Nitpickings of a Nightdragon

How's this for package emphasis, Weiner?

2011-06-19T10:09:00.003+01:00

Rep. Anthony Weiner: "I had hoped to be able to continue the work that the citizens of my district elected me to do ... Unfortunately, the distraction that I have created has made that impossible. So today I'm announcing my resignation from Congress."
Hecklers: "Yea! Bye-bye, pervert!"
It may have been a prank engineered by Howard Stern, but that is a classic. One of the most amusing press conferences of all time.
Distraction, Anthony? Distraction? This nogoodnick—last year, I called him a "schmuck extraordinaire"—still can't admit the nature of this scandal. By using that word, Weiner is acting as though this was simply a political inconvenience beyond his ability to control.
It seems pretty straightforward to me: You don't send a photo of your crotch in tight boxer briefs to a young female follower on Twitter when (a) you're a Congressman elected to do the people's work (even if the people in question are moonbats) and (b) You're married.
And if this was a distraction that you created, Mssr. Weiner, then why the bullish attitude over the past couple of weeks, acting as if you did nothing wrong? Why lie about it all, since you surely knew it would eventually backfire?
Instead, as we all know by now, Weiner claimed that his Twitter account was "hacked"—insinuating that it was the work of Andrew Breitbart. He called CNN producer Ted Barrett a "jackass" for insisting on a very direct answer to a very direct question, instead treating him and reporter Dana Bash to a rambling statement about thrown pies or insults that he wouldn't spend the next two hours responding to. It was glaringly obvious why he parried by talking about Clarence Thomas and the debt-limit vote, and never contacted law enforcement with regard to the alleged hacking.
Have you heard about the e-mails that Weiner sent to former porn actress Ginger Lee? Gloria Allred read them out the other day: "I have wardrobe demands too, I need to highlight my package," "Alright, my package and I are not gonna beg," and "You aren't giving my package due credit."
I'm all for male pride, but jeez. This is ridiculous, not to mention gross.
Anthony Weiner spent his entire political life trying to stick it to the middle class that he claimed he stood up for. He used the usual Democratic code-speak to sound friendly to working people. But the dudes who shoved him into lockers at school grew up into responsible, working, contributing members of society, and Weiner couldn't tolerate the thought of them being successful. He was a member of Congress; he had power and a generous pension that those guys, as taxpayers, were funding. His whole demeanor over the past 12 years of his Congressional career screamed, "Look at me now! How's my ass taste?"
He probably spent the last few years asking every female he came across during his on-line activities how their asses tasted, I regret to say.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of "beautiful people" just like Anthony Weiner out there, in the private sector as well as public "service": Smug, arrogant, and too quick to look down upon everyone around them. People with no reason to be as self-assured as they are. People whom you just ache to kick to the curb.
Would it were that they could all be brought down with such punishing, poetic justice as Anthony Weiner.

The Canucks—and Vancouver—reap what they've sown

2011-06-17T11:40:00.007+01:00

Well, I'm sorry, dear reader, but my rating on the city of Vancouver isn't zero. It's well into the negatives. That's where it will remain for a long time to come.
If anyone from Vancouver happens to be reading this right now—and I'd love to hear from you—perhaps you could answer me one question: What is up with the incredibly babyish attitude? You people must be the sorest losers on the globe. Just pathetic.
Hey, it's your city: Tear it up, blow it up, wipe it off the map—whatever. I'll still sleep comfortably at night. But you did yourselves no favors. For once, the world is witnessing just what a lie we've all been sold with respect to the idyllic utopia Vancouver supposedly is or the peaceful, law-abiding orderliness with which Canadian society conducts itself.
Ice hockey is a Canadian invention—and look how thuggish the game is. Just put two and two together. (But at least their skating rink ice isn't stained with Ottawa-sanctioned seal blood.) I'm not saying Canadians are worse than anyone else. I've just had it with the fairytale existence they want us to believe everyone leads up there. The Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot of 2011 should forever dispel that myth—and I honestly hope it does.
You can point the finger south and sneer only so many times before something like what occurred yesterday afternoon in Canada's third-largest city brings a big smile of satisfaction to an American's face.
But I digress, really: Let's stick to just the Canucks' fan base. What does the all-out war that broke out in downtown Vancouver yesterday say about them? First of all, you need to understand that the Canucks have been in the Stanley Cup Finals three times: In 1982, 1994 and this year. Two out of those three times, there were riots.
The 1994 riots, after the New York Rangers defeated the Canucks in seven games, were disgraceful enough, worthy of staining the city for several decades after the fact. But after the Bruins won in seven games Wednesday, the mayhem and violence that occurred was, according to some reports, three times as worse.
So, two large-scale riots after two lost causes in the Cup finals. Pretty bad, eh? It's begun to look like a not-so-healthy trend.
But—and this is really good—the city had already planned a parade route for the Canucks. The positive air of expectation surrounding the Canucks permeated everything. Crowds watching the game outside Rogers Arena were joined by jubliant policemen, who were exchanging high-fives with fans early on in the game. Fans actually expected their team to come back from a 3-goal deficit in the third period. The Cancuks were going to win, damn it all!
Honestly, not even New York Yankees fans are this arrogant. They at least know when they are beaten. It was only after Boston scored goal #4 that things turned ugly.
One fan was heard to shout after the game, "Boston, I hate you!" For what? Daring to compete with your boyfriends and being good enough to win against them, you candy-assed crybaby? Excuse me, but I thought that's what hockey, like any other sport, was about: Playing the game and having a winner and a loser.
No surprise that the Canucks currently have the most hated fan base in all of sports. Even Canadians who aren't from British Columbia hate the Canucks and their fans. The Canucks themselves were notorious for their cheap shots, unnecessary roughness and general dirty play.
If this was the only riot to have occurred after a sporting loss in Vancouver, I'd be willing to chalk it up to the anarchist freaks that magically materialize at any large event to cause trouble. We experienced that ourselves here in London during an anti-budget cuts protest in March. The 1994 riot, combined with this one, makes that excuse less easy to explain. Especially since "true Canucks fans" were not honor-bound to participate in the violence, then or now. But they did.
I'm no hockey fan. However, I congratulate the scrappy, but gentlemanly Boston Bruins for capturing the Stanley Cup for the first time in 39 years. This wasn't just a hometown team done good; the Bruins were an underdog in the truest sense of the word. But it's good for the city, and it's great for the Bruins die-hards who watched as all the other professional Boston teams won fresh championship titles during the past decade and wondered when their time would come. At no point along the way did Bruins fans riot to express their displeasure over how long they were expected to live off the fumes of 1972.
I will tell you something about the city of Boston though: It won't have to spend several years trying to wipe an ugly stain off its complexion—the way Vancouver will.

What does CEO stand for—chief executive ogre?

2011-05-28T09:37:00.005+01:00

For a month or two last year, I had a Facebook page. I balked, however, when Facebook executives refused to take down the page dedicated to British gunman/killer Raul Moat. Facebook claimed it was all about free speech. My understanding is that once the public expression of views crosses over into death threats and the encouragement of violent, anarchic activity, defense on the grounds of freedom of expression is no longer relevant.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain, even got involved and asked the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, to remove the site; Zuckerberg refused. In the end, the creator of the page removed it herself, though she only did so, she claimed, so things could simmer down a bit, and then she would re-launch it.
In disgust—and also considering that I had gotten into a serious fight with someone over the subject of capital punishment—I de-activated my page and left Facebook. I haven't been back since, nor have I missed it.
Mark Zuckerberg just ensured, beyond any shadow of doubt, why I won't reconsider my decision.
The Facebook chief likes to set little challenges for himself every year, such as learning Chinese or wearing a tie every day. If I had a douchebag face like his, I'd consider it a challenge just stepping out my front door and into the public domain every day. But apparently, that's not enough.
Zuckerberg now wants to eat meat only from animals he kills himself. He says this personal goal of his represents the need for people to be "thankful for what they eat rather than trying to ignore where it came from." I'll admit, this is good advice for carnivores/omnivores and in making this statement, Zuckerberg has a valid point.
Some meat-eaters are uncomfortable with how their food ends up on their plate and they'd rather not think about it. Luckily, the pickings available at the grocery store sanitize the whole sordid business. The supermarket or butcher is the middleman between the slaughterhouse and the consumer.
Using that exact same argument, why should anyone feel guilty about purchasing drugs from a dealer? He will never tell you who he shot dead for stepping onto his turf the night before, so you have no need to worry about it. Let that not interrupt anyone's narcotic-cloaked enjoyment of life.
Rather than finding the slaughter of animals deplorable, and using that as an excuse to set a vegetarian challenge for himself instead, Zuckerberg endorses it.
"I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have," Zuckerberg proclaimed.
Have I missed something? Who exactly is forcing people to eat meat? Has meat-consumption become the law of the land? As for the inane argument that meat-eating is vital for human nutrition, the last time I checked, humans weren't canines nor felines.
Zuckerberg has all-too-predictably received well-wishes and plaudits from those who pretend that their psychopathic hatred of any life form on Earth that dares not to be human is the very essence of libertarianism.
Well, I'm a libertarian too and my goal for the year is to hope in earnest every waking day that Zuckerberg swiftly becomes the victim of a hunting accident.
Only you won't find me encouraging that on Facebook.

Barack Obama: Spiritual leader of the British

2011-05-27T07:23:00.001+01:00

Previously published by Blogcritics

It's odd. I know there are conservative people in Britain. But they're like God: I need faith that they actually exist, because, aside from my wife, I have never met anyone who came even remotely close to scoring 0.001 percent on the conservative scale.
I've certainly never worked with any. A good example came last week when the Daily Express arrived to the scanning room where a younger co-worker and I were stationed. The headline announced "40 Percent Rise in Ethnic Numbers." My immediate thought upon reading the headline was, This is not good for social cohesion. My colleague, however, gruffly stated, "Let's leave this paper with its racist headline till last."
Its racist headline? Score another point for the rose-colored glasses wearing, blue-sky thinking crowd, because that kid is clearly part of it. Who cares if foreign influx into the country is so high that we quickly find ourselves possessing no common language, cultural references or shared values with each other? We should care. After all, don't the British complain incessantly about the "Americanization" of their culture? Alas, I suppose it's far easier and more fashionable to complain about American words infiltrating Brit-speak (which are actually English words that Americans preserved) than how closely British immigration policy—or lack of it—resembles that of the U.S.
Why exactly do I bring this up? Sky News reported that President Obama signed the Westminster Abbey guestbook but dated his comment "May 24, 2008." A harmless gaffe, but do you know what the reaction to the story would have been had George W. Bush done that? It would have been proclaimed the dumbest mistake in the history of mankind. Reader comments would have declared: "Further proof the President's an idiot," "The American people deserve this man," "George Bush, worst president evah," and peppered throughout by the occasional but obligatory "GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMINAL!"
It should come as no surprise that the reaction to the Obama story was all "peace," "love" and "what's the big deal?"

Give up nit picking [sic], so what he made a mistake with the date [sic], I think the President is a great guy and doing a grand job. It was lovely to see him and his wife at Buckingham Palace with the Queen.

What is it, fashionable to hate on Obama now?

Which only goes to show he is also human and open to the same effects of media exposure and jetlag!! Good for him.

you all are hatters. [sic] why don't you get a life. [sic] We all make mistakes. who haven't? [sic] put your hands up. leave the poor man alone people [sic].

And on, and on, and on the Obama bum-kissing goes, for over 1,000 mind-numbing, grammatically appalling comments. Suddenly it's fashionable in Britain to stick up for the American President. And golly gee, aren't those Yanks nice, cuddly people for electing him too? The world's such a snuggly-wuggly place!
The world's not coming to an end just because Barack Obama signed the wrong year to his guestbook entry. I get that. It's to be expected, I suppose. The man has never stopped campaigning, after all. That's why he's hardly ever in the office he got elected to. He's living in a perpetual 2008. One of these days, he's going to say that's when he had Osama bin Laden executed.
But doesn't it speak volumes about a man who pronounced corpsman as "corpseman," said he visited 57 U.S. states, and thinks Austrian is spoken in Austria? Are we going to have a book on Obama-isms to join the volumes of tomes dedicated to Bushisms?
How about Mr. Obama completely screwing up while delivering a toast to the Queen? The band is instructed to play when they hear "the Queen." That's their cue. Obama and his defenders will try to blame the orchestra, when the truth is, Obama never should have spoken those words until the end of his speech.
I ask again, if Dubya had done this, what would the reaction have been? Of course, Bush never would have fouled up like that for he would have pulled all the stops to get it right before speaking. He would have bothered to study the protocol. Beautiful people like Barack Obama, however, have no need for that because their brilliance is beyond the reach of normal people. Or so we're told, time and time again by the fawning media, both American and international.
What really throws me is the completely fake bonhomie that Obama is presenting to the Queen, David Cameron and the British people themselves. Obama is a notorious Brit-hater. Nile Gardiner spelled it all out in his commentary "Does Obama Have it in for Britain?":

Obama seems strangely oblivious to the dangerous path he has embarked on, becoming the first U.S. President in modern times to place no importance on the historic relationship between the U.S. and Britain.
We cannot say, however, that we weren't warned.
This, after all, is a man who, within days of being sworn in as President, ordered that a bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from the British people to the U.S. in the dark days that followed 9/11—be removed from the Oval Office.
... When the U.S. marches in, it's only ever the British who can be depended on to march alongside them.
And yet all that proud history, all that noble sacrifice, seems to count for nothing in Obama's eyes. He seems oblivious to the debt of gratitude he, and the American people, owes this country.

Despite that, Obama is enormously popular in this country. The British talk a good game about being different from Europeans, but the President's popularity numbers continue to hover between the 75 to 80 percent mark, as with France and Germany. Obama might very well declare in the House of Commons, "Screw it, I'm not pretending to like you anymore. You're all evil and you should consider yourselves lucky if I don't nuke you all to hell where you belong." Sky News would report it, and you'd still have Brits commenting, "Come on, take it easy on the President. He's a wonderful man, the most brilliant in all of history. He wants to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony," only without the punctuation or capital letters.
I learned years ago that a strong, confident America is not what the world, including Britain, wants—and everyone can relax because that's certainly not something the world is going to witness under the present administration. But this is ridiculous. I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn or gryphon walking the streets of Britain than I would someone who isn't an Obamabot, to use Ted Rall's appropriate term. I prefer the phrase "Obama rumpswab," but that would be politically incorrect, now wouldn't it?

Revenge of the anti-Obama liberals, part II

2011-05-22T09:32:00.003+01:00

Yesterday, this blog told the tale regarding the curious case of far-Left loonie Ted Rall. For the past two years, Rall has been spitting vitriol at Barack Obama, calling him a "monster" and a "terrible leader," and the resultant rejection of his animated commentaries by editors confirms what we all know: the media is not only biased, but you are in for hard times if you dare to diss their anointed saint and savior, even if the color of your blood runs pink(o).
Robert Fisk has no such worries as he is not a freelancer. He is the established Middle East correspondent for the left-of-center British paper The Independent. I will acknowledge that Fisk is a brave man to have made Middle East reporting his specialty. But he long ago upgraded from objective reporter to subjective columnist and that's the trouble with him. A socialist, Fisk predictably decries U.S. (and some British and European Union) policy in the region and is always denouncing Israel. A recent column of his demonstrates this all too well.
I've loathed Fisk for years, but, as with Rall, I find myself fascinated by his denouncements of Obama. Like Rall, who wrote that Obama is timid and all-too-readily gives in to political correctness, Fisk also states the obvious, accusing the President of "speechifying" and calling him "vain and cowardly."
Here's where it really gets enjoyable: Fisk nearly blows a gasket by sarcastically mocking Obama as "our favorite President," preferring the adjective "mealy-mouthed" to describe him, and makes the spot-on prediction that whatever Obama says about the Middle East (or anything for that matter), "we will be treated to all the usual analysts in the States, saying how fine the President's words are." Whoa!
I must give Fisk some credit. He nails it when he declares, "We will be asked—oh, I fear we will—to turn our backs on the Bin Laden past, to seek 'closure' and 'move on' (which I'm afraid the Taliban don't quite agree with)." Even Fisk gets what Obama apparently doesn't.
I can hardly wait to read what Fisk will say about Obama's depressingly clueless pronouncement that Israel should revert back to its pre-Six-Day War borders. I'm guessing Fisk will approve.
But whatever. If the Independent's editors instructed him to "go easy on O," Fisk's columns would lose any shred of entertainment value they currently carry.

Revenge of the anti-Obama liberals?

2011-05-21T11:37:00.007+01:00

Sometimes a truly incredible phenomenon occurs and it's a wonder to witness. Whenever there's a split within the Left, or a member of the Left rants against his or her own, I get very excited by it. It's like an orgasm for my mind.
Case in point: editorial cartoonist Ted Rall. If you're a patriotic American, there's nothing nice you can say about him. I don't like Ted Rall for having the nerve to call Bill Maher a "libertarian," for starters. But he's not afraid to go against the grain.
Rall made a name for himself internationally and became a hit with the champagne socialists and limousine liberals in the lamestream media—sorry for the clichés, but it's all true, isn't it?—because he unrelentingly attacked President Bush, the War on Terror, Republicans and conservatives in general. But Rall isn't so popular in the elitist liberal camp these days. Why? He dislikes Obama.
One editor told Rall, "Can't you focus more on the GOP?" in response to Rall's anti-Obama work. Rall admits to nearly going broke, angrily writes "I didn't realize how besotted progressives were by Mr. Hopey Changey," and excoriates the militant Democrats a.k.a. Obamabots.
Granted, Rall's considerable distaste for Obama is the result of his dismay that the President has not closed Guantánamo and continues to rely on Bush-era intelligence techniques. (Interestingly, Rall hates Obamacare as well.) But he also calls him out for political correctness. Get a load of this, from this Universal Syndicate Press column that somehow managed to work its way past the Messiah-loving censors:

"From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning? Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss."

Obama is timid, worries too much about offending, and dangerous? Mr. Rall, now surely you jest! When you read the column further, it becomes clear that Rall is offended by Obama because he thinks the President is doing too much to secure America's safety. In Rall's twisted brain, that just won't do. But I am absolutely fascinated by a Leftie who would call Obama a "monster" and a "terrible leader." Rall is saying all the right words; he's just arguing from the wrong side of the fence.
Rall makes a good point about his work being turned down by the operatives of the mainstream media who idolize Obama. I dare to critcize their man, Rall is saying, and I get shut down. Where's freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I agree. The media is censoring Rall and, despite how vicious, mean-spirited and small-minded Rall is, that isn't right.
You could argue that Rall is reaping what he has sowed. See, Ted, this is why there have been no denouncements of the war in Libya. The Obamabots you criticize do disagree with it, but they refuse to say one critical word against their Messiah.
Ted Rall isn't the only Leftie ticked off at Obama. Another recently called him "cowardly" and "mealy-mouthed." But I'll leave that for my next entry.

Obama's become Common since bin Laden killing

2011-05-13T22:24:00.002+01:00

Consider the following poetry, dear reader:

"I got the black strap to make the cops run
They watching me, I'm watching them
Them dick boys got a lotta cock in them
My people on the block got a lotta Pac in them
And when we roll together, we be rocking them to sleep."

