from somebody who may do me the pleasure of burgling my house later in the week. I hated defending the little fuckstack's in court and I hate having to be all matey with them when all I want to do is get out in one piece. This is why I, like many other smokers of my slightly repressed and middle class ilk, prefer to get their dope via a friend who only deals to his friends. It's all very suburban isn't it? And the attempt to remind people like me just where the drug money may be going will not result in a flood of people throwing away their rizla's in a fit of self-loathing. It will result in people being more secretive about it for fear of being demonised by a bunch of morally dubious hypocrites.
Of course, I would be naive if I thought that the twinning of anti-drug propaganda with anti-terrorist propaganda was being done in the interests of reducing drug use in America. America, along with the rest of the western world, has been fighting a rather pointless War on Drugs for years. It's had next to no impact so far, and I don't imagine that the US government expects this latest trick to have much effect on anyone who wouldn't unquestioningly swallow whatever rancid pile of stinking old dog-smeg that they've collectively spunked out in any given week. What it will do is deflect attention rather neatly from another major US source of terrorist income and training; their government.
Was it drug cartel money that paid for Osama bin Laden's training by the CIA in the 80's? Or for Pinochet's CIA sponsored Chilean coup? Or for Dubya's attempt to depose the Venezuelan president a few months ago? (which shows that Dubya handles international politics like Joey Deacon handled a basketball...) Maybe it was drug money that paid for the School of the America's in Georgia, where the glut of Central and South American sadists and murderers who laughably call themselves the governments of their nations can learn the fine arts of torture and murder in the idyllic surroundings of the USA? No? Oh, that's right; it was the US government who sponsored and paid for every last one of those, wasn't it? The War on Terror is nothing more than the US reaping what it's Government has sown worldwide since the end of WWII. The Newer, more Improved War on Drugs is not much more than another way to try and distract attention from this.
Which is a shame, because I find it funny. No, actually I find it hilarious. Not the death of innocent people or the muddlesome war. Rather, it is the firmly held belief among some Americans that the imperialistic attitude that was the downfall of the Romans, the Persians, the Imperial Chinese, the Japanese, the British Empire...hell, every nation that has ever held sway over world events and opinion, is a perfectly acceptable one and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it that has me chuckling in that smug way that only a European can manage when discussing America. Of course, I'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if I'm proved right about that (though all recorded history is on my side), so in the meantime, would it really hurt anyone if I sat and had a spliff whilst I'm waiting?
Wednesday, 12 June 2002
The AA
One A stands for America, one for Afghanistan. Laboured, hackneyed, and a bit shit as a title. Much like this rant.
Well, what with the World Cup providing further reasons to laugh at French people until they cry, India and Pakistan eyeballing each other across Kashmir, and Big Brother ruling the airwaves, I've found my attention has been very successfully drawn away from that most epically boring yet unpleasantly important of issue's; the War Against Terror. In truth, it's been rather relaxing not watching the news and having at least one "Oh no, what has he done NOW?" moment whenever the US President hoves into view. But as John Gotti might have said (well...actually he probably said "Arrrggh...." and then choked slowly to death on his throat cancer, and good bloody riddance to him) "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". So whilst it's a bit melodramatic (not to mention egotistical) to imply that Dubya is my enemy, he's certainly someone who causes me a lot of concern and so I like to keep up to date with what he's up to. If only so that my imagination doesn't run away with me trying to guess what amount of fuckwittage he's inflicting on the rest of the world...
But enough of my own little neuroses; what's been happening recently? Particularly in America (where the first terrorist atrocities of the war were committed) and Afghanistan (where the first shots of the war were fired).
The USA is of course the main prosecutor of the war against terror. Since 11th September there have been numerous developments (the most pathetic of which concerns those British people who wrote to complain about how the date was being expressed as 9/11 in the American fashion rather than 11/9 in the British; isn't it nice to know that in the wake of the worst loss of civilian life for year, people can still be as petty and xenophobic as ever. Almost makes one proud to live in the UK...), although you would be forgiven for missing them because apparently the media aren't interested in stories that don't involve big explosions or pitched battles. As I'm going to spend a bit of time criticising the US government for it's current stance, I suppose I should make one thing clear to silence the inevitable bleating of those right wingers who believe that any questioning of government policy concerning the War is tantamount to shopping for Semtex and changing one's name to Usama. I continue to believe that the US was fully justified in starting this war. Their country had been shat upon from a very great height and to expect them to sit back and do nothing whilst various debates concerning the morality of war raged on was unrealistic. Any claims that the US is acting like a bully toward Afghanistan are equally as disingenuous. Yes, the US is far and away superior to the Taliban in military terms. But I'm inclined to think that it's not America's fault that the nation responsible for it's woes is as developed as medieval Europe. What should they have done? Only sent in low-tech equipment to make it a fair fight? Most critics would say black if a US spokesman said white, and I wish they'd be honest about their own motivation for trying to discredit any and every American statement and action.
That said I'm now going to be unpleasant about American statements and actions. My personal bias comes from the fact that I believe the upper echelons of the Republican Party to be venal, corrupt, stupid old men. And as venal, corrupt and stupid goes George W. Bush is pretty much the pinnacle of achievement. There are numerous things that one could pick out to exemplify this, so let's start with the semi-regular terrorist alerts that are becoming a feature of American life.
Basically, it would seem that the many and varied intelligence agencies of America are somewhat embarrassed at having missed the fact that a major terrorist attack was brewing in early September. Because of this, they are now ready to warn the US public of imminent terrorist attacks on the basis of such evidence as "Well, the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty big and if I were a terrorist, that's where I would attack". However, it is interesting to note that these warnings only seem to occur when the government finds itself facing criticism. So are we seeing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and however many other alphabet agencies there are being over cautious? Or are we seeing a government who cheated their way to victory doing their level best to cheat further still?
Take, for example, the May arrest of Abdullah al-Muhajir. This American gentleman, formerly known as Chicago gang member Jose Padilla (incidentally, I did hear of someone who honestly believed that the airlines could once again be made safe by running double checks on anyone who looks like a Moslem, or who has an Islamic name; what a fucking boy genius he is! The fact that Al-Quaida has a huge amount of support in, for example, the Philippines or Indonesia where such names as Edilberto Adan are commonplace doesn't seem to have troubled him...) has been detained by the US on the grounds that he was part of an Al-Quaida plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in America. The evidence for this is...well, we don't actually know what the evidence is as he hasn't been before a court as yet, nor is he likely to. Instead, he's been handed over to the military where he will be held indefinitely.
Now again, I should make it clear that I would be a fool to disapprove of heightened security in America these days. And if this man was indeed planning something of this magnitude then the US is certainly doing the right thing in apprehending him. But even leaving aside the fact that the atrocity he is accused of planning is identical to that of the upcoming film 'The Sum of All Fears', holding a man in indefinite military custody when absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any such plot has been presented...well, isn't that just a little bit totalitarian? Why is the government so afraid of giving us a few little tidbits to satisfy the public that there was indeed such a threat? If nothing else, it would piss on the chips of people like me who enjoy nothing more than being given an excuse to criticise a blundering and stupid government led by a blundering and stupid man. There have been so many false alarms and exercises in misdirection by Dubya's government that there is more than a touch of the boy who cried wolf about this.
As we finish looking at America, it is also worth looking at Dubya's favourite soundbite, the Axis of Evil. He recently extended this group to include Cuba. For some reason, he chose to announce this in Florida, co-incidentally the state where his brother is running for re-election and where there are huge numbers of anti-Castro Cuban expatriates registered as voters. It's also the state that won the presidency for Dubya. When members of his own party are criticising Dubya for his cack-handed attempt to further demonise a country where, if you believe some Americans, is holiday home to all that is evil and satanic, it leads me to believe that perhaps Dubya isn't interested in pursuing the war against terror in order to safeguard the people who elected him. He's doing it to safeguard his re-election prospects. Not that that should be a surprise to anybody, but it's nice to have some tangible proof of this.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan nothing very much happened. Well...that's not true of course, it's just that India and Pakistan held the potential for far greater fireworks, and so Afghanistan was ignored. But there has been much activity over there. Coalition soldiers have scoured the country and found approximately no Taliban or Al-Quaida troops (they're all in Pakistan, or perhaps even Kashmir by now...). So they've had to be content with blowing up the cave networks and ammunition dumps that were left behind. It might not be very exciting, but taking away the mountain hideaways is a fairly substantial step towards lasting stability in the region. After all, it's difficult to be a successful guerilla fighter if you can't run and hide after taking a few potshots at the army that vastly outnumbers you.In the meantime, the interim government has been busy trying to create a permanent and lasting democratic and transparent government. Naturally, for a country whose idea of human rights was, until recently, giving the condemned man a blindfold, there have been problems doing this. A tribal power struggle is going on behind the scenes as various clan leaders and warlords jockey for position in the new government. The former king has even had to go on record to say that he does not intend to reclaim the throne (and give a veneer of legitimacy to some very unsavoury people who would use him as a figurehead for their government).