Those lines are from a 2007 piece entitled "A Letter to the Law," written by actor-cum-rapper Lonnie Rashin Lynn Jr., a.k.a. Common, who is referring to and apparently advocating the killing of cops.
Well, it was Poetry Night at the White House on Wednesday night, held to display the breadth of American culture in metered words, to which Common was invited to perform. He did not perform "A Letter to the Law," speaking instead of the illustrious world achievement that Barack Obama's presidency represents.
It gets worse. The White House poetry slam coincided with Police Memorial Week in Washington, D.C. Law enforcement officials, paying homage to their slain colleagues and remembering the families they left behind, must have been thrilled to acknowledge Common's presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and reflecting on the "black strap" he wears to enable him to rock police officers "to sleep."
It turns out that Common, a Chicago native, attended the Trinity United Church, listening to the "sermons" of pastor Jeremiah Wright, spiritual leader of the Obamas.
I was proud of Obama for a few days after the bin Laden execution, and it was great while it lasted. I truly enjoyed the opportunity to praise the President. But consider what has occurred since the Prez gave the capture/kill order on bin Laden:
(1) He refused to release the photos. These are photos which every American deserves the right to see, but Obama doesn't want to offend "Muslim sensitivities."
(2) The White House sent out form letters to a lottery list of fifty families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks, inviting them to the President's visit to the World Trade Center site, but addrressing every one as "Dear 9/11 Family Member," which one such family member, John Vigiano, politely described as "kind of lame."
(3) Obama snapped at Debra Burlingame, who lost a sibling in the attacks, when she asked the President during his Ground Zero visit if he would consider advising Attorney General Eric Holder to drop the investigations of the CIA agents accused of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The information KSM gave interrogaters led us to bin Laden's courier. Obama cannot order Holder to stop the prosecutions, but Burlingame was aware of this. She just wanted the President to ask Holder to reconsider his inquisition of these agents. Instead, true to his egotistical nature, Obama grumbled "No, I won't" at Burlingame and walked away from her. Whatever happened to "Yes We Can," Mr. President?
(4) Obama had to rush back to the White House after his sojourn to New York City to host a Cinco de Mayo party. I understand that Cinco de Mayo is part of American history, given that the U.S. helped Mexico to oust the French who had occupied Mexico and were attempting to influence the direction of the Civil War in favor of the South by arming Confederate troops. Cinco de Mayo commemorates the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862 when the Mexican army temporarily defeated French forces. (The U.S. would step up military assistance to Mexico in 1865 in helping to defeat the French for good.) All very well. But America's much more recent victory is a lot more relevant. And isn't Cinco de Mayo, as celebrated by this Administration, laced with the theme of granting amnesty to illegals and denouncing Arizona's immigration law?
(5) This is unrelated to bin Laden's execution, but during the same week that they scored a foreign policy victory, the Obama administration continued to show that they're clueless on domestic policy by proposing to tax drivers by the number of miles driven. Ray La Hood, the Transportation Secretary, says the proposed Vehcile Miles Traveled scheme would be short-term, but when has a new tax scheme ever been sunsetted? I can't think of one either. It would take several years to implement, by which time the gasoline-tax revenue issue might no longer be relevant. We'd be stuck with a gas tax and a VMT tax.
Only Obama could so quickly go from hero to horror show. Against all this, Common's sanctioned participation in the White House poetry evening rubs off as ... well, commonplace for this particular g-crew. Obama will keep us safe from al-Qaeda because giving us nightmares is his job.

Justice at long last

2011-05-03T10:13:00.002+01:00

I don't know what it is, but big things have happened lately whenever I've posted an entry here. I write about Donald Trump, making mention of the birther phenomenon—and suddenly Obama releases his birth certificate (or what we've been led to believe is the real birth certificate).
I then write about a silly spat between the Prime Minister and the opposition bench in the House of Commons—and Osama bin Laden is killed.
So, naturally, I'm expecting big news to break after I've posted this. I fail to see how the news can possibly get any grander or more spectacular than that—but hey, first "proof" that Obama is native-born citizen, then proof that Osama is dead, now proof that extraterrestrial life exists? It's not as if I'm calling the shots here, but the nightdragon is indirectly controlling world events, or so it would appear.
There's not much I can say about bin Laden's demise that hasn't already been said. Naturally, I'm relieved and thankful to the courageous US special forces, glad that Pakistani officials worked with us, and I'm celebrating as much as any red-blooded American that revenge has, at long last, been exacted.
I'm disappointed that this did not happen on Bush's watch, preferably during his final months in office so he could have left on a high and been remembered the way he deserved to be. Obama's approval ratings will rocket skyward as a result of this. "Obama got Osama!" is the rallying cry from sea to shining sea.
But, then again, let's not be politically selfish. President Obama watched every minute of this raid unfold and, by all accounts, was genuinely relieved at the end result. His slight smirk during the early morning White House address was not the product of his usual unctousness, but a heartfelt joy that he could not wait to share with the country. We need to give the President the credit he's earned. Obama (and Hilary Clinton) displayed the same anxious emotions during those nerve-shredding moments that you or I would have had we just given the "go" order.
It has to be said that Obama has not been as timid in conducting the War on Terror as his oppenents have alleged, and this is the proof.
It remains to be seen how humble the President will be in the wake of this. If he acts gracious and humble, as he should, we may finally witness a true leader of the free world emerge.
The economy will eventually return as the focal-point issue and the President will still have to answer to that. Would it were that he saw the light on the price of living as he did the price on bin Laden's head.

Labour needs to calm down, dearies

2011-05-01T10:46:00.009+01:00

Proof that Labour has not learned any lessons since they lost control of the Government a year ago came last week during a Parliamentary question-and-answer session.
Shadow (Labour) Treasury minister Angela Eagle accused Prime Minister David Cameron of getting his facts wrong regarding the defeat of a former minister and general practice doctor who supports the reforms. Cameron replied, "Calm down, dear, calm down," urging her to "listen to the doctor." For this, the Prime Minister has been accused not only of unprofessionalism, but of sexism and discrimination.
Three things:
One: "Calm down, dear" is the catchphrase used by film director Michael Winner from the multitude of insurance commercials he's starred in. There cannot be anyone in England who hasn't seen nor heard Winner utter that phrase, and Winner used it with males and females alike. Cameron may have mimicked Winner for jocular effect, and Winner himself said he was honored, adding that Labour were acting like "politically correct lunatics."
Two: Although Cameron is not a Northerner, Miss Eagle is from Yorkshire, and words like "love," "pet," and "dear" are used affectionately by a good slice of the populace in Yorkshire and other Northern counties. Men use them with women, and women use them with men. If Cameron was not mimicking Winner, he may have simply been trying to affectionately parry with Eagle.
Three: This is the nature of Parliamentary debate. It's always a show, rife with wordplay, insinuations, catcalls and a chorus of boo-birds. This is the way it's been for centuries. If Cameron was not mimicking Winner nor affectionately parrying with Eagle by using Northern words, then he was simply acting like a British politician in a Parliamentary debate.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has demanded answers from David Cameron and the Tories, calling the PM's remarks to Eagle, "patronising, sexist, insulting and deeply un-prime ministerial." Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman called the remark "contemptuous." Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was the only Labourite with ... well, with any balls to acknowledge that Cameron was only joking, but also opined that the Prime Mininster was "silly" and would regret the humorous moment.
Angela Eagle herself said, "I don't think any modern man would have expressed himself in that way." You mean the modern man with the pink shirt, man-bag and subscription to Cosmopolitan who cried during the Royal Wedding? Give me a break! Calm down, dear.
I, too, dear reader, would be disgusted by any mean-spirited remarks aimed at Miss Eagle. But the insensitive rejoinders by Cameron are only too conspicuous by their total absence. As always, the figment of easily-riled imaginations on the part of the opposition give life to the ghost of malice.
Labour is being hypocritical. Watch the video provided with the Daily Telegraph story. At 1:33, you can see Ed Balls and Ed Miliband laughing and Harriet Harman smirking, evidently enjoying the moment for all it was worth. (Poor deputy PM Nick Clegg just looks plain embarrassed throughout the whole thing—but he didn't say one word about it.)
Cameron was floored by the reaction. He confronted Ed Balls at one point, telling him, "I said 'calm down.' Yes, 'calm down, dear.' I'll say it to you, if you like."
Kudos to Speaker John Bercow who, fed up with the pointless uproar, erupted at the Labour bench, "There's far too much noise in this chamber, which makes a ... order! ... which makes a very bad impression on the public as a whole and the other people waiting to contribute."
The Labour party under "Red Ed" is displaying the same knee-jerk, politically correct mannerisms that got them into trouble in the first place. "New Labour" was new for a limited time period after its phenomenal election in 1997, and everything that's new eventually becomes old. And "Old Labour" is the stuff of nightmares.
The Conservatives believe Miliband performed badly at the debate or wanted to suppress figures showing gradual economic recovery under the Coalition government, so he resorted to that tried-and-tested political shenanigan of creating a controversy out of nothing, trotting out the same old Leftie accusations of insensitivity upon hearing a style of speech they disagree with.
Labour needs to grow a backbone and to stop engaging in political deception, because it does them no good and it is really sad to see them acting like this. Cameron did nothing wrong. Time to get back to real issues.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to trump the Executive Office

2011-04-29T07:57:00.001+01:00

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Note: This piece was written and submitted to the queue on Blogcritcs two days before President Obama released his birth certificate, its eventual publication occurring a day after the event. Talk about irony.

It made for intriguing conversation at first, but now I'm getting thoroughly tired of all this talk about Donald Trump.
We must give Trump credit where credit is due: he is a shrewd businessman and success story. Even after nearly going bankrupt after his disastrous financing of the Taj Mahal casino, he picked himself up, dusted himself off and rebounded to greater heights in the business world.
But can we ignore the fact that other people paid the price and got screwed when Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy? The creditors he messed with during his fluctuations in wealth accrual—how'd that work out for them?
It amazes me that there are members of the American electorate who are prepared to support Trump. It proves that if you strike a chord on just one issue —in Trump's case, it's the Obama birth certificate controversy—you will attract a salivating crowd of lapdogs.
Now it's cool that Trump has been hounding Obama on the subject of the whereabouts of his birth and what his certificate really says about him. I do not understand why the President won't simply put the issue to rest, unless he's just incredibly stubborn (gee, do you think?) or there's real cause for concern on his part about the information his birth certificate contains.
But does this issue alone justify Trump's persual of the Oval Office? Hardly. Think about it: Is Trump the sort of man who can compromise? Trump will find that he cannot bully and bluster his way through the Executive branch. When it comes to the Congress, Trump will meet his match. He cannot just yell "You're fired!" at John Boehner. (Though, if he did, it would be worth sticking around to see if Boehner started crying.)
Trump has ignored all concerns from the locals of Menie, Scotland with regard to his construction of a golf course there. Though Trump did testify at a Scottish Government planning inquiry, the issue of family evictions remains a threat, yet Trump won't back down. God only knows what deals he struck with Scotland's Government, but the release of Libyan bomber Ali al-Megrahi proves they are easily manipulated. So there you have it: Trump, who doesn't need any more cash or can look elsewhere for it, has railroaded his project through a small community in a foreign country. What a hero. This alone speaks volumes about his penchant for foreign policy.
Grab all the oil in Iraq? Launch a trade war with China? Dude, seriously?
Trump has a capricious history with regard to what politicians he has supported and whose campaigns he has contributed large sums of cash to. If Trump is anti-foreign aid and checks the conservative box for most social issues, then why did he contribute to the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Anthony Weiner and Tom Daschle?
If Obama was the product of dissatisfaction with Bush, then how does Trump justify his own condemnations of Dubya? He wants to call Obama the worst president ever, but he previously reserved that moniker for Bush. What gives? Is this man capable of making his mind up about about anything in politics?
Furthermore, how do we know this isn't all one huge ego-trip and promotion for his show The Apprentice? If Sarah Palin has discredited herself with her own reality show, can the same thing not be said for Trump? We don't need celebrities such that Palin and Trump have become. I know the argument about looking outside the system for Presidential material, but this is ridiculous. We need level-headed people who know the system like Chris Christie, Alan West, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, et al.
Please, Donald, just go back to your show and WWE and leave politics to the players.

The sexploitation of men on public transportation reveals gender hypocrisy

2011-04-27T10:09:00.004+01:00

I don't know who Dan Juan is, not even if that's his real name or just a clever play on "Don Juan," but his recent on-line column in the Yahoo! UK & Ireland Lifestyle section was very frank and courageous in its admissions.
Women riding the London subway system have been taking photos of their travelling male counterparts that they consider hunky and posting them on a "sexy Tube" website for other rapacious females (or male homosexuals) to ogle over. Here's the catch: the men in question have no idea they're being shot. The photos on Tubecrush are all of guys whose privacy and right to be anonymous have been violated, as Juan points out.
As it's only men who are being secretly photographed, Juan alleges that it's sexist. I agree. Can you imagine a website on which women's photos were posted without their consent and treating their images as mere fodder for silly, lustful, and/or dirty minds? The howls of outrage from the so-called fairer sex would be eardrum-splitting. So why should we guys accept the same treatment?
Juan writes: "It's brazen objectification of men, with photos accompanied by demeaning innuendos like, 'this guy has a package that won't fit in a normal letterbox.'" Again, just imagine a man writing in a thread underneath a picture of a woman whose right to privacy has just been gang-raped: "Oh, I could smother myself in those jugs!"
One of the replies to Juan's objections, I thought, nailed the bewildering difference in attitude that has made Tubecrush so successful: "[M]ost of the men in TV and magazine adverts are also impossibly good looking—the difference is men aren't allowed to moan and complain about it without being ridiculed and told to grow a pair, whereas a woman has carte blanche to complain all she wants."
It's been obvious to me for years now that most men are willing to be bullied by feminism-crazed (note: I didn't say all) women, swallowing their pride and conforming to all their expectations simply in the hope of "getting some."
Let's face facts: many guys are just plain stupid, mindless sheep to molded and manipulated as desired. They are ruled by their crotches, not their craniums, and couldn't care less about being treated like a poor man's Adonis.
Even worse, Dan Juan and I might just qualify as "poofs" (or the plural of that repugnant "f"-word) due to our objections to this rank sexualization of our gender. To which I would reply, "So, it would be alright if you found yourselves the object of adoration on a gay version of this website?" The sound of their backtracking would sound positively cartoonish.
Gay, bi or straight, no-one has the right to be doing this, to either gender. Even if you classified this as porn and subjected the site to the same regulations (namely, pay-per-view), you would still have the right-to-privacy issue. But Juan doesn't care about the sexuality of the photographer by acknowledging that not only women are enjoying Tubecrush.
Now here's where you think Juan might have just stepped in the doggie-doo of hypocrisy. He dressed up to the nines one day in the hope of soliciting Tubecrush-worthy attention. Here's what he wrote after the experiment: "I logged on to Tubecrush, eager to see how I looked. Nothing. Not a single one of those girls or possible gay men had taken my photo on the tube. Or if they had, I had been rejected by the website's elitist proprietors for being deemed lower than a 6 out of 10 (this is the site's attractiveness cut-off point)."
Poor Dan Juan. He's not being hypocritical; he just gave in to human nature. Other men are no doubt looking for and not finding themselves on Tubecrush. It has to be, as Juan would say, a "crushing" experience. Honestly, if you want to encourage a man to cease his personal grooming habits and exercise routine because he thinks it's obviously doing him no good, a phenomenon like Tubecrush is the way to go about it.
What Juan writes next is heartbreaking: "Some Tube crushes are actually photographed while sitting right beside other men, who are completely ignored! Imagine being one of those poor sods. Seeing half of your face cropped out in the corner, unacknowledged." He's right: How demeaning and sexist can this possibly get?
It used to be, in the days of yore, you might hop onto the subway looking smart and dashing and imagine that someone, or perhaps several people, were secretly admiring you. It was fun to imagine and even if you had no concrete evidence to back up your flight of fancy, it helped to boost your confidence. You liked what your mind was telling you. Now you've got the proof that your fantasy was just that—a fantasy. No-one cares about you. Just go home. You're in the way of someone I want to take a photo of.
Dan Juan, I can't say I ever previously thought too much about this issue, but I can imagine what it's like to feel your pain. Thankfully, I hardly ever take the London subway system anymore and I certainly have no reason now to reconsider it.

Is the North Star a warmonger?

2011-04-26T08:34:00.004+01:00

I was pleased to see that, via a poll question, 50.2 percent of respondents on the EU Politics Today website think that choas/civil war will be the result in Libya. Well, not exactly pleased, but the strength of my conviction received an amount of satisfaction and justification.
This war is a total farce. I do understand that because Britain and France are involved, we have an obligation to help out our fellow NATO members. If Obama wants to provide a few drones, fine. But for our involvement to stretch any further than that, which it has and which it will continue to do, is preposterous. Remember, "no boots on the ground." US military personnel must be wearing tennis sneakers.
How come we're not in Syria? How come we haven't intervened in the Ivory Coast?
During his war-justification address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC on March 28, Obama said: "I know that at a time of upheaval overseas, when the news is filled with conflict and change, it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I've said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star, the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources—to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a well-spring for our power, and to live the values we hold so dear."
Looks like in addition to his logic-defying Nobel Peace Prize, Obama's attempting to win the Nobel Prize for Literature as well for a flourish of poetry worthy of the Harvard elite.
Looks like the North Star doesn't shine for the Syrians or the civilians of the Ivory Coast.
Not that I want to be in either of those places, but how can our intervention in Libya not be seen as selective?
It could be argued that Libyans have had the courage to do what the Iraqis would not by challenging their autocratic leader. But Saddam Hussein was a much fiercer ruler. And for all the terror that Gaddafi sponsored, we had him contained. The war in Iraq indirectly knocked Gaddafi off his pedestal.
The world is not fair. We should pay Gaddafi back for his past crimes against us, but who are the rebels? Some of them are genuine and they have launched a pursuit for freedom; I can't fault them for that. But they made a choice and they rolled the dice. When you consider that the insurgency in Iraq was backed by eastern Libyans who are the main source of rebellion against Gaddafi, and taking into account the Al-Qaeda infltration into their camp, you are left with a scenario that does not qualify as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And why are the Arab nations sitting on the sidelines? After all, they told the West that they had to help to topple Gaddafi who, I'm inclined to think, is not as unpopular in Libya as we are being led to believe.
And there you have it: The nation of Libya, where the people either love Gaddafi and hate the West, or hate Gaddafi and hate the West. And we willingly walked into their civil war. Golly gee. Mission creep: 1, common sense: 0.
It's "kinetic military action," folks. That's all it is. No boots on the ground, we're simply enforcing a no-fly zone. Think of those comforting words and expressions whenever you feel the bile of anxiety rising in your throat. Just overlook the fact that KMA can also stand for "kiss my ass."
The British wanted drones and we provided them. It was the least we could do for an ally who had our backs in Iraq. I just want this President to acknowledge that this is a war, not "kinetic military action," and that selective interests, not the North Star, are guiding our involvement in this "free Libya" operation.

Another moment of clarity from a public-sector union

2011-04-25T14:49:00.004+01:00

For once, I agree with Bob Crow, General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT).
Crow is one of these elitist, thuggish union types who believes in a privileged class of public-sector employee who should be free of the pains that the private sector is experiencing. The already lavishly paid Tube—that is, London subway system—employees he represents are forever calling strikes at inconvenient times of the year to demand the sort of pay raises that much-harder working bus drivers are lucky to receive. The RMT did not organize the recent "March for the Alternative"—that was the Trades Union Congress. But, along with Unison and Unite, they marched in tandem with the "gimme gimme" crowd to let the Con-Dems in Parliament know of the pain and sacrifice they'd suffer if a few arts grants met the cost-cutting knife.
But Mr. Crow, to his credit, nailed down the issue of public relations-sponsored national days and weeks. You know, the never-ending litany of days and weeks that we never knew existed: World Pinhole Camera Day, National Coffee Week, National Karaoke Week, British Pie Week, etc.
Prince William and Kate Middleton even have to share their wedding ceremony with—get this—World Dance Day.
Crow slammed these special events for the public relations stunts that they are, calling them "a sick joke," and alleging that they steal attention away from worthy causes such as World Malaria Day.
"Maybe we should have a special Ignore PR Puff Day to remind journalists to swerve the kind of garbage that the PR and ad agencies make a fortune out of inflicting on the rest of us," Crow opined.
I couldn't agree more.
I have nothing against capitalism, but these "special" days and weeks are ridiculous.
I wonder, when is the National Institute of Proctology day? The thing is, I'll bet it's a much more worthy cause than "Shake Your Ass" day.
Maybe they should team up with National Coffee Week and we can all receive caffeine-rich enemas at discounted prices. w00t!

No-one to blame but me

2011-04-07T11:11:00.008+01:00

I think it's safe to say that the Boston Red Sox win the award in the "Most Overblown Hype" category, and they should enjoy it because it's the only award they're likely to win this season. I have great hope for them—in 2012.
But if you want to talk about epic stumbles, I've got one for you. I was nearing the end of my run Sunday morning when I tripped. I pitched forward, legs flailing wildly for a second, before crashing onto the sidewalk, skinning both my knees. But somehow, amazingly, the pavement didn't break my momentum. I continued to catapult forward, crashing into an electrical substation.
The contact I made with that substation was almost as if I was a defensive linesman in the NFL. I totally body slammed it (thank God I'm only 160 pounds). So in addition to my scraped and bloody knees, I now had cuts and abrasions on my lower neck.
I was totally winded, the shock of the collision made a real impact on my body (my arm, shoulder and leg muscles are still sore), and I limped for two days. Of course, it could have been much worse—I've had similar spills in the past and always got right back up—but it was terrifying and painful all the same.
Now here's what I did not do: I didn't look around for anyone or anything to blame. I inspected the sidewalk out of curiosity, not a desire to sue the council. I didn't make a show of it by continuing to lie on the pavement, hollering in pain and playing the victim. What I did do: I kept my mouth shut (apart from shouting "OH!" when I hit the substation), limped home as gracefully as I could manage and licked my wounds. Well, not literally, but you get the point.
I blame myself for the pain and humiliation I suffered. I had begun to tire and my feet were dragging a little. I was only a few blocks from home, so I should have ended the run a minute earlier and just walked the rest of the way. And in that manner of the exhausted runner, I had my head held high, and wasn't surveying the ground in front of me.
If I walked across a wet floor after having seen several "CAUTION" cones and the slick tiles and I fall right on my derrière, should I sue the company? The building's owners? The cleaners? Or would I look in the mirror and point at my reflection? How many people today would choose the last option?
It'd be much better for society if people would do as I did and blame themselves for their own foolishness.

"Did she say anything about spatulas?"

2011-03-28T14:36:00.005+01:00

A friend and fellow reader here on Blogger recently wrote about her total disdain for the saying "that's what she said."
I used to overhear that a lot at a sports bar I would frequent at the old Boston Garden during the early '90s (a place that became rather Cheers-like to me). But I was also reminded of the job I had while attending college.
For five years, I worked night-shift at a large supermarket in Cambridge. One guy who worked there, Ernie, said that all the time. It's as if he was finely attuned to picking up on any instance in which he could utter it; he never missed the opportunity. For instance, if Ernie was present when the grocery manager approached and asked you what time you could report to work, and you replied "I'll come early," Ernie would quip, "That's what she said."
We did some crazy shit. We'd holler "whooo-hooo!" like cowboys. Another guy started a tradition where if you had to pick up a heavy box—a box containing supersize jugs of bleach or large cans of tomato puree, for example—you'd scream "urrrrgh!" in a manly way, like a weightlifter trying to lift 400 pounds.
One time, I saw Neil walking by with a large wooden spatula that he'd obviously borrowed from the homewares aisle. I instinctively knew what he was up to. My suspicions were confirmed just seconds later when I heard, from two aisles away, Billy's playfully outraged holler.
Salvage time was always fun. "Salvage" referred to all the cardboard waste—boxes and box-lids—that we'd load our dollies with and transport out back to an empty delivery truck. We'd throw all this cardboard trash in there for recycling. If you were in the cargo bay of the truck, off-loading your boxes full of box-lids, and someone else came up behind you with his own dolly full of cardboard, he would chuck and shove all the boxes at you at breakneck speed, sending you flying into the big pile of cardboard with box-lids raining down on you, and you'd spend the next fifteen or so minutes carefully planning your revenge.
I've saved the best for last. There was also a penchant for us to sneak up behind a co-worker, as he was bending over to pick up a box or block the lower shelves ("blocking" is supermarket-worker parlance for making the shelves look good by bringing all products forward if the spaces allocated to the products aren't full). You would dry-hump him and the guy getting humped would have to squeal like a pig: "Weeeeeeek!" We all engaged in this endearing activity at some point, perpretrating it against our fellow workers and having it perpetrated against us.
That gives you a pretty good idea of what an all-male crew doing blue-collar labor get up to. Against all that, muttering "that's what she said" seems rather tame.

The aftermath of the alternative-embracers ...

2011-03-27T09:26:00.003+01:00

Well, as predicted here, there was mayhem on the streets of central London yesterday. The usual suspects sprayed anarchist graffiti on nearly every available surface, smashed up the fronts of stores and banks, lit fires and threw ammonia-filled lightbulbs at cops. A fun-filled family event, to be sure.
Apparently, the marchers turned on the troublemakers, resorting to that great British tactic of showing indignity, which is to shout "shame on you!" What the hell kind of confrontation is that? C'mon, let's have some real in-fighting here! Where were the scuffles? How about letting some fists fly, breaking protest signs over some greasy-haired vacant heads and throwing some of that human flotsam underneath police vans, if you're that upset about being so ill-represented? I'd have given up a month's salary to see that.
"Shame on you," indeed. Trouble is, these vagrants, vandals and vigilantes know no shame.
Even at 10:30 p.m., things hadn't returned to normal. The bus terminated its route at Parliament Square, because Whitehall was blocked off to all traffic and there was obviously no pre-planned detour to Regent Street. So I had to walk the two miles into work—Trafalgar Square, I noticed, was still heaving with outraged mindlessness—my feet crunching litter almost the whole way. Thank you, Trades Union Congress. You're not just a public-sector union, you're a "keep fit" motivation club as well.
I will add one positive note here. At 7:30 a.m., the sidewalks and streets were clean. Bus routes were fully operational again. Trafalgar Square had been hosed down, a quiet expanse of wet concrete. It's public-sector employees of the city and Westminster Council who were picking up the mess from a public-sector mass protest. How ironic is that? I was so tempted to ask, "So, enjoying the extra work this morning, fellas?" But, honestly, massive props go out to every employee who helped return the city to normal by daybreak.
Don't get me wrong, either: I'm not defending the banks. These whack-headed protestors say it's the banks' fault we're in this financial crisis, and I agree. But, as most of them were bailed out courtesy of the taxpayers, the public has part ownership of them. These people need to realize that they're to blame too, because we will end up like Greece if we don't clamp down.
The fact of the matter is, you have absolutely no right to bash the banks if you're demanding lavish salaries, pensions and services that are simply not affordable. If it's your belief that we're "all in this together," then prove it by being willing to share the burden and the pain. If not, then shut up about the banks and the financial crisis.
Honestly, it's a case of one group of spoiled-rotten, clueless fat-cats criticizing another.

As if they're interested in alternatives ...

2011-03-26T11:06:00.008Z

They're going to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square today. The Trades Union Congress has organized a mass rally protesting the Government's cost-cutting. It's entitled The March for the Alternative.
They haven't explained what "the alternative" is. But then, you can't expect a rag-tag motley collection of layabouts, anarchists, and public union thugs to explain much. You'll get plenty of platitudes, but no real in-depth explanation of why we should continue to allow the unwashed, "gimme gimme" crowd the sort of raises and pensions that private-sector workers can only dream about.
I love how this crowd has embraced the word "alternative." That's not something they ordinarily promote. They're all about diversity, except when it comes to opinions or politicians that dare not be left-of-center.
Two Labour MPs, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, have helped to organize the demonstration that will "turn London into Cairo". Do they know that ordinary Egyptians were trying to overthrow a man who'd been in power for 30 years and was completely out-of-touch with the hoi-polloi, a man they considered a cruel dictator? No, not Ted Kennedy, though Hosni Mubarak, so far as I know, was never responsible for the drowning of a young woman.
McDonnell and Corbyn wrote, in their joint statement, "On March 26 we are inviting everyone to join us to stay in Trafalgar square [sic] for 24 hours to discuss how we can beat this government and to send a message across the globe that we stand with the people of Egypt, Libya, Wisconsin and with all those fighting for equality, freedom and justice."
Fight the power! This is the ultimate test of our democracy! We're talking about the "haves" and the "have-nots" here, and we're the "haves." We're gonna scream and holler and smash up storefronts to ensure it stays that way! But, please remember, we Lefties are never violent. We're the agents of peace—which is why we so valiantly stand in defence of terrorists, domestic or foreign.
Question: Are McDonnell and Corbyn aware that Wisconsin is an American state? They probably think Wisconsin is a Canadian province, because Canada is a righteous, peaceful regime (just ignore the seal blood stains). Someone needs to drop the 4-1-1 to them that Wisconsin is part of the U.S. I'll bet the sudden downplay in sympathy will be like water down the drain.
They do not realize that the whole point of our new government was to tackle the severe financial crisis facing us, that cuts are necessary because the money is running out. But somehow, the results of our general election in May, and the results in Wisconsin in November that put cost-cutting Republicans in office, don't count as part of the democratic process. Obama himself said that elections have consequences, but if the Left witnesses an election they don't like, it amounts to "shock doctrines and neo-liberal attacks (that) threaten to devastate the lives of ordinary people the world over," in McDonnell's and Corbyn's opinion.
Honestly, it would make for great satire if it wasn't so sadly true.
Philip Collins, a columnist for The Times, summed it up succinctly when he referred to the mindset of the alternative-embracers:

"Conjugate with me the verb 'to be on the Left':
I care.
You don't.
He / she is oppressing me ideologically."

I just hope London is London once more by the time I have to head in there tonight, because I have a real job to do where I earn my own money, what little of it there is in my paycheck. It's the price I pay for being an honest, tax-paying member of the proletariat.

Hey hey, ho ho, to Libya we won't go!

2011-03-24T11:19:00.007Z

No blood for oil! Not in my name!
You know, part of me wants to shout that from the rooftops with regard to American military involvement in Libya. President Obama did not gain Congressional approval for launching strikes against the North African country. So, it's an illegal act of war, is it not?
Say what you will about Dennis Kucinich, the far-Left whackjob Representative from Ohio, but he was the very definition of consistency in denouncing the air strikes and calling Obama's action a potentially impeachable offense.
From a recent interview with MSNBC:
Interviewer: "Alright, so, Congressman—impeachment? Really?"
Kucinich: "I raised the question ... because the President is acting outside of the authority of the Constitution. There is no question about that whatsoever ... And then you think about, there's no imminent threat, there's no end-game. They're still after regime change. We could be strengthening Islamic extremists who could be setting up camp in eastern Libya. There are people who want to divide that nation. This is a nightmare."
Regarding the United Nations approval for these actions, Kucinich said during an interview with the RT America network, "It's good that the U.N. is involved in security matters, except for one thing: When it comes to the United States, we have a prior process that trumps the U.N., and that's called our Constitution, which requires that Presidents have to get Congressional approval to take our country into war. If the President feels there's an imminent or actual threat to the United States, he can move forward. This threat is to citizens in Libya. That's regrettable. But last I checked, Libya isn't one of our states."
I could never have imagined a scenario in which I would like to give Kucinich a slap on the back, but give him credit. He is absolutely correct. I, of course, disagreed mightily with Kucinich's objections to action in Iraq, but as I say, at least he's being consistent.
(I dearly wish these men of the Left, such as Kucinich, would realize that the Constitution also doesn't authorize the mass invasion of American soil by foreign nationals viz-a-viz illegal immigration. But, alas, that's a different topic ...)
Consider this: While campaigning for the Presidency in December 2007, Obama said, clearly referring to the War in Iraq, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
So, Mr. President, how on earth, given your own apparent convinction in that very process, could you authorize attacks, from outside the nation no less, while on your "working vacation"?
Furthermore, where are the massive protests? Who's out there shouting "not in my name"? Libya has oil, so why no large-scale denouncements from anti-war liberals about this being another war for oil? Why no demonstrations against the French, who kicked-started this attack on Libya? (Looks like they're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" anymore!) I don't care what the anti-war crowd says, Bush did not act illegally with regard to Iraq. The resolution for the action against Iraq granted the authorization by the Constitution and Congress, so where's the uproar over the complete absence of a similar resolution in this case?
I direct you, dear reader, to this extremely well-written column by John Hawkins. Hawkins writes:

"Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing!"

I concur that this was unconstitutional, that we can ill afford it, and that the U.S. does not need this diversion from Afghanistan. NATO isn't sure what the end-game, as Kucinich calls it, is either, and France and Turkey are bickering over what route to take in these proceedings in Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi is a horrible little man, no doubt about it, and he had this coming. It's the perfect opportunity for us to work with NATO and with U.N. approval to exact our revenge on him for all the American deaths he's been responsible for in the past. But isn't it also true that Gaddafi kept a low profile with regard to terrorism after Saddam Hussein's fall? We can, and should, ensure that Gaddafi goes six feet under, but who will replace him? Does anyone know the motives behind the rebels' insurrection and what they hope to achieve? Who will take over Libya in Gaddafi's absence?
Let's get to the nuts and bolts: Should American troops be put in harm's way in a conflict whose objectives are unclear if not totally missing? Absolutely not!
This story in Libya is completely missing a plot. Dennis Kucinich and I are in total agreement on this one.

The King hearings do not amount to a witch hunt

2011-03-17T10:42:00.003Z

Peter King, a Representative from New York, has led the House homeland security committee's hearings on the homegrown Islamist terror threat. The investigation cannot go down the road of McCarthyism: on that, I'm sure we agree. But it is a necessary procedure to collect information on whatever radicalization we face on our own soil and what steps are necessary to defuse it.
I believe the Ford Hood disaster merits these hearings, as well as the opportunity to repair the consequences of Homeland Security incompetence under Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration who would rather see the bogeymen in straw dogs, i.e. Americans who are unapologetic in their patriotism.
Mike Ghouse, the Muslim president of the America Together Foundation, has said of the investigative hearings: "We thank God for this opportunity to put the doubts and nagging behind for good so we can continue to participate in and contribute towards the well-being of America, our homeland."
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert, wept during the opening moments of the hearings, relating the tale of a Muslim paramedic who perished in the 9/11 attacks, reminding us that the man was "an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens." Fine, but that's not the sort of member of the Muslim community the hearings are targeting. Maybe the paramedic in question didn't even consider himself part of a "community," and thought of himself solely as American—something that should be lauded.
King and the investigative committee would like to know about those Muslim Americans who White House spokesman Jay Carney said "are part of the solution." Isn't that what this is all about? Finding solutions to radicalization and presenting the chance to the American Muslim community to participate? Doesn't sound like a "witch hunt" to me.
The one problem with Peter King acting as chair of the hearings is that he was an ardent supporter of the IRA. King had his head in the sand regarding the suffering the IRA has meted out, so is he really the man to condemn terror? What isn't often mentioned, however—certainly not by the New York Times readership—is that King participated in and helped to mediate the Good Friday agreement. So I think we can give props to him for that.
We need someone to expose Al Qaeda-style homegrown terrorist activities. If King can deliver, if he's got the determination and the tools to carry out full disclosure on the subject, then let nothing stand in his way.

Milking it, the sequel

2011-03-15T09:52:00.008Z

My wife took a poke at me regarding the issue of human breast milk ice cream. Just click these purple words to read her counterpoint.
To be fair, she has a point. It's a free society in which unique business ideas should be given a chance for success, as long as they are legal. Westminster Council, the authorities who removed the "Baby Gaga" ice cream, had it tested, found it to be safe, and returned it to the ice cream parlour in question.
Nevertheless, my personal antipathy toward this product remains unchanged. I still think the inventor of this unorthodox dessert is a nutjob, and that it appeals mostly to guys who use only two words throughout their workday—"jackhammer" and "oogah!"—as well as the "crunchy granola" crowd that Squirrel mentioned. Interesting bedfellows. I'll leave them to it.

The latest sordid tale from National Public Radio

2011-03-13T12:26:00.004Z

Oh dear, Ron Schiller.
If you thought National Public Radio screwed up in their unwarranted firing of civil rights supporter Juan Williams for daring to say what we all think, dear reader, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Schiller, NPR's vice president of development, was the recent victim of a conservative-inspired prank (commentator James O'Keefe was the perpetrator) in which he met with two men posing as members of the Muslim Brotherhood at a Washington D.C. cafe. When the fake Muslims brought up the subject of Zionists funding the media and how they wanted to donate to NPR because it was free from such influence, Schiller responded that, unlike newspapers, where the influence is "obvious," NPR was owned by no-one.
Schiller did not go off on a grotesquely anti-Semitic rant. Instead, he ranted against those racist whites in the Tea Party movement. But having accepted the slur uttered by these supposed Islamists and responding that NPR answers to no-one, it's clear that he buys into the liberal smears against those dreaded Jews controlling our media. Schiller also backed up his colleague Betsy Liley by saying that while the American Jewish World Service may be supportive of NPR, "many Jewish organizations are not."
Does Schiller actually believe that Zionists control the media or was he just taking advantage of the potential offer of $5 million from these "Muslims"? (It seems that Schiller's opinions of Muslims are none too dignified either if he was so easily fooled by their act.)
Ron Schiller resigned, while the station's CEO, Vivian Schiller (no relation), was ousted by NPR's Board of Directors.
I wish I could believe that this was the end of it, that these wingnuts won't simply be replaced by equally horrible leftists who will be more cautious with their prejudices. The fact of the matter is, NPR could easily stand for "National Palestinian Radio," and Schiller, by acting as a fundraiser for the station, doesn't appear to mind how shariaists are so often presented in a sympathetic limelight.
Here's the real catch: Schiller is gay. He has a partner by the name of Alan Fletcher.
Now then, I have no doubt that Schiller decries homophobia, but only as practiced by straight white guys in Western societies. He must know how homosexuals are dealt with under sharia law. They are executed in any number of inventive ways. But somehow, it must be alright, because this is a penalty carried out by the "religion of peace." The straight white guys in the Tea Party are the real danger! What do tortured and dead homosexuals in Afghanistan or Pakistan matter? We have far worse homophobia in America. Those Tea Party rabble-rousers all support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh, the horror.
Schiller reminds me of these hippies who listen to Jamaican dance hall music, thinking that certifies their liberal-left credentials, and completely unaware—or, more likely, conveniently ignoring the fact—that the accompanying lyrics are wildly anti-gay.
Honestly, I don't know which bothers me more about this latest sordid tale from NPR: The liberal kowtowing, or the blatant hypocrisy, on so many levels, behind it.

All hail the sun!

2011-03-12T11:38:00.003Z

I don't know how often you see the sun during the winter where you live, dear reader. We don't see it a whole lot in this corner of the world, especially during the winter.
I've made a habit of killing an hour after work at 7:30 in the a.m., because to head home at 8:30 means that it's quieter on the bus—the kids are already in school and the rush hour is dying down. So, to pass these sixty minutes, I hang out in a Soho coffeeshop, at which I've become quite the regular. With its tapestries, incense sticks and indie rock music, it reminds me of the Cambridge, Massachusetts cafes I spent my youth in, either making my own indie noise playing bass or just chillin'. It's fun to pretend that I'm back on my stomping ground as I solve Sudoku puzzles over a coffee or hot cocoa.
But I also like to spend time by the Thames riverbank in Victoria Park Gardens. This isn't often feasible, however, during the winter, with all the wind and wet that accompanies it, so I have to take advantage of nice mornings whenever the Mighty Whatnot sees fit to provide us with them.
Well, I made a huge mistake this week. Tuesday and Wednesday were both brilliantly sunny and mild, and yet I spent those two mornings at the cafe. Before leaving work on Thursday, I decided to spend time in the park at Millbank. It so happens that Thursday morning was grey, dreary, raw and windy. I spent forty-five minutes on that bench, determined to tough it out because that's the type of dragon I am. But, damn!
I consulted weather.com as soon as I got home, and my jaw dropped. The outside temperature was 50. "Fifty!" I exclaimed to the empty bedroom. The morning felt like it barely passed for 40.
Today, it's brilliantly sunny again. Because it's Saturday I didn't have to kill any time, so I left work straightaway to meet the wife and do some grocery shopping. Standing outside the supermarket with our bags and waiting for the bus, I felt as if I could have stood there in short-sleeves. It felt that warm. Guess what weather.com had to report when I got home? Fifty-two degrees. Only slightly milder than two mornings ago, and yet it feels like summer!
I remember standing outside on the first sunny day after the Blizzard of '05 (I was in Boston at the time). I was throwing shelled peanuts at the squirrels scurrying across the snow in the backyard and standing in short-sleeves. It was 33 degrees out. This was after days of heavy cloud, heavy wind and, of course, heavy snow. I could have set up a lawnchair and sipped a mint julep while trying to bounce peanuts off the squirrels' noggins.
The morale of this long-ass story? The sun really does make a difference. Winter is never as awful when the sun shines in all its glory.