Many commentators have used this power struggle as an excuse to look down their noses at the Afghanistani's, citing it as proof that they are nothing better than savages and should be left to their own devices. Hm, well yes I can see how it is unreasonable of them not to have developed the same level of transparency and efficiency in government in a few months when it took us in the west centuries to get from feudalism to democracy. How typically barbaric of them! And, as we have seen, the current American government isn't exactly something that should be aspired to. Who knows, maybe Afghanistan will create a government that really is democratic. And then America and the West can learn from them.
Well, what with the World Cup providing further reasons to laugh at French people until they cry, India and Pakistan eyeballing each other across Kashmir, and Big Brother ruling the airwaves, I've found my attention has been very successfully drawn away from that most epically boring yet unpleasantly important of issue's; the War Against Terror. In truth, it's been rather relaxing not watching the news and having at least one "Oh no, what has he done NOW?" moment whenever the US President hoves into view. But as John Gotti might have said (well...actually he probably said "Arrrggh...." and then choked slowly to death on his throat cancer, and good bloody riddance to him) "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". So whilst it's a bit melodramatic (not to mention egotistical) to imply that Dubya is my enemy, he's certainly someone who causes me a lot of concern and so I like to keep up to date with what he's up to. If only so that my imagination doesn't run away with me trying to guess what amount of fuckwittage he's inflicting on the rest of the world...
But enough of my own little neuroses; what's been happening recently? Particularly in America (where the first terrorist atrocities of the war were committed) and Afghanistan (where the first shots of the war were fired).
The USA is of course the main prosecutor of the war against terror. Since 11th September there have been numerous developments (the most pathetic of which concerns those British people who wrote to complain about how the date was being expressed as 9/11 in the American fashion rather than 11/9 in the British; isn't it nice to know that in the wake of the worst loss of civilian life for year, people can still be as petty and xenophobic as ever. Almost makes one proud to live in the UK...), although you would be forgiven for missing them because apparently the media aren't interested in stories that don't involve big explosions or pitched battles. As I'm going to spend a bit of time criticising the US government for it's current stance, I suppose I should make one thing clear to silence the inevitable bleating of those right wingers who believe that any questioning of government policy concerning the War is tantamount to shopping for Semtex and changing one's name to Usama. I continue to believe that the US was fully justified in starting this war. Their country had been shat upon from a very great height and to expect them to sit back and do nothing whilst various debates concerning the morality of war raged on was unrealistic. Any claims that the US is acting like a bully toward Afghanistan are equally as disingenuous. Yes, the US is far and away superior to the Taliban in military terms. But I'm inclined to think that it's not America's fault that the nation responsible for it's woes is as developed as medieval Europe. What should they have done? Only sent in low-tech equipment to make it a fair fight? Most critics would say black if a US spokesman said white, and I wish they'd be honest about their own motivation for trying to discredit any and every American statement and action.
That said I'm now going to be unpleasant about American statements and actions. My personal bias comes from the fact that I believe the upper echelons of the Republican Party to be venal, corrupt, stupid old men. And as venal, corrupt and stupid goes George W. Bush is pretty much the pinnacle of achievement. There are numerous things that one could pick out to exemplify this, so let's start with the semi-regular terrorist alerts that are becoming a feature of American life.
Basically, it would seem that the many and varied intelligence agencies of America are somewhat embarrassed at having missed the fact that a major terrorist attack was brewing in early September. Because of this, they are now ready to warn the US public of imminent terrorist attacks on the basis of such evidence as "Well, the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty big and if I were a terrorist, that's where I would attack". However, it is interesting to note that these warnings only seem to occur when the government finds itself facing criticism. So are we seeing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and however many other alphabet agencies there are being over cautious? Or are we seeing a government who cheated their way to victory doing their level best to cheat further still?