Pointless hyperbole won't do much for the nation's health

2011-03-09T10:24:00.008Z

Last month, during the New York Fashion Week—not something that I make a point of following, I can assure you—Diet Pepsi unveiled their new packaging. It took the form of a "skinny" can, a taller, slimmer receptacle for the beverage.
Critics, of course, panned it, saying that it was pushing the agenda of size zero models and projecting the prejudicial message that thin is in. Whenever I see a roly-poly waddling up the street, someone I know for a fact is pushing up the cost of health premiums and placing strain on health services, God forbid that I think thin should be in. Do these fashion anti-heroes honestly have nothing better to bitch about?
These liberals, who feel that carrying 400 pounds on one's frame should count as freedom of expression, were squawking alright. One writer for Slate called the marketing "faux-empowerment" and offered the sarcastic thought, "If you're confident on the inside, you'll be skinny on the outside, or something. Huh?" Not to generalize, but I've pretty much found that to be true. Then again, I've never resembled the human equivalent of an SUV, so I suppose I couldn't say. But I would sure miss my skinny jeans, darrr-ling!
Let's get one thing straight. I'm not advocating the size zero ethos. I agree with the aim of defeating anorexia and bulimia. But doesn't it make some semblance of sense to offer a diet beverage with an admittedly subliminal message? I hate stupid gimmicks, which is exactly what this skinny can amounts to, but do we really need the fat brigade to politicize this?
Then you have the "don't tell us what to eat" crowd. I will never understand those conservatives who cry about the effort to ban transfats, presenting them as vital to our way of life. When our border control agents have to fire beanbags at narco-terrorists so we don't offend the sensibilities of Felipe Calderón, you have to wonder why Michelle Obama's healthy living campaign even appears as a blip on their radar. Mrs. Obama wants children to eat healthier and exercise more, and their parents to make better choices for them. Try as I might, I cannot see the problem with that.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Mississippi governor Haley Barbour back Mrs. Obama's campaign. So does Ted Nugent, and you don't get more right-wing than him. Sarah Palin, however, says that the choice should be left to parents. Well, that's worked brilliantly so far, hasn't it? Surely the rigid control that we are to believe the country's parents are exerting has nothing to do with the obesity crisis and why most kids couldn't run a mile if their lives depended on it?
No-one wants to munch on vegetables all the time, but could we just perhaps indulge the possibility that this is not what the First Lady is advocating? This is hardly a case of government overreach. Every First Lady has had a crusade. Why is the campaign to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation's children any more odious than the effort to increase their literacy?
This is one instance in which the pinkos' favorite expression—"it's for the children!"—is mostly believable. (It's also the only instance in which I could be persuaded to give even half an ant-sized shit about what's good for children.)
Furthermore, we are being persuaded to believe that the food industry will police itself and faze out harmful additives like the aforementioned transfats. Since when has big business ever opted for the protection of society in general over profit? Answer: Never, if you're talking about Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol—or Big Food. Transfats extend shelf life. Thusly, they extend profits. They also raise bad cholesterol while also lowering good cholesterol. They add nothing of any nutritional value whatsoever to human health. They didn't even exist before the 1930s, and didn't start appearing in junk food until the '50s. Yet somehow, in those dark pre-transfat days, Americans still enjoyed their desserts. And the great majority of them were able to move around without the aid of a motorized Wal-Mart cart. Golly gee.
Now we've got Palin (and Limbaugh and Beck) acting like McCarthyites: "Do you now support, or have you ever supported, the elimination of transfats from the nation's diet?" As they say, follow the money. And the money dictates that the disappearance of transfats from our precious junk food and microwave dinners somehow threatens our existence. America is only strong as our synthetic, shelf life-saving oils!
God bless us, everyone.
All this sensitivity over skinny cans, the right to be fat, and these supposedly excellent choices that parents are making which Mrs. Obama apparently wants to take away from them makes for very lively debate, and we've had plenty of that. Unfortunately, it's done nothing to get the nation's health back on track.
Could we please, at the very least, change the nature of the debate—that the existence of a skinny Diet Pepsi can is not advocating anyone's starvation, and that we should not discuss choices when we're at the mercy of food producers who care more about the life of a product than the person buying it? And how does it make sense to fret over anorexia or bulimia while excusing or ignoring that other eating disorder, known as EATING TOO DAMN MUCH?
You make informed choices about your food, you make time for exercise, you don't smoke and you treat alcohol with respect, and these virtues are what you pass on to your children. It really is as simple as that. Despite the shock, awe and flat-out horror that Mrs. Obama's campaign, or any subsequent minor regulation of the food industry, may provide to our lifestyle—which at the moment could adequately be summed up in three simple words: "While Rome Burned"—the choice to be a bad consumer will still be there. Hopefully, in future, very few will avail themselves of it.

Talk about milking it ...

2011-03-08T09:58:00.002Z

Were you aware, dear reader, that breast milk ice cream was, however briefly, on sale here in Britain? I kid you not. An ice cream shop in Covent Garden entitled Icecreamists served up ice cream made from human breast milk. Not surprisingly, the restaurant in question had its supply of "Baby Gaga" confiscated by Westminster Council on the common-sense grounds that it was a "foodstuff made from another person's bodily fluids."
Now then, I'm a fairly straight guy, at least in terms of my sexual activity preference—making my deposit in the right bank, so to speak. I am an avid fan of any female form that's fit and foxy. But I have to say, I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, countenance the thought of consuming breast milk ice cream. I'm not even fond of ice cream in general; in my opinion, it's the favored indulgence of obese people who clearly plan on staying that way.
Matt O'Connor, the inventor of the ice cream which surely made the average shaven-headed, no-necked Daily Star reader drool, said the frozen concoction "challenges our preconceptions about food." Well, Mr. O'Connor, food is something for which I am quite comfortable—indeed, grateful—in not having my preconceptions challenged. I actually enjoy being able to eat sans the urge to puke. That's why there's very little that I consume which originated from something that can walk and vocalize.
O'Connor also said that if breast milk "is good enough for our children, it's good enough for the rest of us." OK, I consider myself quite youthful for a fortysomething, but honestly, let us not get carried away here.
What's next? Urine lemonade? Fecal fajitas, perhaps? Hey, we need to challenge our food preconceptions, damn it all! If coprophagia is good enough for rabbits, surely it's good enough for us!
Even Michelle Obama wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.
And let's face it, we can't see the women who donated their milk. I'm guessing they didn't exactly all come fresh from a shift at Hooters.
Let me leave you with one final thought from this roguish entrepreneur. "No-one's done anything interesting with ice cream in the last hundred years," O'Connor opines. And yet it still sells. Go figure.
Mr. O'Connor, get thee to a supermarket or a normal ice cream shop and discover how something that ain't broke doesn't need fixing.

A rare moment of clarity from a public-sector union

2011-03-07T09:22:00.004Z

I generally agree with the cost-cutting that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has been engaging in. As could be expected, the British trade unions are reacting with the same infantile tantrums that have been occurring in Wisconsin; what's happening on the American stage with respect to unions, their power and their flawed defense of lavish pensions that no-one in the private sector enjoys, is being mirrored over here.
Unions are threatening to strike on the day of the royal marriage (Wills and Kate) in April, and to also disrupt services during the Olympics. It's childish and preposterous behavior on the part of the unions for making the general public pay for their grievances. If you actually care about the wedding or the Olympics, excuse me while I laugh uproariously at you—you are a sentimental dope in the case of the former or a gullible fool in the case of the latter—but you still have the right to expect a trouble-free journey in order to witness either of them.
However, I totally agree with the union Unite in their condemnation of the Government's plan to scrap the Nimrod spy planes. The Ministry of Defence plans to turn the entire fleet of newly constructed Nimrod planes, which cost £4 billion to build, into scrap metal. On its website, Unite opines that, with the loss of the Nimrods, the "defense of the nation has been compromised," while union representative John Fussey (now there's a great last name for a union rep, eh?) called it "barbaric vandalism."
The Goverment and MoD claim that surveillance can be carried out via our Type 23 frigates, and Merlin anti-submarine and Hercules C-130 helicopters. But BAE Systems will need to be reimbursed for the destruction of their product, so how exactly is this a cost-cutting measure? We're not talking about the decommissioning of the 41-year-old Harrier jump jets, the last models of which were constructed in 1997, which will be replaced by F-35 fighters. The Nimrod surveillance planes were introduced in 1969 also, but the latest models, the MRA4, were brand new—and will be replaced by ships and helicopters.
Now I'm not an expert when it comes to defense issues, and I don't blame you, dear reader, if you nodded off while reading the previous paragraph. But surely you get the gist—the government still has yet to explain how exactly this counts as either a cost-cutting measure that makes even mathematical sense or a sound defense policy procedure. Unite was well within their element to question this from a national security point of view.
I only wish trade unions would argue from a patriotic perspective more often instead of their usual platform of cushy greed which they hypocritically accuse the cost-cutters and the private sector of.

A "nasty" climate and an obsession with The Price is Right

2011-03-06T17:10:00.001Z

My oh my, dear reader, I'm sorry. I go through such intense and extended periods of not being able to write. It's not because I don't have anything to say; I just get so busy, then exhausted, that I can't be bothered to research and write a blog entry. I guess the problem is, I take this blog too seriously. I'm just as incapable of writing a Facebook- or Twitter-style throwaway entry as I am a detailed entry during times when I have so much else to do. At the risk of sounding like a conceited twit, my writing is my art. If an artist doesn't have it in him to produce something, he simply doesn't. Well, that's me in a nutshell. I'm going to try to correct the glaringly obvious lack of production over the coming week with entries on subjects I wanted to discuss previously, and then actually get down to the business of not walking away from this page for more than a month at a time. Shameful, dragon, just shameful ...
So, to break back into the art of writing here, I will relate to you the tale of someone who, on an on-line forum I stumbled upon, opined that the current climate is "nasty" because of the recession. Her point: There's a real "air of the '80s" out there because the recession has caused people to get nasty and competitive. Sadly, I believe this individual was being serious. A young person who, I think it's fairly safe to assume, has been brainwashed by anti-Reganite or anti-Thatcherite professors, parents or peers.
Here was my response:

"Actually, there's not much of an air of the '80s at all. It's much more reminiscent of the '70s when we had a completely stagnant business and financial climate. The '80s were a time of recovery from recession, when a family's financial situation began to improve and the business environment recovered. It's only 'nasty' out there because businesses are fighting a losing battle to survive and the cost of living has shot up without a corresponding rise in salaries. The private sector—the one and only true bellweather of the economy—hasn't provided its workers with a raise or cost-of-living adjustment in years. What—in a time of desperation, you don't expect people to compete to survive? C'mon. You're ignoring both history and human nature. What's your solution to the recession, more deficit spending?"

I can't wait for the response, assuming I'll get one, if I'm not simply ignored as another intolerant, foaming-at-the-mouth "teabagger" conservative.
What else have I been up to? Well, I wrote an e-mail to Les Moonves of CBS. Not to complain about CBS' history of pursuing a considerably left-of-center agenda—we all know nothing will be done to correct that—but to ask him to consider bringing back Rich Fields as the announcer of "The Price is Right." Yep, you read that correctly. That alone speaks volumes about just how bored I am capable of getting whenever I'm not working, sleeping or doing housework and too lazy to write an entry here on Blogger. Sad, or what? I've said it before, folks, and I'll say it again: Once you pass the big 4-0 mark, you begin to go a bit nuts and get wildly protective of nearly anything from your youth that's still around. But I don't care what anyone says: Rich Fields was good for "TPIR."
Mind you, I think Les Moonves has his hands more than full at the moment with the whole Charlie Sheen saga.

Of Michael Vick and Tucker Carlson

2011-01-04T14:11:00.001Z

I don't think there's any sane person who can disagree that dog fights are cruel and that it's only right and proper for them to be declared illegal. I also don't think Michael Vick would second-guess that statement anymore.
Vick is a screwball. But he earned a second chance.
Before his sentencing in 2007 for leading an interstate dog fighting operation, Vick agreed with the request by federal prosecutors to open an escrow account of $1 million to care for the surviving dogs. He then served 18 months in prison and lost his salary and endorsement deals, declaring bankruptcy in 2008. In 2009, he revealed on 60 Minutes that he cares about animals and was disgusted with himself. "I encourage you to love that animal," he told schoolchildren with regard to pets. Even Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of the Humane Society, defended Vick.
If Vick had been unapologetic and stubborn about his sordid past, that would be one thing. But he accepted his fate and was pretty humble and classy about it.
It's fair to say that Vick paid a considerable price and we should be satisfied with the punishment that was dealt to him. Let's see what he does with his redemption and how he carries himself from this point forward.
And to be fair, although Americans accepted Vick's mea culpa, they still took a poke at him via a popular t-shirt that announced "Vick's an Eagle, Hide Your Beagle." A great way of letting Vick know that although we've forgiven, we won't forget.
However, there are some who won't forgive Vick, and that includes Tucker Carlson. I like Carlson because he's got an independent mind and is his own conservative—as am I. Admittedly, I'm at my wit's end over his bizarre statement, delivered on FOX News, that "personally, he should've been executed for that [killing dogs]."
Carlson then opined, "[T]he idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."
Beyond the pale? Like suggesting that someone involved with dog fighting should be executed?
Carlson prefaced his call for Vick's execution by calling himself a Christian who "fervently" believes in second chances. Jeez, Tucker, was this satire on your part? If you're that upset by Michael Vick, arrange a meeting with him and talk this out. Listen to what the man has to say, let him explain himself. I know Carlson's upset at the Prez for personally congratulating the Eagles for making Vick their starting quarterback—Obama would not have done it had Vick been white—when there are more pressing issues at the White House.
But I think I can explain Tucker Carlson's wild pronouncement. He's the same age as me (41), and some people—guys especially—in their early 40s tend to dip back into attention-getting in order to hang on to whatever youth they have left. You calm down around the age of 35, spend five years in a relative state of placidity, then you hit forty and think, "Oh no, I've got to re-assert myself." And you go a bit off the wall.
Let's just hope Michael Vick doesn't crave notoriety once he achieves the big four-oh. Then we just may have to execute him. But, for now, let the man try to play good and entertaining football on the strength of the redemption he earned.

Let's all celebrate the number 2011!

2011-01-03T14:08:00.004Z

Well, happy new year, dear reader.
Allow me to ask some questions: Did the sky turn green? Did conifers turn red? Were humans suddenly able to sprout wings and fly? Did solar panels and wind turbines miraculously provide all the power we require?
No?
So, essentially, you celebrated a number—"2011"—at midnight on Saturday morning? Well, golly gee for you. I hope you had fun.
I'm more excited by the fact that it's the month of January, because we cannot possibly get through this miserable season known as winter until the new year is in effect. I'm counting the weeks, then the days, till I no longer have to worry about slipping on ice during a run and suffering from SAD.
So, as the entrails of that big number in the sky that doesn't exist dissipates in the cold, dry air, I wish you a happy new year. For what it's worth.

Guest column: Proceed cautiously on marijuana

2010-12-27T14:48:00.004Z

I've been taking a shellacking in the comments section for this column, dear reader, but it displays in stark manner (1) the mindsets of the "wicked local" residents of my hometown and (2) the absolute faith of those in favor of the legalization of marijuana, a faith that should be by no means rock-solid. But try telling them that. Anyway, enjoy:

(Previously published by the Watertown TAB & Press, December 26, 2010. Copyright 2010 Watertown TAB & Press / Wicked Local Watertown.)

One of the issues that keeps on re-occurring is the decriminalization, or legalization, of marijuana. Proposition 19, the California Legalization Initiative, recently suffered defeat in the Nov. 2 election. Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana via ballot question in 2008, and other states such as New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont and Oregon have, by referendums or State House bills, allowed possession of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes—to no avail, of course, because federal anti-drug laws will trump the initiatives, rendering them moot.
When it comes to the War on Drugs, there is no such thing as states' rights.
The libertarian impulse to legalize the herb is, from a face value point of view, noble. No government, be it municipal, state or federal, should have the right to dictate what we can or cannot do with ourselves, if it involves no harm to others. Naturally-grown cannabis is a relatively mild drug. Some of its more eager proponents assert that it's less harmful than alcohol; some would even put it on a par with caffeine in terms of both its ubiquity and non-life threatening nature.
It helps those suffering from pain that conventional medicines cannot touch. To deny these people relief is cruel. And the fact that so many jailbirds are non-violent offenders who got locked up for possession of amounts that make it clear, even to those with a brain the consistency of mashed potatoes (which rather adequately describes federal lawmakers), that they are not dealers is preposterous.
I would, as purely a matter of technicality, be perfectly willing to decriminalize marijuana. Free the dopey stoners; they are not a threat to anyone. Allow those suffering from glaucoma, asthma and multiple sclerosis access to it. Let's be honest—prohibition doesn't work. It's why alcohol was re-legalized. It's why we fight a war on drugs that is incredibly costly. Yet, drugs are still available. The black market provides, such as it always has.
Furthermore, the so-called legal highs like Salvia or K2 have been studied far less and their effects on the mind and body long-term are largely unknown. Sometimes, as with K2, they can be synthetic. There is no end to the variety of marijuana alternatives being produced, widely available over the Internet that could pose more of a danger than cannabis itself.
But if the government was to decriminalize marijuana or any other illegal drug, they would not only have to admit they were wrong, which is highly unlikely, they would have to regulate it. Do we want more tax revenue to be wasted on programs that benefit everyone except American citizens? I don't think anyone with a libertarian bent wants to place this kind of potential cash cow in the government's hands.
I previously used the phrase "naturally-grown cannabis." This is exactly what the government would legalize. There would be a scientifically determined maximum amount of THC to legal marijuana. This would not please connoisseurs of the stronger varieties, such as “skunk.” If the point were to defeat the illegal dealing of marijuana, such a measure would fail.
Furthermore, we cannot pretend that cannabis is a happy-go-lucky, hippie drug. This is disingenuous. Like any drug, it depends on how you're feeling, where you are, and who you're with when you take it. Users may be aware that a super-strong strain of marijuana is literally "one-hit s**t," but, apropos to the laws of human nature, they'll still smoke an entire joint of it in one sitting. As for the claim that marijuana is not addictive, perhaps it isn’t pharmacologically, but definitely is from a psychological perspective. There is no avoiding the fact that frequent use of cannabis affects the mind long-term.
Normally I would say that medicinal marijuana is a fine idea, to be regulated by the healthcare industry. Those who seek the pain-relieving qualities that cannabis provides would not care that it contained only government-approved levels of THC. There should be allowances for it in any competent healthcare plan.
ObamaCare, however, has largely rendered that option unworkable.
Conservatives don't like hearing about how things work in the Netherlands. But since we're likely to have death panels under ObamaCare, we might as well allow cannabis in government-sanctioned coffee shops as they do in Holland. But again, there's the ever-thorny issue of who is supplying the drugs. I've witnessed deliveries to coffee shops in Amsterdam. The suppliers didn't bother anyone; they did their job and went on their way. But they all had that ruthless "dealer" look to them. Does this make the Dutch experiment more or less laudable because they found some way around the fact that marijuana is not going away and it's better to use coffee shops as a middleman between dealer and user?
This is an issue that cannot be taken lightly. We cannot claim an absolute right to deny anyone the “Alice in Wonderland”-like existence they search for in the smoke—their bodies, and their lives. But legalizing marijuana could create an even more surreal experience for lawmakers, the judiciary and the general public. On marijuana, we must proceed cautiously or not at all.

Joyeux Noël!

2010-12-23T13:41:00.002Z

"Yep, here it is, mid-December and society is pushing that giant poop called Christmas-time out of its collective posterior and there's no escaping the eye-watering stink."
You know, I've been tough on Christmas. Not because I have any politically correct objections to it. What I resent about Christmas is that it is, without argument or conjecture, the most hyped-up, overly commercialized holiday in existence. You think Hallowe'en is bad? At least with Hallowe'en, you're not expected to be jumping around with feelings of bonhomie toward strangers that you'd sooner slug.
Ever since I started blogging nine years ago, I've thrown some sucker punches at Christmas, last year's entry, from which the italicized quote above comes, being no exception.
But I experienced a moment yesterday while food shopping which sums up how, if I'm honest, I really feel about this time of year. After I bagged and paid for my groceries, the cashier wished me a "merry Christmas." In America, cashiers and store clerks wait for you to say it; only then do they feel emboldened to return the favor. Here in Britain, despite all of our own zany political correctness—and, trust me, we have no shortage of it—"Christmas" has not been reduced to "Happy Holidays" nor has it become an unmentionable.
In a suburban London supermarket, you can still be wished a "Merry Christmas" without all hell breaking loose. I like that. It made me smile. Strangers don't normally get a sunny glimpse of my pearly whites, but that lady did.
I love Christmas from the pure Christian perspective. Christianity is part of my heritage and though I don't embrace all of its aspects, I acknowledge that tradition.
Furthermore, I never believed that song from 1963 which proclaims this "the most wonderful time of the year." Erm, harrumph, say what? Unless you have the unbelievably good fortune to be in Australia, it's the suckiest time of the year. Twenty hours of darkness (in England, we never see the sun anyway, so it hardly matters), freezing cold, snow and ice everywhere ... no wonder people want to bring trees, artificial or not, into their homes and festoon them with lights, drink mulled wine and sing a bit. It's what pagans did before Christmas and you cannot blame them.
So I'll give Christmas a break this year ... and take a break from writing for the next few days. In the meantime, I wish you, dear reader, a safe, warm and, above all, merry Christmas.

Tax cut agreement was not "lousy"

2010-12-22T14:13:00.004Z

So, dear reader, are you glad the deal to extend the Bush-era tax rate for two more years passed or do you think we should have held out for a better deal from January when the Republican Congress takes over?
I'm happy with it. The way I see it, if this incoming Congress is as efficient as we're hoping, let's strive for another tax deal and lower rates even further once those Republicans take their seats.
Sarah Palin said the agreement was "lousy." Sure, it was a compromise between the GOP and the White House. But she concentrated a little too much on this being a victory for Obama. She's right when she contends that "Obama is so very, very wrong on the economy," but I don't think the Prez "spinned" Republican tax-cut goals.
Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, supported the agreement, while Mike Pence advocates making the Bush tax rates permanent. John Thune, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney have all indicated that the effect of the tax package remains to be seen, but stopped short of criticizing it.
If this is a victory for Obama, so be it. We needed, at the very least, an extension of the tax cuts to keep helping the economy to recover. It was necessary. Obama may have complained about it, spoke of being held hostage to it, and struck a somber note in announcing it. But in the end, he did the right thing, stood up to the far-Leftie "purists," and endorsed a tax package that will keep America on track.
So here it is: Good for you, Mr. President.
So let Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi squawk all they like. They didn't get to screw the middle or working classes on a tax deal and that's what matters.
Besides, it's a little nauseating to see the die-hard Tea Party stalwarts moaning along with the far-Left. Do they really want to be seen to agree with Paul Krugman that this tax deal is "bad stuff"?
Now if we could just bury the DREAM Act once and for all, instead of watching its seemingly never-ending death throes, then 2011 is looking up.

Advertisers should sell products, not push agendas

2010-12-13T07:51:00.001Z

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

By this point in history, dear reader, you must surely have noticed that there's a certain bias against the male gender in advertisements and sitcoms. I don't worry so much about sitcoms because they're not coercing me to consider the purchase of a product and no-one watches them anyway.
But advertising is a different story. Consider the following scenario: I'm relaxing in front of the idiot box and a commercial starring a couple airs. They could be walking through the park, shopping, driving in a car, whatever. But the woman will be portrayed as all-knowing and wiser than Methuselah, even if she looks no older than 25, while the man will be shown to do or say something stupid. He will be belittled by the woman and the commercial will end. And then another will appear, with a stupid man thrown in the mix somewhere.
The ads don't even have to contain women. Advertisements for alcoholic beverages routinely make men on their own look idiotic. OK, alcohol and idiocy often go hand-in-hand, but still, why do we never see just how hideous members of the "fairer sex" get when they're loaded? Furthermore, the guys in the beer or alcopop commercials usually aren't even drunk yet.
By the end of this barrage, after I've been not-so-subtlely told that I must be a hopeless dolt simply because of my gender, I'm expected to seriously consider the purchase of any goods or services from companies that have just insulted not just me, but my male family members and buddies.
Remarkably, it's not just white men who are on the receiving end of this bigotry. If a black couple are portrayed, the black guy receives the same awful treatment. This is perhaps the only instance in which you can actually make a black man out to be a dumb-ass and get away with it.
It's a shame because, in the past, commercials were quite good at taking all the bits and pieces of our daily routine and making light of that. The tricky or annoying situations we so often find ourselves in, regardless of our gender, were being made fun of. It was effective but harmless humor.
Now advertising executives have taken it too far by twisting the logic to make men the constant source of what makes those bits and pieces of daily life so irritating. It doesn't do women much justice if advertisers think that there must be a man-bashing element to their sales strategy.
I think it's good and healthy for our society that women are now respected in a way they certainly weren't fifty years ago. Unfortunately, the live-and-let-die mentality is not being displayed here. Now that they've asserted themselves, the feminists in the news, entertainment and advertising industries have been hell-bent for years on turning the tables and "getting some get-back" with men.
The impact this insiduous attitude in our advertising has cannot be denied. Young males watch TV, get this garbage soaked into their brains that there's something wrong with them, and then grow up to be emotionally deficient, reckless and possibly self-loathing.Testosterone and low self-esteem do not make a good combination.
This "men as privileged" mindset is bunk. As Glenn Sacks and Richard Smaglick point out in their article Advertisers: Men Are Not Idiots, "Yes, men do make up the majority of CEOs, politicians and powerbrokers. They also make up the majority of the homeless, the imprisoned, suicide victims and those who die young." But one can only suppose that's not a concern to militant feminists in the ad industry and their left-wing, cojones-lacking sympathizers who are clearly given a reason to continue to make fun of men and all that's wrong with them.
It was believed for a while that men did not care how they were portrayed. But a 2005 study conducted by advertising company Leo Burnett Worldwide found that four out of five men were concerned by the anti-male bias in commercials and found that men suffer from an identity crisis.
In an age where soundbites are crucial, and no-one has the time or werewithal to delve into the logic behind them—especially when it's erroneous—how people are portrayed is a serious matter. It's time advertisers put the focus on selling their products, not persuing agendas or pushing propoganda.

A 21st century tale of "customer service"

2010-12-12T16:46:00.002Z

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And sometimes, the two things seem to happen in equal measure. Life's a bit odd like that. It's remarkable how often you win and lose at the same time with the business world.
Exactly one year ago, Squirrel and I ordered a security door from a windows-and-door company that has a high recognition factor here in Britain. I won't mention them in this space only because we have not gotten our deposit money back yet, although we've been told we will. However, if you're curious to know, dear reader, I'll be happy to name-drop via e-mail.
The door was one of those pre-framed, uPVC doors that are impossible to open without a key or an explosive. In January, a fitter came out to take measurements, and we awaited the big day when our new door would arrive.
That day came at the end of March. I had gotten everything out of the way and taken the decorations (apartment letter, fox door-knocker, etc.) off the current door. The fitter said he had "the wrong door," that the measurements taken were from a left-hinge position as opposed to our current right one. The fitter said he'd call back later that day; he never did.
Now, even that one incident, you'll agree, was enough to ask for an apology and perhaps even a discount off the price of the door. I talked with the manager and got the huffy attitude that I had no right to discuss such things until after the door was installed. I would have told him to go crap in his hat at that juncture, but Squirrel really wanted the door.
An installment was booked at the end of June. We insisted on the end of the month, because that's when we both get paid, and according to this company's contract, deductions come out from the day of installation. Once again, I had everything taken out of the way. I received a call from the main office informing us that the installer's van had broken down. Soon after, we received requests from the company that the installation take place sooner. We said "no, it'll be the end of the month or nothing." No hint of apology this second time around.
At the end of July, on a Friday, the installers arrived and took less than a minute to inform me that our doorway consisted of the wrong kind of timber. The company's main office said it was the right kind and that if it had not been, it would have been noted during the January visit. They offered to have it installed on the coming Monday, and as this was still the end of the month, we said OK.
The installer, yet another different one, started bombarding me with questions about parking. I lost count of how many times I told him, "I can't advise you. Neither of us drive. So we have never taken any notice of parking restrictions." Isn't that this guy's job to find out these things? I'd never been moaned at before about parking arrangements, so I figured the man must have obsessive-compulsive disorder or something. He offered to come back the following Sunday when parking wouldn't be an issue, and I was so frustrated by then, I said "ok, fine," forgetting that by then, it would be the beginning of a new month.
Again began the frustration of dealing with the company's main office to cancel that date and arrange another end-of-the-month appointment. That was slated for the end of September. Before then, however, we received a letter from the main office to the effect of: "We are pleased that you are happy with your new product, etc." It was obvious to us by now that the people of this company didn't communicate with the installers—or simply didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
One more chance. The day in September arrived and the installers started preparing. I was called out to have a look at the door. "Why?" I asked. "I've just taken off my boots. What are you telling me?" I was urged to have a look at the door. So I went out in the drizzle, my stockinged feet on the cold, wet pavement of the sidewalk to look at the door in the van's compartment bay. Damaged. A huge crack ran through it.
"Obviously, we can't install it like this," I was told. No duh!
We were desperate now to cancel and get out of this never-ending nightmare, but we'd signed the contract and paid a deposit. We had not heard anything at all from the company since that day in September. Yesterday, we finally managed a breakthrough and got the company to cancel the contract. Freedom!
In total, five incidents, more phone calls placed and e-mails written to the company than we care to remember, and perhaps just two weak-assed apologies.
We will give another security door company a chance, but we will tell them this sordid tale and if just one thing goes wrong, we will demand cancellation of that contract. I will lay it on the line to them, because I refuse to go through this again.
We might have won back our money, as well as the recognition that we've been screwed with for too long. But we lost time and faith in any company to deliver on their promises. We learned that this is what customer "service" and corporate responsibility amounts to as we head into the second decade of the 21st century.

Weiner: Tax bill benefits "only 32,000 people"

2010-12-10T20:28:00.000Z

You may have noticed, dear reader, that New York Representative Anthony Weiner—schmuck extraordinaire, but we'll get to that later—is fast becoming the face of the modern Democratic party. His young looks, however, don't prevent it from being ugly.
His recent interview with Megyn Kelly on FOX News on the subject of the tax bill deal was telling in terms of how he does not acknowledge reality, about how "principles" refers only to what he and his left-wing fellow travellers feel, not what Americans want or, indeed, what's good for the country.
Weiner is, obviously, unhappy with the compromise President Obama reached with Republicans on the tax rate bill. When he talked with Kelly on FOX News, it's not bad enough that he talked down to her: "The President has had negotations with the Republicans, and now he's going to have some with Democrats. That's how this process works."
Thanks, Congressman Weiner, for the civics lesson. Kelly and her audience did not already know that. As you know, we're dumb, for we are not pulling all the stops for higher taxes—"the best deal for the American people"—the way you and your Democrat colleagues are. Alas, I digress ...
What's best for the American people, according to Weiner, is not "to add another $80 billion in debt to our children to pay for the estate tax burden that will only be lifted for 32,000 people in the entire country." This is the same man who derided the "Tea Bag Party" for opposing the Dream Act, which will affect these children, indeed all children who are American citizens, when they start losing out to the entitlements the offspring of illegal aliens will receive.
The tax rate being proposed is the same one we've been paying for nearly a decade now. It is not a hand-out to millionaires or billionaires. But, according to Bernie Sanders, a citizen making £200,000 a year is a billionaire. Weiner, no doubt, agrees.
Kelly rightly pointed out the time on a tax deal is limited, that if a bargain is not struck between the President and the Congress to determine the tax rate before December 10, it will affect workers' paychecks and hurt small businesses who might have to file twice, and will delay tax refunds. Obama, for once, is doing the responsible thing here, acting as a President should, and Weiner thinks that it's vital that efforts continue to stop a vote on the tax bill?
Chuck Schumer couldn't sell a Democrat-authored package on the floor of the Senate, yet the President, who admittedly feels he was "held hostage" to this deal, has to continue to fight? At whose expense, Mr. Weiner, the American people's or your principles? Ah yes, but your principles are shared by all Americans. Silly me, I forgot.
Also, according to Weiner, if you pay your taxes and invest in an estate, there should be another tax paid on that because "you'll be dead." In other words, those who are due to inherit an estate should be punished. Weiner told Kelly, "For people who inherit money, that money gets taxed at a lower rate than if they worked seventy hours to earn it. That's just not fair."
Again, we're "aiding only 32,000 people," so let's pretend that money that was earned should not be free to pass on to another generation because it adds to the debt. I don't see how that works. Unless, of course, you're using smoke-and-mirrors to make it seem as though only the rich are getting tax cuts, which simply isn't true.
Weiner knows full well that this isn't a tax cut for the rich. But we're not penalizing those "millionaires and billionaires." That's what has him up in arms over this tax deal. He and most of his Democratic allies don't realize that the middle class don't need government programs to assist them. They need those rich business owners, those who invest private money, to create jobs for them. The middle class doesn't benefit from a stimulus package. They benefit when those with cash create real jobs for real people.
But don't tell Anthony Weiner that. It would violate his sense of fairness and principled convinction of what's good for the American people.

Time for the Senate to slay this beast

2010-12-09T10:52:00.003Z

The bad news: Yesterday, the still Democrat-controlled House approved the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a.k.a. the Dream Act.
The good news: The measure is unlikely to survive passage through the Senate. Even Dick Turbin ... excuse me, I mean Durbin, admitted that getting the sixty votes needed for Senate approval is "an uphill struggle."
Good. Whose dream is engendered by the Dream Act? It's been sold to us by liberals as a way of acknowledging that foreign-born children brought to the U.S. by their parents had no say in the matter and therefore should be given the chance to gain legal status. The Dream Act stipulates that these lawbreakers' offspring will be eligible for legal status up to the age of 35, though some reports say the cut-off age will be 29. A 29-year-old is a minor? Better tell them they're not allowed to drink any cervesas until they turn thirty.
Once these 12 million illegals gain their amnesty—because that's exactly what this legislation proposes—they'll be able to bring over their extended relatives and, before you know it, welfare dependency will skyrocket.
Of course, there will be illegals who will work due to the unscrupulous nature of some businesses and service sectors. Why should they hire a Miller, a McCarthy or a Moretti when there's a Mendoza or a Morales who will do the job for less and doesn't give a stuff about employee benefits and whatever else is considered important to pampered American workers.
The Obama White House has called the immigration system "broken." How dare they? The immigration system was working fine before the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 smashed our ability to control immigration to pieces. Gone were the caps from the 1924 and 1952 Immigration and Nationality Acts. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, which Ronald Reagan was duped into signing or actually believed would place restrictions on illegals—he later called this the worst mistake of his Presidency—granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. Mr. Obama, the American immigration system was broken long before you came into office; now you just want to break it even more.
(Not that I entirely blame you, Mr. President. Your predecessor, George W. Bush, was every bit as mush-headed as you when it came to amnesty for illegals.)
If the 12 million "minors" who are depending on passage of the Dream Act don't like what their parents did, then they can prove their willingness to respect the country by standing in line and jumping through hoops in order to gain legal citizenship. You know, the way it used to be done before Lyndon Johnson screwed us all.
The Democrats and their loony-Left allies know this is the last chance to achieve "immigration reform," hence the struggle to rush it through a lame-duck Congress. It's up to the Senate today to slay this beast. The "Dream" may die, but sanity will at least remain on life support with a chance for improvement.

Hunters don't like being in the crosshairs themselves

2010-12-08T14:44:00.001Z

Every year, at the start of the hunting season in Massachusetts, conservative radio personality Howie Carr gleefully aims his gun at the "outdoor enthusiasts." His November 25 column for the Boston Herald stated: "Shotgun deer-hunting season begins in Massachusetts tomorrow, but it just ain’t what it used to be. The native hunter population has scattered south and north. Gun and rod clubs rank high on the moonbat hit parade. And the spread of dental insurance has reduced the number of toothless yahoos stumbling drunkenly through the woods around here every first Monday after Thanksgiving. Still, tomorrow will not be a good day to be a cow in Massachusetts—or a stop sign."
Last year, he wrote: "On your way to work tomorrow, when you notice the pick-ups off to the side of the road, remember that deep in the brush, some toothless moron may be guzzling his final Budweiser."
And in 2000, he said of hunters, "[T]hey return from the woods, hungover as all git-out, to take crayon in hand and write me about how an armed citizenry is the final bulwark, the ultimate defense against insane politicians bent on stealing elections and eradicating our liberties with the help of an out-of-control judiciary."
Carr has been doing this for at least a decade now, and yet the hunters still get agitated and think they have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate. In response to his most recent hunting column, a letter writer to the Herald bemoaned, "[I] find it particularly offensive that Carr belittles and insults the unfortunate individuals who were involved, injured or killed while hunting. Making light of the demise or injury of a person or persons to get a laugh among readers is beyond reprehensible."
I would call the demise of these people either of two things: Darwinism or justice. You might also look upon it as "thinning the herd" of a different sort.
Still, the hicks with rifles cannot contain themselves. On Fark.com, in response to one of Carr's hunting columns, somebody posted, "There's no hate like anti-hunter hate." I suppose there's the kind of hate that another poster on the forum exhibited. He remarked, "I wish more hunting accidents occurred in and around the offices of the Boston Herald writers, more specifically Howie Carr's office." Or, how about this gem: "I hope this farkwad hits a deer tomorrow, and does several thousand dollars worth of damage to his pussy pink Toyota Prius. It's only fitting for someone who doesn't understand wildlife management."
I think it would be news to Howie Carr that he drives a pink-colored Prius. But yeah, go ahead, use the cheap shot and claim your moral high ground.
In response to his 2009 column, somebody on a Free Republic website thread whined, "Thousands of idiot liberals die of drug overdoses and gang violence, and AIDS—but as usual, contempt is held for white middle class men who happen to hunt." Shall I cue the violin music and fetch the tissues? No-one mentioned anything about idiotic liberals; the subject is your idiotic hobby.
The Black Bear Blog, a Maine-based hunting website, featured an anti-Carr article entitled "What's Good For the Goose is Good For the Gander." (I wonder how long it took the writer to come up with such an original title for his opinion?) In the piece, the author stipulates, "What this overweight, biased, two-fingered, keyboard-pecking moron does is then carry on about all the dumb things hunters have done causing accidents. Like any uneducated fool, he spans the country and Canada to find stories that make all hunters look to be drunken, bumbling idiots."
No. What Carr does, with relatively little effort, is make hunters out to be the big crybabies that they are, an intolerant group of dopes that cannot believe that anyone could fail to see the fun in bloodshed.

Supermarket snickers

2010-11-28T07:35:00.004Z

Check out the blue product indicator sign on the top right of this photo.

I know it's puerile of me, but I can't look at those two words together anymore without suppressing the urge to laugh.

Go ahead, touch my teabag, make my day ...

2010-11-27T08:56:00.007Z

Well, dear reader, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving, and if you took part in the consumer madness that is Black Friday, then I hope your feet weren't too sore by the time you got home.
Now then, previously I felt no need to opine on the whole sordid affair regarding the new TSA regulations and procedures. I knew that we would not jettison the political correctness behind such regulations, thus defeating the point of them. That's why it's possible for some swarthy-looking guy to stroll right through security while some frail 80-year-old grandmother whose only crime in life was to burn the occasional apple pie gets accosted.
I'm not against airport security. We require it. We just can't accept the fact that for it to be successful, without violating the rights of most American citizens, some tough profiling is required. The Israelis don't screw around; why should we?
Because I wasn't even in the least bit surprised, and airport security remained as ineffectual as it's nearly always been, my attitude was, no comment. I read Charles Krauthammer's hilarious column on the subject. Yet, I just shook my head and didn't feel inclined to discuss it.
But then I heard the recording this rebel known as John Tyner made on his cell phone at San Diego Airport when he confronted TSA authorities. You've probably heard it for yourselves, so you're already aware of how eye-watering it is.
Never mind that Tyner was apprehended while trying to leave the airport, a TSA officer asking him for contact details and his compliance, so that "it would be better for you." Yes, submit and do what you're told—it'll make you look like a good little boy, Tyner, which is clearly how we, the government, regard you. Because we're going to bring a case against you ... for trying to leave the airport.
It's even bad enough that the lady officer who came over to have a stern chat with Tyner talked of "submitting" to what Tyner had every right to call "sexual assault." If I ran my hand up your inner thigh to the bottom of your torso, would you have a problem with that, dear reader? Even if I wore expensive cologne and a come-to-bed smile? Could you resist this good head of hair and this straight set of teeth? Of course you could, and you would. But I'm not a TSA agent; I can't claim the right to perv out on people. (The fact that I'm not even the slightest bit tempted to is another matter—I suppose you could call that being normal.)
As Mr. Tyner wisely pointed out, sometimes a human being other than your significant other has to touch you and it really is to your benefit. I speak, of course, of doctors. When you're suffering from a malady or disease, sometimes you have to be groped. I certainly was when I had a vicious kidney stone tearing up my urethra five years ago. I'd never been hospitalized before, but I'll put it this way: I quickly learned why the hospital gown I wore was so skimpy and allowed for easy access. If I'm sick and in pain, and you're a medical specialist, then fondle me anywhere you like, if it helps you to determine what's going on inside my body and how to cure it.
But I experienced a moment of abject horror that shone a light on this not simply being a matter of government-sponsored meat-marketry when at one point, a supervisor informs Tyner, "upon buying the ticket, you gave up a lot of your rights."
Whoa. Just ... whoa. Let me make sure I've got this right. If I buy a ticket for a flight, I not only give up my First Amendment rights, but I must submit to an extreme invasion of my privacy and, should I decide not to fly, I cannot even leave the airport without being threatened with a $10,000 fine and a civil lawsuit?
What else can I say? This flagrant abuse of power largely speaks for itself. But I'll be wearing a kilt with a fishnet thong underneath that the next time I fly. The hospital gown mentality applies here. Those government-sanctioned sexual offenders are going to get quite a literal handful from me. I have a good sense of humor regarding the human body; therefore, I'm not an unduly modest person (though my sympathies lie with those who are). If they're going to be perverse about this, then so will I. If fighting dirty is the only way to make a stand, so be it.
So go ahead, officer. Slide your hand past the pleats. Make my day.