Take, for example, the May arrest of Abdullah al-Muhajir. This American gentleman, formerly known as Chicago gang member Jose Padilla (incidentally, I did hear of someone who honestly believed that the airlines could once again be made safe by running double checks on anyone who looks like a Moslem, or who has an Islamic name; what a fucking boy genius he is! The fact that Al-Quaida has a huge amount of support in, for example, the Philippines or Indonesia where such names as Edilberto Adan are commonplace doesn't seem to have troubled him...) has been detained by the US on the grounds that he was part of an Al-Quaida plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in America. The evidence for this is...well, we don't actually know what the evidence is as he hasn't been before a court as yet, nor is he likely to. Instead, he's been handed over to the military where he will be held indefinitely.
Now again, I should make it clear that I would be a fool to disapprove of heightened security in America these days. And if this man was indeed planning something of this magnitude then the US is certainly doing the right thing in apprehending him. But even leaving aside the fact that the atrocity he is accused of planning is identical to that of the upcoming film 'The Sum of All Fears', holding a man in indefinite military custody when absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any such plot has been presented...well, isn't that just a little bit totalitarian? Why is the government so afraid of giving us a few little tidbits to satisfy the public that there was indeed such a threat? If nothing else, it would piss on the chips of people like me who enjoy nothing more than being given an excuse to criticise a blundering and stupid government led by a blundering and stupid man. There have been so many false alarms and exercises in misdirection by Dubya's government that there is more than a touch of the boy who cried wolf about this.
As we finish looking at America, it is also worth looking at Dubya's favourite soundbite, the Axis of Evil. He recently extended this group to include Cuba. For some reason, he chose to announce this in Florida, co-incidentally the state where his brother is running for re-election and where there are huge numbers of anti-Castro Cuban expatriates registered as voters. It's also the state that won the presidency for Dubya. When members of his own party are criticising Dubya for his cack-handed attempt to further demonise a country where, if you believe some Americans, is holiday home to all that is evil and satanic, it leads me to believe that perhaps Dubya isn't interested in pursuing the war against terror in order to safeguard the people who elected him. He's doing it to safeguard his re-election prospects. Not that that should be a surprise to anybody, but it's nice to have some tangible proof of this.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan nothing very much happened. Well...that's not true of course, it's just that India and Pakistan held the potential for far greater fireworks, and so Afghanistan was ignored. But there has been much activity over there. Coalition soldiers have scoured the country and found approximately no Taliban or Al-Quaida troops (they're all in Pakistan, or perhaps even Kashmir by now...). So they've had to be content with blowing up the cave networks and ammunition dumps that were left behind. It might not be very exciting, but taking away the mountain hideaways is a fairly substantial step towards lasting stability in the region. After all, it's difficult to be a successful guerilla fighter if you can't run and hide after taking a few potshots at the army that vastly outnumbers you.In the meantime, the interim government has been busy trying to create a permanent and lasting democratic and transparent government. Naturally, for a country whose idea of human rights was, until recently, giving the condemned man a blindfold, there have been problems doing this. A tribal power struggle is going on behind the scenes as various clan leaders and warlords jockey for position in the new government. The former king has even had to go on record to say that he does not intend to reclaim the throne (and give a veneer of legitimacy to some very unsavoury people who would use him as a figurehead for their government).
Many commentators have used this power struggle as an excuse to look down their noses at the Afghanistani's, citing it as proof that they are nothing better than savages and should be left to their own devices. Hm, well yes I can see how it is unreasonable of them not to have developed the same level of transparency and efficiency in government in a few months when it took us in the west centuries to get from feudalism to democracy. How typically barbaric of them! And, as we have seen, the current American government isn't exactly something that should be aspired to. Who knows, maybe Afghanistan will create a government that really is democratic. And then America and the West can learn from them.
Tuesday, 11 June 2002
Commercial Break
Adverts are a fact of life now. Rather than railing against them all, I prefer to rail against unimaginative and shitty adverts. That still leaves no shortage of material.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Monday, 27 May 2002
Kashmir
Until this rant, I only ever thought of Kashmir as a rather good Led Zep song.
So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?
Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.
This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.
Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.
Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.
For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.
As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.
Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.
As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?
And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.
Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.
So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?
Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.
This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.
Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.
Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.
For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.
As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.
Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.
As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?
And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.
Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.
Monday, 13 May 2002
Women, eh?
This is what happens when a gobshite fails to get laid.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)