Conservatives: Don't reject us Right-leaning mavericks

2010-11-25T17:25:00.002Z

Some good souls out there are confused by opinions I have offered in the recent past. "Dragon," they say, "you claim you're a conservative, yet you seem to take great pleasure in bashing the Tea Party and those conservatives of a less secular bent."
I can understand why they're befuddled by my position. My previous critiques of Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin and the "Tea Partying gung-ho gang" would seemingly put me to the left of John McCain. But I don't call myself a conservative. I'll say I'm center-Right. I'll say I have conservative leanings. I'll say I'm a conservative-minded libertarian. I don't often refer to myself as just "conservative."
Not that I consider "conservative" a slur. I just cannot claim that ground when I am more likely to be moderate on some issues that Tea Party members wouldn't. I'm a vegetarian. The only time I could ever defend hunting is when the people of a rural community are snowed in by a devastating blizzard and cannot drive the ten miles to the "local" supermarket.
I believe in a Higher Power—and I even call him God—who sets the moral compass inherent in myself in other people and keeps the flame of reason burning. I see no need to get evangelical about it or to take literally every word in a "new" tome written 2,000 years ago.
I will take the side of a conservationist over a developer 99.9 percent of the time. I believe it's neither the government's nor the public's business what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom. Or not, as the case may be: if you're a childless couple, I will congratulate you, not condemn you.
Yet, I do believe in law and order. I cannot tolerate political correctness. I believe in tradition and that the generations that preceded us incorporate things of value that we can all learn from—Baby Boomers are perhaps the exception to this rule. History should be told as it was, not revised nor rewritten. The whole reason for sending children to school is to educate, not indoctrinate, them. The government has no business having their hands in my pockets—or on my genitals. I'm happy to help pay for a safety net for citizens (note: I said citizens) who truly need it and to maintain an infrastructure, but that's all I would willingly contribute.
But if a conservative screws up in my opinion, I will call them on it. I will hold a member of the Right's feet to the fire as much as I will a member of the Left's. If I'm particularly appalled or incensed by them, I will take great pleasure in it. (Are you listening, Mick "Squirrel Eater" Huckabee?)
Recently, a caller to a conservative Boston talk show opined that we need a leader with strong private-sector experience, not simply someone who's pretty and gives the perfectly scripted, "Miss America" response to every question a.k.a. Sarah Palin. I cannot understand the slavish devotion, the Pavlov's dog-like reaction, to her among most conservatives and Tea Party members. She is but one candidate and I believe she's got serious flaws. Yesterday, on Glenn Beck's show, she said that "we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." When Paul Krugman recently hinted at death panels under ObamaCare, Sarah Palin told him, "Thanks for the admittance."
If she runs against Obama in 2012, I believe we're looking at a 51 to 49 percent win for Uncle Barry. I will, of course, hold my nose against the dead moose stink surrounding her and cast my vote in her favor, but to say I will feel several miles short of satisfaction would be an understatement.
Aren't Tea Party conservatives acting as bad as the moonbats who all idolized Barack Obama? Let's not fall into this "one-size-fits-all" mentality. You only have to look to ObamaCare to discern the benefit of that thinking.
The devotion to Sarah Palin is mind-boggling when there are more qualified and less gaffe-prone candidates out there who deserve mainstream and grass-roots support: Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham. Even Newt Gingrich, whose intelligence is not to be trifled with. Mitt Romney will struggle to win the Republican nomination, crippled by RomneyCare such as he is, but his financial knowledge is second-to-none. I would be happy with any of them.
The Tea Party needs to learn how to be less rigid in its outlook. They do not have to compromise their positions, just learn to live with folks who may differ on one or two points. Look what happened when Massachusetts senator Scott Brown acknowledged that he received broad support from a wide range of voters, not just Tea Party supporters. He did; a Republican doesn't get a 53 percent win in the Bay State without building a broad-based coalition. But The Free Republic jumped all over him, accusing him of treason.
I don't mind the label "conservative." I'm just being honest here. I go my own way when I see fit. I'm with the Tea Party on issues of taxes and illegal immigration, and I think they're down-to-earth folks. I guess, as Oscar Wilde once noted, I'm cautious of being part of any group that would have me.

One rule for us, another for them

2010-11-14T11:19:00.002Z

Democrats, if you didn't already know, dear reader, are an interesting breed of people.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina are both vying for the minority House whip position. Nancy Pelosi, the outgoing Speaker, is trying to smooth the way for both men to keep a position of leadership within the Party. Clyburn is apparently being offered the chairmanship of the Democratic caucus while Pelosi's intentions are to move Hoyer from majority leader to minority whip.
The only problem is, Clyburn wants the No. 2 job as minority whip—and, having been the majority whip, it's a job he's quite good at. Rep. Clyburn is also black.
It's intriguing enough that Pelosi held a "victory party" after midterm election results severely curtailed her length of time as Speaker. "I understand the American people better than they do themselves," she claimed, after the American people voted to have Republicans take back the House. But she wants to hand the African-American contestant a no. 3 position, and have Hoyer, who's white, take over as second-in-command.
Aren't these people for diversity? Aren't they for affirmative action? Why does Pelosi and a sizeable chunk of Democratic lawmakers want to push the black guy to the back of the bus? (I suppose, as Clyburn's proven to be more than competent in his position as whip, he doesn't technically qualify for affirmative action.)
This comes just a couple of weeks after Bill Clinton urged Representative Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Senate race in Florida so that minorities could rally behind Charlie Crist, another white guy, wouldn't you just know it. The Republican candidate, Marco Rubio, was considered a threat. So, the black guy must drop out so the white guy has a chance of beating the Latino, according to the Democrats' thought process.
If this sort of power struggle took place in a company boardroom, Democrats would be filing legislation to cripple that business. If a college demoted a black man in order to elect a white provost, the resutling protests, spearheaded by Democrats, would put that school in a negative light for years to come. Can't the Democrats live by the same rules they expect the rest of society to follow? Or do they deem their own prescription for a fairer society too inconvenient?
Speaker Pelosi, if you can stop celebrating your "victory" long enough to answer the following question: How come one American of African descent is told by the Party's chief gigilo to drop out of a Senate race to increase a white man's chance of winning while efforts are continuing to delegate another—who, I repeat, is good at the job he's applying for—to a third-ranked position?
Inquiring minds would love to know.

Reach for the stars, lose your nuts

2010-11-08T09:02:00.000Z

Oh no, say it ain't so!
A study by the National Cancer Institute, which analyzed data from 10,000 men, found that every two inches above the average male height of 5-foot-9 increased the risk of getting testicular cancer by 13 percent.
Golly gee, and I was having such a good day before I read about this study. Life isn't fair!
Realistically, the risk is low for all men. Only one in 210 men get testicular cancer, and that represents only 1 percent of male-related cancers.
But still, I like to think it gives the sentence "short guys have balls" a more literal meaning.

"What, what, what ... what?!"

2010-11-06T10:50:00.003Z

Before I went home to the States a month ago, my mother warned me about these guys:

"They're all over the place," she said. And, sure enough, in CVS, in Walgreens, in every supermarket I wandered into, there they were, dominating the card section. You always know when somebody's looking at a card with their likenesses on it because you can hear their dialogue from five aisles away.
I'd never heard of them. (You'd have to give them Limey accents and dress them in soccer jerseys or place them in a series of compromising sexual positions for them to break ground over here in the U.K.) I suppose she warned me partly because I recently received a Hoops & Yo-Yo card for my 41st birthday.
You know, I blame Ren & Stimpy for them. You can't look at them—or hear them—and not think of that '90s cartoon. I always thought Ren & Stimpy were annoying. So are H & Y. Big-time.
But, as awful as they are, they also make make me laugh. With our precious hold on sanity getting tougher to maintain every day in this putrid social atmosphere, with its many hypocrises, and the horrible economic climate, silly stuff like this is a breath of fresh air. I don't know, I just got into perusing every one I could find.
Greeting cards have always been a refuge of sorts for silly humor, but the Hoops & Yo-Yo cards are in a league of their own. They may be irritating and they may be everywhere.
But I hope they stick around for a while.

Just don't call me "comrade"

2010-11-04T10:41:00.001Z

What's the definition of a letdown, dear reader? The midterm election results in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Sure, I'm happy that Republicans re-took control of the House and that we have a new Speaker. The fact is, the rest of the nation had to do it for us. Because Bay-staters apparently love high taxes and bloated bureaucracy.
How else to explain that every Democrat, from auditor to treasurer to governor to representatives, got re-elected, including incumbents? Ed Markey, the man who wants to push fuel bills into the stratosphere, won by 66 percent! And Barney Frank, with his two twins Freddie and Fannie, won by 54. What about governor Deval Patrick, who, in this time of economic worry, champions a graduated income tax? A nearly 50 percent winning percentage. Wow. Doesn't get more surreal than that. I suppose to win in Massachusetts it doesn't matter what nonsense you support, you just have to be a slick campaigner.
What were voters thinking when they went to the polling station: "So this guy wants to bend me over and ram me up the behind until my sphincter ruptures? That's fine. After all, he sounds like he cares. I'm sure he'll do it gently."
Scott Brown's election to the Senate in January seems like nothing short of a miracle given these results.
Then there's the "no" vote on Question 3 ... We could have had a solid "yes" vote on Question 3 if only the mush-heads that make up the majority of the state's electorate didn't believe the scare tactics of the moonbats who said it would cripple police and fire services and that our bridges would suddenly become unsafe. Congratulations, Mr. Masshole, you just voted for more welfare funding for illegal immigrants.
The "no" camp even recycled the same claptrap slogan from the similar Question 3 in 1990 (which would have rolled tax rates back to 1988 levels): "I'm mad but I'm not crazy." No, you're mad as in insane. Or brainwashed.
I'm also disappointed that the law concerning Question 2, in which developers have been given free reign to build low-income housing wherever they and the State House bureaucrats like, passed. Because, gee, we all want low-income housing for seniors, don't we? No, this question didn't involve Section 8 housing whatsoever.
Well, at least Question 1, which will repeal the extra excise tax on alcoholic beverages, passed. Hmmm. Think there's a connection there, dear reader, or do I need to spell it out?
I think that's the only way this shockingly abysmal state election can be explained.

Letter to the editor: "Massachusetts no longer an automatic win for Democrats"

2010-10-23T16:50:00.001+01:00

I’m a proud Townie currently transplanted in London, England. Although most of my time is spent “across the pond,” I try to keep in touch with all things Watertown—especially as it relates to politics.
I’m back in town for a few short days and, as is my practice, I like to walk around to see what’s changed since the last time I visited.
Interestingly enough, this time the biggest change seems to be in the political climate.
Maybe it’s the election of Scott Brown, or maybe it’s that Massachusetts voters are finally fed up with an ever-expanding government. What I know is that, as I watch the news, I see Barney Frank in a tight race with Sean Bielat. I also hear that Dr. Gerry Dembrowski is giving Ed Markey his first serious challenge in 34 years. Now I know Obama promised us change, but I don’t think this is what he had in mind!
Say what you will, or believe what you want you want politically, but I think we can all agree that it’s a good thing that Massachusetts can no longer be considered an automatic win for a Democrat. For decades the Republicans have written us off and the Democrats have taken us for granted.
Massachusetts’s citizens are independent thinkers. Just look at the biggest plurality of registered voters—it’s unenrolled. Yet for decades as far back as most of us can remember, we consistently sent a congressional delegation to Washington that was 100 percent Democrat.
But things are finally changing.
Last January, Massachusetts shocked the nation by sending Scott Brown to replace the so-called “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy. In November, we can continue to show our independence by unseating some people, such as Barney Frank and Ed Markey, who have simply been there too long. Frank, by his association with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse, is partially responsible for the economic crisis we find ourselves in. And Markey sponsored legislation designed to make our heat and electric bills go through the roof. These two guys we can really do without.
So before I head back across the pond, I will exercise my duty to vote, especially against any incumbent running for re-election. You might say it’s my way bringing “hope” back to change.

Voting for the "shock wave"

2010-10-21T02:56:00.005+01:00

BOSTON, U.S.A.—Today, during my last day on my old stomping ground, I voted in the 2010 Massachusetts elections. I voted a straight Republican ticket, including Charlie Baker for governor, Dr. Gerry Dembrowski for Representative, William C. Campbell for Secretary of State and Karyn Polito for Treasurer.
There were no Republicans running for Sheriff of Middlesex County, so I wrote in Tony Blair for the position. Even his detractors would agree that he'd make a good cowboy.
There was also no-one from the GOP running for District Attorney. I wrote in Ted Crilly, the well-meaning but accident-prone priest of Father Ted fame.
I voted "yes" on all three ballot questions. A Yes on Question 1 would remove the sales tax on alcoholic beverages, where the sale of such beverages or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. Yes on Question 2 would repeal a state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units. And, most importantly, Yes on Question 3—the ballot question whose result I'm most interested in—would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. YES ON 3!!!
Now I'm as prepared as I'll ever be to return to England with a feeling of satisfaction, knowing that I played my part in what will hopefully be a Republican "shock wave" and the beginning of era of lower taxes reverberating across the Bay State on November 2.

Time to re-jig the ol' résumé

2010-10-20T00:13:00.003+01:00

BOSTON, U.S.A.— Great. Just great. From what I can see, folks who possess more than an ounce of common sense (a.k.a. non-far Left whackjobs) continue to be represented by the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree cord, thanks to the Tea Partying, arch-conservative gung-ho gang.
The Republican Senate nominee for Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, showed a truly frightening level of ignorance regarding the First Amendment during a debate against her Democrat rival, Chris Coons, last week.
During a candidate debate at Widener University Law School, Coons asserted that teaching Creationism in public schools violates the First Amendment. It doesn't necessarily do any such thing. Intelligent design should be a valid choice of belief presented to schoolchildren, especially to balance out the sickeningly staunch athiesm that's been promoted for the past forty years. Coons should talk with Richard Dawkins to find out how militant the athiest crowd is. Dawkins and his disciples have made a religion out of anti-religious fervor.
However, note that I said "intelligent design," as in a Higher Spirit that guided the creation of Earth and all its life forms, as well as the rest of the universe. It's not at all a sign of stupidity or ignorance to believe that there is a force much more powerful than us directing the whole show. (Even though, I admit, the essence of the words I just wrote apply to Scientologists as well; just insert the word "aliens" for "force".) I distrust the term Creationism because it suggests to me a lobby that plans to go the opposite way with their own brand of ridiculousness, namely, rejecting all scientific theory and advances because they weren't mentioned in the Bible.
You can gather, dear reader, from what I've written so far, that I have no time for athiests, Scientologists or Creationists. And you'd be absolutely correct. They're all as mentally deficient as each other. Put fifty members of each of the three camps in one auditorium and the collective I.Q. in the room would be less than Mini-Me's shoe size. (Throw in 100 adherents to the so-called "religion of peace" for good measure and the intelligence quotient wouldn't even rate without the aid of a micro-particle measuring device. The BS meter, however, would be about to blow up.)
Coons, however, was not wrong when he noted that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. Coons had the right argument behind him; he just applied it erroneously. This is when the following worrying dialogue occurred between O'Donnell and Coons:
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked.
Coons told O'Donnell that the First Amendment bars the establishment of a religion.
The daughter of Socrates replied, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
According to Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, who was present during the debate, "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp." Gasp? If I'd been present, I think I'd have fainted.
Loosely translated, this is what O'Donnell really meant to ask: "What, you mean that it's, like, un-Constitutional to teach children that the sun revolves around a 10,000-year-old Earth and in fifty years' time we won't have the technologically and scientfically backward theocracy that I fall asleep to dreaming about?"
Remember how the "9/11 Was An Inside Job" layabouts asserted that Bush trashed the Constitution while in office? That crowd ain't seen nothing yet. The current crop of Generation ZZZ conservatives don't even know it enough to trash it. It's no wonder O'Donnell wants to reform public education—clearly it's failed her. But that's OK. She made up for it by having faith in things that were written during Methuselah's day and which went through more language translations than the number of drum sets that Keith Moon destroyed.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate how O'Donnell is accusing Coons of being "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse," which, being a liberal Democrat, he no doubt is.
Yet—and I know I've mentioned this before—I'm sick of these candidates who seem to appear fresh off the Sarah Palin Factory of Dumb-Assery production line, only to get pushed into candidacy by the gung-ho gang. And they're going to represent me and my beliefs. I should be so lucky. I guess that means I'll have to re-jig my résumé so that it appears my education stopped at 6th grade.

Time and twentysomethings: A homecoming of sorts?

2010-10-18T23:55:00.002+01:00

BOSTON, U.S.A.— Sometimes, it's odd the things that occur to you when you're on your own, in a place you haven't been in years.
In 1990, I enrolled at UMass-Boston (as a transfer student from UMass-Amherst) to earn my Bachelor's Degree. That September, I was sitting in the foyer of Wheatley Hall, waiting for some type of initiation class, when I overheard the conversation of two men, both about 40 years of age. I have no idea what they were talking about, but I clearly remember one of them asking the other, "like some stupid, f-in' 20-year-old?" Naturally, being just two months shy of my 21st birthday, I took offense. It didn't exactly paint a rosy picture in my mind of the tolerance of fortysomethings.
Today, just weeks shy of my 41st birthday, I found myself walking amongst the early to mid twentysomething crowd on campus, where I went to pay a visit to the Director of Student Life, a good friend of mine. Although I'm not proud of it, I quietly but strongly felt the same way as those men from twenty years ago. They all seemed so self-assured, even arrogant. I tried to send a subliminal message to every one of them along the lines of, "no, no, you young shits. You have to earn the right to look how you do. Let's face it, what have you done? The image you project is no thicker than a strand of hair."
I bought a coffee in McCormack Hall and sat on a bench by the harbor where I reminded myself that I was once that way too. We all were.
My friend from Student Life introduced me to the current editorial crew of The Mass Media, the student newspaper I once worked for. One fella asked me, "From what era are you from?"
"1993-'94," I answered.
He whistled under his breath and replied, "Before my time." Nice guy, but same arrogant look. But then, if I'd met an editor who'd worked there 17 years before me, I might have simply said, "whoa, I was just a kid then" and given him the same cocky look as well.
My father once tried to convince me how great it was growing up in the '50s, to which I just shrugged. I have to realize that the young crowd of today feels the same way about the '70s and even '80s—a mystical time, worthy of study, but not a missed opportunity to experience life on this planet. Humankind wasn't perfect in the '50s; it wasn't perfect in the '80s; it's not perfect now. You naturally embrace your own coming-of-age decade and, understandably, think it's the best (even if it's not!). Thirty years from now, will some 20-year-old feel like he or she missed out because they weren't around in 2010? Unless they're fascinated with time travel, probably not.
George Carlin once said, "Time? We made the whole thing up. There are no numbers in the sky. I looked. They're not there." You might recall, dear reader, that I marvel at people who celebrate the New Year because we're just attaching another number, based on a religion, to the steady stream of time. Should our late neighbor feel cheated because he was born in 1900 instead of 1899? Of course not. I doubt he even thought once about it.
No-one on that campus wants to hear about how great the '80s were. I don't blame them. That's like me hearing about the '50s. The thinking is the same: "Great. I'm happy that you were there and experienced them. Let's move on, eh?"
And those two men from twenty years ago are now 60 years old and probably talking to each other about being as stupid as a f-in' 40-year-old.
Live and learn, dear reader. You can only live and learn. And appreciate life, not time.

Criminals don't kill; guns do

2010-10-06T17:33:00.000+01:00

I was listening to Boston talk-show host Howie Carr—who I listen to via podcasts—and he brought up the topic of gun control after the recent shootings in the inner-city enclave of Mattapan ("Murderpan" as we Bostonians call it).
Howie is a populist conservative, so naturally he expressed dismay at the familiar attitude that it's guns that are the problem, not criminals nor a welfare system that breeds irresponsibility. He brought up a great point by referring to an old New York state statute called the Sullivan Law that stipulated if you were caught committing a gun crime, you went away for life. End of. Massachusetts and other states had similar laws as well. But now, with plea bargaining, the emphasis on the weapons charge basically gets dropped.
My favorite part of the segment, however, came when a caller asked, "Why do liberals believe that crime will go down if the law-abiding public is unarmed?" To which Howie answered (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"What they believe is the perfection of human nature, that somehow human nature can be perfected. Whereas conservatives acknowledge the imperfection of human nature."
It's true. Liberals believe that if you are generous with welfare bums, they will realize their debt to society by shaping up and at least living clean lives on the public dole. They believe that normal people should be willing to give up their security and protection by having pureblind faith in human nature.
And even though I admittedly do approve of some form of gun control myself—I think that if you have to learn to drive and register a car, you should surely be tested on your knowledge of guns and have them registered as well—I have to tip my hat to Carr for saying, "Gun control, yet another area for the government to poke its nose into. How's Obama-care working for you? How'd the BP oil spill clean-up go?" (Though, to be fair, I don't advocate a federal law; I want to leave gun control to the states.)
As for the thugs who shot five in Mattapan? Well, you just know they went through all the checks, didn't they? Registered their guns with the police and everything. What a shocker. It's not so much gun control or the lack of it that determines these crimes; it's the dissolution of Sullivan Law-type statutes.

And you may wonder why I'm not a card-carrying Tea Party member ...

2010-09-18T21:32:00.000+01:00

The Montana Republican Party wants to criminalize homosexuality by making it illegal. Montana's long-standing anti-gay policy was struck down in 1997 by the state Supreme Court, but the state Legislature never repealed the law, which Republicans now wish to confirm. The state's GOP chairman Will Deschamps confirmed that two-thirds of Montana Republicans voted in favor of the statute.
Way to go, guys. That's the spirit. A real winner, a sure-fire method of getting people on the GOP's side.
Why don't you outlaw daydreaming as well? I'm sure if someone tried hard enough, they could control the urge to visit Cloud 9. If they don't, that means they just don't care about society's good standards. Lock 'em up. They clearly show a desire to not live in the real world and we simply cannot tolerate that sort of deviancy. It's a threat to our way of life.
Why not criminalize homosexuality? Sounds like a great idea. It falls perfectly into line with the sort of platform that deems Creationism sound educational policy and the idolatry of a bully with too much space between her ears.
As if society doesn't have enough misfits who deserve locking up, Montana Republicans wish to protect their desire to create more criminals.
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of the extremists calling the shots. Is a Republican Party dedicated to law-and-order and free-market economics as well as personal liberty and a right-libertarian platform too much to ask?

Sept. 11 musings, 2010-style

2010-09-11T14:34:00.001+01:00

Who'd have thought that the ninth anniversary of 9/11 would be so contentious? The tenth, I could understand, but the past eight years involved solemn remembrance and mourning. No more of that: Sept. 11 is political all over again.
It's not as if it has no reason to be. The "victory mosque" proponents, those self-styled Constitutionalists, will be displaying American flags and reading off every name of those killed in the 2001 attack. Good for them, but it's not going to win me over to their side. Emperor Hirohito could have raised an American flag at Pearl Harbor in 1951. Would it honestly have mattered? A slap in the face is still an insult, even if you wore thickly padded gloves when delivering it.
However, I am relieved that the pastor in Gainesville called off the Koran-burning. It was a profoundly stupid idea. It doesn't exactly take much to inflame Muslim passions. This would have been catastrophic. Our troops would have been in danger like never before. Americans needed to denounce this.
Yes, they burn Bibles in Saudi Arabia regularly. But the Muslim world not taking their own hypocrisy into account is something we've had to live with. Primitive actions on our part do nothing to cancel out primitive actions on the part of another's.
I have no idea whether the Ground Zero mosque-builders are moderates or not. I think Imam Faisal has dark links he's not telling us about. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Saudi Arabian money started furnishing the place. But I do know that there are Islamic moderates out there. And burning their holy book is as insensitive to them as the Ground Zero mosque is to most Americans.
I was in Morocco last year. The Moroccans pride themselves on a liberal interpretation of the Koran. They welcome tourists and allow churches and synogogues; there is even a Jewish cemetary in Marrakech that is well looked-after. It's an Islamic society but I didn't feel that I had to watch my step. I would not want to offend these people. Your average Moroccan cannot be compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. There are even plenty of Iranians that love America and Americans. We cannot afford to lose them as friends by supporting the torching of the one book they hold in reverance.
And do we really want to borrow a tactic from the Nazis?
The pastor is not exactly the best example of a Christian. His views on women don't seem any more enlightened than those of extremist Islamists.
Grieve for the memory of the crime committed against us nine years ago. Don't stand for being told that you're un-American if you oppose the Ground Zero Islamic cultural center. But leave the Koran alone. That tome is not our enemy; it's the brainwashed extremists who interpret it far too radically, and the pride they take in their unyielding position, who threaten us.
And with that said, I'm going to listen to some pure, unadulterated rock'n'roll from a band that's as American as they come:

And time marches on: Last night's conversation

2010-09-10T19:59:00.004+01:00

Squirrel: "Hon, when was Happy Days at its peak? Was it 1980?"
Me: "Well, it was still going on then, I think. But I believe it was at its height in popularity in 1976."
Squirrel: "There was a big '50s revival in the '70s, wasn't there?"
Me: "Oh yeah. Happy Days wasn't the only show either. Laverne and Shirley was set in the '50s too. We got some hamsters in 1977 and named them Laverne and Shirley."
Squirrel: "Imagine this. When those shows were popular, they were going back twenty years. And it wouldn't have seemed exotic to someone our age back then, but at the age we were then, it seemed like such a long time ago, even if it was only 20 years in the past."
Me: "Well, yeah. Back then, the '70s was the only decade I'd ever known, though you remember the late '60s."
Squirrel: "Imagine if we came out with a sitcom today that was set twenty years in the past. We'd go back to 1990."
Me: "That's pretty scary ... Jeez, that's really scary. To think that there are college juniors out there who probably don't remember anything until about 1993 or '94, the way I don't remember much until '73 ... Oh, yikes."

Freedom of expression at Ground Zero is about more than a liberal cause du jour

2010-08-30T10:17:00.005+01:00

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Sometimes, just sometimes, Democrats impress me. John Kerry holding the Scottish government's feet to the fire over the release of Abdul al-Megrahi, for instance. Kerry doesn't buy the argument that it was right to show mercy to the PanAm flight 103 bomber given his (supposedly) terminal illness, as you would normally expect a bleeding-heart liberal to do. I also respect Dianne Feinstein for approving of the Patriot Act, supporting the death penalty and running San Francisco as a centrist during her tenure as mayor of that normally loopy, hard-Left city. I like Joe Liebermann, of course, for several reasons.
Add to the list Harry Reid and the recently defeated Senate candidate Jeff Greene. Why? For their opposition to the location of the proposed Ground Zero mosque and for criticizing the Messiah's thoughts on the matter.
President Obama's main premise, that we have freedom of worship, is correct. But, as Greene noted, he's got it all wrong. What gets conveniently lost in the liberal-Left's argument in favor of the mosque is that American citizens have a Constitutional right to voice their opposition to it. What about our First Amendment rights?
Like Reid, one of the highest ranking Democrats to oppose the mosque's location, I feel that this isn't a matter of religious opposition. It's simply the mosque's proposed location, and the powerful symbolism it carries with it, that bothers me. Muslims don't like it that we are focusing on the religion of the terrorists that killed 3,000 people nine years ago. But how would they like it if we erected a monument dedicated to the Crusades in a place that carries significant symbolic sentiment to them?
The Constitution should not be wielded as a tool to trump popular opinion in this matter. I have heard so much blather with regard to "good, law-abiding Americans who just happen to be Muslim" wanting to build their Islamic community centre at the Ground Zero location. But are they really thinking this one through?
If the Muslims who sought permission to build at the Cordoba Centre are that respectful, wouldn't they have backed down after realizing how their fellow Americans, assuming they consider us as such, agonized about the symbolic importance of their decision? If they're moderates, as the Left is assuring us they are, can't they understand that it would please everyone if they simply looked elsewhere to erect their place of worship? I think it's an affront of the highest level to blame the average American for his or her "bigotry" when it's the mosque-builders who are being intractable and intransigent.
Consider this, dear reader: the Islamic community centre's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, described U.S. policy-making as "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11, and asserted that all the "attention is a sign of the success of our efforts." As Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph wrote, that assertion from Rauf is "an utterance that shows he is stupid, mischievous or worse. Even if the aim of building the centre there was to encourage religious understanding, that is clearly no longer a possible outcome. So what kind of success was Rauf referring to?"
My thoughts exactly. Though, I suppose I must give Rauf some credit for calling 9/11 a crime. He earns a point from me for that, but nothing more.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg—a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if ever there was one—isn't exactly trying to smooth things out, as you would expect him to do. He condemns the opposition, opining that they "ought to be ashamed of themselves."
Honestly, why is it so difficult to understand that there is a line being crossed here, a basic level of civility and respect that is being ignored? But, alas, I forget: Even if you slashed the throat of a Leftie's loved one, he'd still think, "Hmmm, what's wrong with the person who just killed my brother? Is he hurting? Is that a cry for help? Maybe I can help him. Golly gee ..."
To tell you the truth, for me, that's what this whole debate over the Ground Zero mosque comes down to. We're all getting our throats cut in a metaphorical sense, and we're still expected to understand "the other side."

A cat, an animal abuser and selective free speech

2010-08-29T09:04:00.006+01:00

You might recall, dear reader, that back in July I was outraged at Facebook's refusal to take down a page dedicated to the killer Raul Moat because it was very inflammatory—a place for hordes of brain-damaged people to jot down their violent fantasies of cop-killing anarchy and the overthrow of society. It was also highly insensitive. Even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, demanded that Facebook remove the page; they refused on the grounds of free speech.
But apparently free speech doesn't apply to those outraged by animal abuse.
Mary Bale, a bank worker, was on her way home from work when she stopped to pet Lola the cat, owned by Stephanie and Darryl Andrews-Mann. After stroking the cat for a few seconds, Bale picked her up by the scruff of her neck, threw her in a large wheeled garbage bin and walked away. Footage of Bale grabbing the cat, throwing her in the garbage container and closing the lid was caught on the Andrews-Manns' CCTV security camera, and they uploaded the video to YouTube to try to identify Bale.
When she was identified and questioned about it by reporters, and unaware of just how furious the reaction was to her vile act, Bale shurgged it off. "I really don't see what everyone is getting so excited about. It's just a cat," she remarked. Only after she started receiving death threats did Bale do an about-face.
Bale reckons she had "a split second of madness" and cannot explain why she did it. She apologized to the couple and to cat-lovers in general. Her apology is worthless; only because she was threatened to the point of needing police protection did she claim she was sorry.
Understand, dear reader, that this was no harmless joke. The rubbish bin in question is four feet tall. The bin was empty. A small cat could not jump out of there even if the lid was open. And Bale had closed the lid. Lola was trapped in there for fifteen hours. If it had been a hot day—an absolute rarity here in Britain, I grant you—Lola could have suffocated in the heat. Realistically, if the outside temperature had been above 75°F, Lola might not have survived. Plus, the obvious scenario of being emptied into the rubbish truck and crushed by the packer cannot be ignored or discounted if the trash collectors had come by at any point during those fifteen hours.
People have boycotted the branch of the bank at which Bale works, so she's likely to be fired. It's also likely that the RSPCA will prosecute Bale for animal cruelty.
Now, I can understand why Facebook would take down a page entitled "Death to Mary Bale." I don't think Bale deserves vigilante capital punishment for her act. But I doubt whether most people making threats against her were serious about it. It was intended to make Bale realize how despicable she is. I agree whole-heartedly with one man who'd written, "Mary Bale needs to be head-butted several times." Bale is the sort of po-faced, arrogant-looking person who should be head-butted on general principle, but for trapping a cat in an enclosed space and disrespecting the cat's owners in the process? Most definitely. Head-butted, sucker punched, a brick through her window: whatever works, karma-wise.
Now then, if Mary Bale crossed the line with her "joke," so did some of those who were rightly outraged by it, and that's a valid argument.
My problem here is with Facebook for being hypocritical. If free speech was so paramount that they allowed the Raul Moat dedication page to flourish—it was eventually taken down by the page's creator, not Facebook itself—and did not see the violent threats inherent there, then how exactly do they justify taking down the anti-Mary Bale page? Discussing the decision to remove the page, a Facebook spokeswoman said that moderators would remove anything deemed to be a "credible threat."
So exactly how was the Raul Moat "Legend" page any different? How the hell did that not constitute a "credible threat"? Did they not notice the surfeit of threats against the cop that Moat disabled?
It's enough to know that Bale will pay a severe price for her horrible behavior at the hands of her employers and the RSPCA, and that's how the Andrews-Manns want it as well. "Now that the police know who she is, I think people should leave it to them and the RSPCA and not take matters into their own hands ... I don't like her, but it needs to be dealt with properly," said Stephanie. (The RSPCA will probably act, but the police certainly won't because they're useless.)
Fair enough. But I just have to wonder if a fan page dedicated to Josef Fritzl is doing fine and dandy under Facebook's selective free speech policy. Again, I'm too afraid to look for myself.

Civil rights outrage and over-reactions

2010-08-28T09:43:00.012+01:00

At the Lincoln Memorial today, conservative commentator Glenn Beck is to kick off a rally entitled Restoring Honor. Tea Party devotees have flocked to Washington, D.C. in their thousands to hear Beck's speech and participate in the rally.
But, lo and behold, a little something a rally-supporting blogger wrote has caused a stir. The "Tea Party: One Lump or Two?" blog cautioned rally attendees to avoid certain areas and subway lines in Washington and asserted that certain immigrants in the city, such as Arabs and Africans, should not be engaged in conversation.
Bruce Majors, the blogger in question, responded to charges of racism by asserting that all he did was post links so people could get an idea of what areas of Washington should be avoided. "My suggestion to any visitors to DC this weekend is to check these URLs and learn what is safe and what is not. All the Liberal hatemongering aimed at visiting citizens to DC is crap. Even the DC police think the Green Line is dangerous," Majors wrote.
Also, it seems that the point behind mentioning the African immigrants in Washington, despite what those civil rights activists currently crying foul have to say, was about respect for their sensitivities rather than fear-mongering.
"As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African-Americans," Majors wrote, "and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions." Majors' point would appear to be that well-intentioned people sometimes say things in ignorance that can be deemed offensive, so conversation with certain immigrants, who don't yet understand the average American's puppydog-like curiosity, should be kept to a minimum.
It's hard to fathom how either piece of advice could be considered racist. But, of course, as far as the liberals are concerned, if we don't give an African immigrant a friendly slap on the back while saying, "Hey, my brother, where you from? Somalia?" or if we're not willing to place our total and complete trust in our fellow human beings no matter what sort of neighborhood we find ourselves traversing, then we're racist and a threat to civil rights.
Because you do realize that if you're not skipping down the street in a "disadvantaged" neighborhood, handing out lollipops to everyone you see on the street, you're as bad as Hitler? Don't you?

▪ ▪ ▪

This reminds me of another advice-taken-the-wrong-way type of incident that was recently in the news. The Australian government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade cautioned Australian citizens against potentially troublesome areas and to not take part in any rallies or marches while in Northern Ireland. As Michael McHugh wrote in The Independent, "[P]olice said the danger from dissidents was at its worst since the 1998 Real IRA Omagh blast which killed 29 people. There have been a series of failed bomb attacks on members of the security forces and one in Lurgan, Co Armagh, this month in which three children were injured."
Even if that wasn't the case, the 2009 St. Patrick's Day riot in south Belfast, for example, shows how combustible Northern Ireland can still be.
The Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice read: "We advise you to be alert to your own security in Ireland ... You should avoid all protests and demonstrations as they may turn violent. Australians could inadvertently be caught up in violence directed at others."
Frankly, I think the Australian advice is more insulting to Aussies themselves than to the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. The assumption is that Aussies vacationing in Northern Ireland might somehow be tempted to march with the Orange Order for a bit of a lark, or join Provisional IRA supporters for a jolly display of bottle and rock throwing. Could any tourist—Australian or otherwise—possibly be that stupid?
Given the outrage this advice sparked in Northern Ireland, you'd think that counselling people against taking part in events that are sectarian in focus shows deep disrespect and contempt for Northern Irish society. How many Northern Irish citizens themselves want any part of it? Certainly not the law-abiding, hard-working majority. Northern Ireland MP Margaret Ritchie said the Australian advice was an "over-reaction," and plans to write to the Australian Ambassador in Dublin and High Commissioner in London to invite them for a visit, and that's all very well. But I was only kidding about what I said in the previous paragraph: I think the advice is straightforward and sensible. The Australian government simply doesn't want its cititzens to be caught up in any of the madness. I think the furious Northern Irish response to the advice is the definition of over-reaction.

Don't mess with "legends"

2010-07-17T05:57:00.013+01:00

If you were part of a social networking website (Facebook, 'cause I is a name-dropper) that refused to take down a page dedicated to a psychopathic lunatic—one of far too many people out there for whom a miscarriage would have been a blessing—that encouraged anti-police violence, and gave some semblance of creedence to the testosterone-soaked, thuggish culture that is flourishing in this country (Britain), wouldn't you be shocked?
Prime Minister David Cameron even demanded that the killer's digusting memorial page be removed, expressing his horror at it and enquiring of Facebook if it had any respect for the victims and the majority—or what I dearly hope is the majority—of the nation that felt nothing but revlusion for Raoul Moat and his crimes.
Raoul Moat is a former bouncer, a steroid-raging creature who shot dead his ex-girfriend and her new boyfriend, and nearly killed a policeman, who is now disabled as a result of his encounter with Moat.
Facebook refused. They responded that they did not care to get involved because everyone has the right to free expression. Isn't that just groovy? I wanted to see if there were any Charles Manson, Jon Venables or Josef Fritzl fan pages on Facebook, but I was too frightened to conduct that research. I feared the worst, which is to say, I was confident of finding them.
The lesson to be learned from this, apparently, is not that Facebook will allow any garbage to flourish on their site, but that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't support free speech. Bummer, man.
I announced that I was leaving Facebook in protest, and the support I received was nothing short of underwhelming. The cumulative response was something along the lines of what sort of fascist, authoritarian creep was I for denying such obviously outstanding citizens their right to free speech?
When I stated that I needed no lessons in defending free speech, taking into account my experience in helping to revive the student newspaper during my college days, and therefore no-one had better dare to lecture me about that subject, I was told, "It's got nothing to do with a dare, but everything to do with free speech." Brick wall, anyone? (This same wingnut accused me of being as bad as Moat because I support capital punishment. As I'm sure he would tell you, he deserves an award for that.)
I would, of course, tell you of any supportive replies I received if not for the fact that they were completely non-existent.
Thirty-thousand people expressed their total love and devotion to a paranoid killer, a monster, and that's of no concern whatsoever to these self-dubbed Voltaires. There is no line you can't cross these days, unless you're calling terrorists well, "terrorists." Then, lo and behold, we find that there is no such thing as free speech!
But making a heroic figure out of a murderous bully? Who cares? There are more important things to worry about, such as when will the next Strictly Come Dancing show be on and does KFC have a new range of sauces?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by any of this, considering we're living in a society that thinks ass-crack is a fashion accessory.
The page did come down two days ago, but not through any official decision made by Facebook themselves. The creator of the site de-activated it. Turns out, whatever decent people are left in the world were harrassing and threatening her. So, citing personal safety concerns, she removed the page from the site. But she still feels that Mr. Moat is "legend" and hopes to re-activate the page if/when the furor dies down.
The good First Amendment stalwarts at Facebook, meanwhile, will still be operating out of their collective back passage while the Ted Bundy Love-In page attracts more than 100,000 admirers.

Oil leak disaster exposes hole in conspiracy-theorist consistency

2010-06-14T15:45:00.003+01:00

I don't know about this Gulf of Mexico oil spill, dear reader. The fact that it's eclipsed the Exxon Valdez spill in magnitude is all-too-clear. Part of me is cheering the President on; I'm glad Obama's angry. But, I question, why is he angry—are there extenuating circumstances behind the obvious reason that someone is behind this disaster and deserves an ass-kicking?
Some people think that Obama's response to the crisis was as laconic as Bush's regarding Hurricane Katrina. Others say that the President's executive order shutting down domestic oil-drilling operations is a case of too much and too late. I wouldn't necessarily argue with either.
It's obvious to me that Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, cares a lot more about profit than the environmental impact of his company's big-time screw-up. His insensitive, moronically flippant comments in defense of his company bear testimony to that.
It's also apparent that the Prez is endangering the "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K. by focusing a little too much on the "British" in British Petroleum. It's as if the British themselves are suddenly of two minds: Well, yes, we did root for him, but blimey, he's a bit of an ingrate, isn't he? You could see the amazement, and even hurt, on the anchormen's faces on the evening news when they reported that Obama wished to know "whose ass to kick," knowing full well that it likely meant limey ass. BP pension holders are certainly rethinking their affection for the Messiah.
Is this the whole story though? Of course not. We have to see how this continues to play out. I would, however, like to present you with a hypothetical situation, dear reader.
It's midterm election time, right? Obama is nowhere near as popular as he was on the domestic front when he first got elected. Incumbents all over the country are facing defeat due to anti-establishment sentiment, and Obama himself no longer seems above the establishment but part of it.
So imagine a secret White House call going through to BP headquarters, instructing them to cook up an oil leak in the Gulf. Imagine BP willing to do this without fear of serious reprisal because they know they'll be protected. Indulge yourself the thought that Mr. Obama told Mr. Hayward, "Hey, I'm gonna have to pretend to be very angry with you, but don't sweat it. Thanks for your help, Tony."
Sound implausbile? Sound insane? Of course it does.
But, if you could believe that Dubya Bush could order more than 3,000 deaths to bolster support for an aggressive foreign policy—something he campaigned against in 2000—I suppose you could be hare-brained enough to believe Obama engineered the BP Gulf disaster.
After all, where's your conspiratorial outrage now, you crunchy granola types? Moreover, where's your consistency?

The Cumbria gun massacre is no excuse for knee-jerk legislation

2010-06-07T09:33:00.005+01:00

Well, dear reader, last week there was a gun massacre which claimed the lives of twelve people. This did not happen in the U.S., however. This carnage took place in Cumbria, a quiet and picturesque district in northwest England.
Derrick Bird, a previously popular and well-liked 52-year-old, was a gun permit holder for twenty years prior to last week's rampage. Details on why Bird flipped out are still sketchy, but it had something to do with a family squabble. Bird was disputing his mother's will, and frustratingly told a group of associates the night before the shooting spree, "there's going to be a rampage in this town tomorrow and it's going to start with my mother." No-one took him seriously.
Bird was as good as his word, and the result was the worst gun massacre in Britain since the 1996 Dunblane school shooting in Scotland.
Yes, it's a terrible tragedy. And, yes, it's absolutely natural to think, if not for that rifle, twelve people would not have died from bullets lodged in their bodies.
But Prime Minister David Cameron was absolutely correct in resisting knee-jerk reactions to the massacre. Mr. Cameron said that gun control laws in Britain were already among the toughest in the world and that he would see to it that tragedies such as the one in Cumbria "cannot happen again."
The Prime Minister stated, "You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and this sort of dreadful action taking place." My thoughts exactly.
Britain has a serious knife culture at the moment. And while legislation exists to severely punish those caught carrying a knife, we haven't banned knives. We realize that knives are tools first, weapons second. Same thing with guns. We cannot ban guns on the premise that somebody will suddenly lose his mind and abuse that tool.
Compare the PM's level-headed assertion with that of MP John Pugh who questioned how a "simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal." Excuse me, but how exactly does a shotgun and a .22 rifle constitute a "devastating" arsenal? Hyperbole, much?
Inner-city gangs may possess an arsenal, but the demented Mr. Bird certainly didn't. Britain's gun control laws are fairly strict. Futhermore, strict gun control laws in Finland didn't prevent two massacres in that country last year.
Mr. Cameron is correct. You cannot legislate against what people will do without crushing certain civil liberties in the process. As unfortunate as it is, you can only review existing laws, close loopholes where they may exist, punish killers with the death penalty (assuming they haven't already killed themselves), and help pick up the pieces after the fact.
People's reasons for owning a gun are not always nefarious. Lots of gun owners don't hunt nor look for people to pick off when they're pissed off. Guns, like furniture, can be a family artifact. Some people enjoy target shooting; in fact, the social activity inherent in shooting clays or "cowboy action" shooting can be very enjoyable. Some people like having a collection; they enjoy their guns' historical value and they're an investment. And, though I realize this assertion opens up a veritable Pandora's box of arguments, guns are kept for self-defence, something I fervently believe in.
And as much as I abhore hunting, let's face it: Hunting is never going to be declared illegal in any country, so, given that fact, how can you deny gun permits for it? The flannel-shirted redneck who likes nothing better than to stalk deer in the woods isn't going to be armed with a scythe, is he?
That doesn't make me a slavish devotee of the NRA or their "I shoot anything that moves on four feet" defenders. I am liberal enough to feel a palpable measure of disgust at just how much Republican/conservative politics are controlled by this militant lobby. I also have no problem with reasonable gun control laws. I don't think anyone can walk into a Walmart, pick up a rifle and proceed through check-out with it along with their groceries, sofa cushions and six-pack of beer. That's too insane for words.
Yet I remain conservative enough to recognize the fallacy of the "let's ban guns" argument. A nation that bans guns or makes them just short of impossible to attain is every bit as loopy and short-sighted as one that has very lax gun control legislation. There has got to be a balance.
What happened in Cumbria last week was an outrage. However, the killer was Derrick Bird, not his guns. I know that sounds clichéd. But it's true.

A true human rights outrage

2010-05-22T10:29:00.001+01:00

I can't believe, in this day and age, that two grown men could be given 14 years of hard labor simply for exploring their sexuality.
Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were given the harsh sentence for committing "unnatural acts."
Unnatural acts—like daring to find someone of the same sex attractive; for daring not to breed; for daring to be human.
If ever there was a human rights case worthy of the title, this is it. We're not talking about some scummy terrorist who entered Britain on a student visa and can't be sent back to Pakistan because, oh no, he'll be tortured or possibly killed there! Who the fuck cares? I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep.
This is different; this is the very case for which human rights is entirely applicable. Yet, Britain, one of Malawi's biggest donors, has not withdrawn aid, though it condemned the Malawian judge's decision. No Western country, as far as I'm aware, has withheld aid to protest the sentence. (I'm not much for giving aid to Africa anyway, since it never seems to help and therefore seems like a waste of resources. I'm content to leave it to charities to help out there.)
Now, I'm all for any culture deciding what to do with themselves. If a people want to be soulless sticks-in-the-mud by disapproving of homosexuality, that's their business. I'm no fan of gay militancy, which disregards any other way of life as valid or worthy of respect. It's one thing to discourage homosexuality as long as human rights are protected and no-one gets hurt. But a culture that despises gays and will lock them up in a tough prison where they may not live to see out those 14 years? That's an outrage.
Furthermore, this wasn't just one judge's decision. Most Malawians approve of the sentence. Some even shouted "you deserve death" at Monjeza and Chimbalanga.
Right now, I don't care how badly Malawi or any other homophobic African country needs our aid. They can struggle and starve until they get with the 21st century. Anti-gay fervor of this type is an outrage and the West should send a message that's every bit as strong as the sentence.

It's the Dave 'n' Nick show!

2010-05-14T09:45:00.007+01:00

We finally have a brand-new government here in Britain—and it's being run by a Clam.
The election resulted in the predicted hung parliament—which means no party won enough seats to claim a majority rule—but the Conservatives won the most. Labour came second and the Liberal Democrats third.
For five days, there was a lot of political wrangling. There was a lot of handshaking, hand-wringing and deals being struck. But, despite their second-place showing, Labour knew their time was up, and Gordon Brown executed perhaps his greatest decision of his entire five-year tenure by stepping down. Technically, he had the right to stay at No. 10 till September, but he intelligently chose to resign, paving the way for a new coalition government to take over. Gordon Brown eventually showed his mettle and recognized the will of the people, and we must give him credit for that.
The Conservative leader David Cameron is now Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (the British equivalent of a Vice President) is Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. The two managed to hammer out a Cabinet that is mostly Conservative in make-up but with enough of a sprinkling of Liberal Democrats to, what they hope, will reign in the more strident Right-wingers of Cameron's cabinet.
It's really weird, having a Deputy PM that is of a different party—and different political outlook—than the Prime Minister. But the two leaders have promised to work together closely for the next five years. They have both received a warm congratulatory response by President Obama.
Cameron, without too much trouble from Mr. Clegg, has solidified Britain's commitment to Afghanistan, set an annual limit for non-EU immigration, protected their promise to reform education by raising standards and weakening teachers' union power, appointed a tough Home Office to deal with crime and to cut the red tape for more effective policing, and scrapped Labour's ID scheme. Hopefully, this will mean a significant loosening of our stifling database state. A return to greater civil liberty will be much welcomed.
The new government will also hopefully tackle the welfare culture, getting millions back in jobs, and slash benefits for slackers. They plan on cutting the deficit through the public sector, not by raising taxes.
If there are any roadblocks or unpopular decisions, both parties will bear the burden of blame. That, right there, is one benefit of a coalition government.
David Cameron is a gentleman as well as a pragmatist and Nick Clegg, Leftie idealist though he may be, is no less of a likeable man. And they're both young. Both men are only 43 years of age. Gordon Brown was already active in campus politics by 1972; in that same year, Clegg and Cameron were going grocery shopping with their mommies and asking if they could have the sugary cereal. I'm proud to have two of my fellow Gen-X'ers in charge.
Both men appear to have forgiven any election campaign rancor and buried whatever axes they may previously have tried to swing at each other. (One editorial cartoon, published in the wake of the Rose Garden press conference, showed Clegg as Jerry and Cameron as Tom!) I do believe, not even naïvely, that these two mean business.
Cameron and Clegg—Clam for short—represent a refreshing and much-welcomed change of government. Well done, fellas. Now get to work, because there's a heck of a lot to be done.

Election night thoughts ... (Good riddance, Labour?)

2010-05-06T20:59:00.004+01:00

This guy may be a Labour candidate, but if I lived in the community he hopes to represent, I'd vote for him.
This is what parliamentarian hopeful Manish Soon had to say about Gordon Brown on his webpage:
"Immigration has gone up which is creating friction within communities. The country is getting bigger and messier. The role of ministers has gone bureaucratic and the action of ministers has gone downhill—it is corrupt. I believe Gordon Brown has been the worst prime minister we have had in this country. It is a disgrace and he owes an apology to the people and the Queen."
Now, not even I think Mr. Brown should have to apologize to Her Majesty (the Queen, in recent years, seems to have only just herself realized her duty to the people), but he certainly owes every member of the voting public an apology.
Whatever happens as a result of tonight's election, whatever type of country we wake up to tomorrow, can I just say that Labour could badly do with more MPs of your ilk, Mr. Sood.
At London's Methodist Central Hall earlier this week, Gordon Brown was moved at the sight of 14-year-old Tiara Sanchez crying as she delivered a personal testimony to him. When the Prime Minister asked her what was wrong, she responded that her family, who work as cleaners, are condemned to a life of poverty. Brown responded in a most heartfelt manner that she, and other poor, struggling families, could count on him to be a "friend" and a "brother."
Oh, please! This is politricking at its best—or do I mean worst? Brown is trying to save his own skin. We saw the real Gordon Brown last week when he called a hard-working 65-year-old woman a bigot, during what he thought was a private conversation with his staff, because she dared to voice her concern over the flood of immigrants swallowing up the country's resources.
This girl and her family are finding it hard to make ends meet, Mr. Brown, because you've budgeted millions worth of government money to meet the greedy, utopian and, more than anything else, anti-British demands of the European Union. Hardly a red cent you've provided for loyal British troops, to ensure the health of the British armed forces and the U.K.'s commitment to NATO.
You've also doled out plenty from the state coffers on multi-culti programs, and toward bailing out the banks, only you didn't give the banks millions; you gave them billions.
Funny how a family named Sanchez doesn't seem to have benefitted much from the diversity-praising society you've created. Not to mention all the money you've allocated toward child benefits. People should have families based on their own budgets, not the government's.
Well, as I've already noted, at least no-one can accuse you of spending too much on defense.
Nightdragon endorses David Cameron and the Conservative Party for tonight's general election. I don't feel particularly glad that fox-hunting enthusiasts may return to power, but there are other issues that badly need sorting out in order to promise the nation some sort of future. If the Tories would simply follow Ann Widdecombe's example, they'd be perfect—something they're currently not. But they're the best choice for the next five years.

Avatar overload and the "anti" agenda

2010-05-05T17:15:00.001+01:00

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Avatar.
That's all I'm seeing lately. A close-up of a blue face with a yellow cat-like eye staring at me from every bus stop, and 1,001 versions of newspaper advertisements and television commercials extolling the apparently overwhelming need for your own DVD or Blu-ray copy of what has been declared mankind's all-time motion picture achievement. It's Avatar overload. I don't think I've ever witnessed such fawning saturation of the market for any film before this one.
If Avatar had stuck purely to its message of respect for the environment and people's rights, then fine, I might be willing to watch it and perhaps even agree with the sentiment. I have no love or respect for corporations who plunder and ruin the environment for no other good reason than profit. But director James Cameron takes things much further.
Uncle Sam had to get up to his devilish ways and try to destroy everything and everyone on the Avatar planet in order to fulfill a thirsty desire for a rare mineral found there. This storyline is every bit as puerile as it is predictable.
Cameron, like most self-styled Left-wing heroes, conveniently ignores that fact that the United States is to be reckoned with with respect to environmental technology and that the majority of Americans approve of conservation. If Cameron's message was that America was being controlled by some sinister lobby which ensured that the film's fictional administration had to provide the mineral at all costs, that would be one thing. A stretch, but at least some sort of excuse. Instead, Cameron gets all Michael Moore on us, gleefully informing worldwide audiences that America, through its rock-solid belief in capitalism and its armed forces, is always reckless and dangerous.
As one sentinent critic observes: "James Cameron believes that the way forward is to tear down the factories, to tear down the cities, and give up on all mod cons."
Then there's the charge of racism as it pertains to Avatar. That one of the leading human characters, a white researcher, defends the Avatarians, enforces the notion that a fictional race of other people of color should need and rely on white assistance in order to defeat a threat to their way of life.
As this review makes clear, in Avatar, "the narcissistic fantasy of the white hero who leads people of another color in a struggle of liberation presents whites a pleasing images of themselves as saviors rather than oppressors. The racial masquerade is another fantasy solution to white guilt in which the white hero crosses over and pretends to be black or native American."
Gee, let's all smile and hold hands, shall we? This fantasy is very adept at perpetuating the notion that Caucasians—especially Anglo-Saxon ones—are deeply suspect, sinister and even evil unless they turn their backs on and reject their fellow war-like, rampaging whites. Whoever coined the phrase "blue-eyed devil" was a natural at PR and Cameron was only too eager to extrapolate on this theme.
Again, this very conveniently ignores the fact the great majority of environmentalists are, and have been, whites. When you think of a member of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth, what's the first image that pops into your head to define the look of the average member? That's right: I'm thinking Shaggy from Scooby-Doo myself.
(Besides, let's not forget that Avatar's director is the same man who was happy to see several domesticated rats drown in the attempt to perfect a scene in an earlier film of his, The Abyss. Some nature-lover.)
If racism and civil rights is what you're concerned about, you only have to look at the way most Americans have reacted with horror to Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law to know that the nation's civil-rights consciousness is stronger than ever. (A completely misguided sense of civil rights outrage, mind you, but surely admirable in the eyes of Cameron clones nonetheless.)
In other words, I'm sick to practically the point of death—surely a good thing according to whackjobs like Cameron on account of my being white—of Avatar due to its only-too-predictable anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist bias. There is nothing "pro-" about this film. It has "anti-" written all throughout its screamingly obvious agenda.

Where's-a de outrage-a?

2010-05-04T19:14:00.002+01:00

Please click on this link, watch the 20-second commercial and then be prepared to spend another five to ten seconds simply being amazed at what you've just watched.
Or, I can only hope you'll be amazed. Because if there's any such thing as political incorrectness, this would classify as such.
This is just one example of the type of TV commercial that Dolmio produces. There are scores of others. But you get the gist. This is going into territory that should not be crossed.
Or should it? It's not really the political incorrectness of the ad that bothers me—I am not known for developing a squeaky wheel on the matter of political correctness, far from it. It's the double standard that frustrates me.
Why pick on Italians? You wouldn't put over-inflated characterizations of Africans, Asians or Latinos on the TV, so how in the name of God's great Western society is Dolmio getting away with this?
I once saw a shirt in Harvard Square that showed three drawn men crawling along the ground and puking above which were the words "Irish Yoga." The Boston Irish community poking fun at itself, no doubt. We've long since accepted that it's fine for people to poke fun at their own ethnicities (blacks do black jokes, Jews do Jewish jokes, etc.). But are Italians doing these commercials? I doubt it; they're British advertisements. Which brings me back to the question of why or how they exist in the first place.
Britain doesn't have a particularly large Italian community—though, being part of the European Union, we have people from all over Europe living here—so maybe the British company directors of Dolmio judged it safe for their Anglo-Saxon kith and kin to laugh at silly, stereotyped cartoon Italians during the commercial breaks that interrupt the latest episodes of Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and Simon Cowell Takes A Shit (otherwise known as Britain's Got Talent).
I asked an American of Italian heritage with whom I work about these Dolmio commercials. He replied that he wasn't particularly bothered by them, but agreed with me that they probably wouldn't survive more than a moment in America. The Anti-Defamation League would surely have a field day with them. Either that or the higher-ups at Dolmio would "be swimmin' with de fishes."
I just wish we could all read from the same page and agree on the same language being used here. Either it's acceptable to poke fun of and stereotype ethnic groups or it isn't. A fella named Guiseppe Zaccharri, let's say, can market cartoon characters on the TV and radio like those in the Dolmio adverts as long as Signor Zaccharri makes it clear that he and his people are behind such a thing. (One reason why In Living Colour was so successful and unthreatening was because it was absolutely clear from the get-go that the black comedians running the show were making fun of black culture.) Otherwise, in my opinion, it just doesn't fly.
Dolmio, methinks, has some explaining to do. I doubt they will.

The Nightdragon interview

2010-05-04T10:29:00.001+01:00

Mike Thomas, who operates the excellent site Bloginterviewer.com, has recently published an interview with yours truly.
Click here.
Vote for me, or consider having your own interview conducted. There are prizes to be won, if you prove popular enough!
Thanks again, Mike, for considering my input on your site and publishing the interview.

Gordon's gaffe sinks Labour in the heat of the British election campaign

2010-04-30T09:42:00.005+01:00

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Just when you think it cannot get any worse for Gordon Brown, he drives what has got to be the final nail into his political coffin.
And Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg comes off looking like a genius for refusing to consider teaming up with him in the event of a hung parliament. Because, as many a Labour staffer knows, Gordon Brown is no man to work with—arrogant, temperamental, moody and pernicious daydreamer that he is.
In the town of Rochdale, Mr. Brown stopped to have a chat with a 65-year-old woman named Gillian Duffy. Mrs. Duffy told the Prime Minister that she had been a Labour supporter and voter her entire life, but was concerned about her pension, Britain's financial state and ...
... immigrants.
Yep. Mrs. Duffy, a woman who's had liberal, soft-socialist leanings her whole adult voting life, had to mention that dreaded "i"-word to someone who thinks it's a non-issue. The woman simply wondered why so many Eastern European immigrants are getting in and why they seem to enjoy better services than her. Duffy said that she's worked hard, since she was a teenager, and has paid her entire adult life into a system she feels is betraying her—a system that is also being stretched to the limit via unchecked, open-door immigration.
When Brown got back into his chauffered car, he apparently did not know his microphone was still clipped to his shirt. He immediately began to assert to his team that the meeting with Mrs. Duffy was a "disaster," that he should not have talked to the woman—"whose idea was it?" is a question you can hear him asking—and opined that it was "ridiculous" for her to reconsider her support for Labour.
And he also called her a "bigoted woman." Honestly, dear reader, watch the video on the link I provided. It's only too revealing.
Brown reacted with horror when a radio station played back the recording—he put his head in his hands for most of the broadcast—and immediately whipped around to Mrs. Duffy's home to personally apologize.
Empty gesture, empty words. It's the final, rock-solid proof we've all been waiting for that Gordon Brown is a menace to British democracy.
Two trains of thought here: (1) Gordon Brown does not respect the average British citizen, especially the average white British citizen. Immigrants are people he can manipulate. His government can treat them well in the hopes of guaranteed votes, so who cares how many cities, towns and villages become swamped with them? British taxpayers have unreasonable concerns anyway, like the cost of living, the tax they pay, the state of their health service, and the state of their pensions. These people are a write-off in terms of votes anyway, so let's flood the country with newcomers who are only too happy to be here and get fawned over by the current government.
Or (2): Mr. Brown cannot, for one moment, conceive how anyone could be unhappy with him, his party and his government for putting Britain in the current economic and social mess that it's in, and thinks it's genuinely ridiculous that anyone should have complaints. How could anyone not want to give him the chance to be the country's next elected Prime Minister? He and Labour are about a "fairer future," after all.
Labour's chances before Gordon Brown's gaffe were slim but not grim. They now could not be grimmer. For those who are happy to see the trouncing of this washed-up, just-short-of-tyrannical government, this incident could not have come at a better time.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Screw the Arizona boycott!

2010-04-29T11:00:00.001+01:00

Everyone's up in arms over this new law in Arizona that will make life mighty tough for illegal immigrants. Our Messiah of a President, Democrats, Hispanics, and liberal citizens are appalled. Boycott Arizona!, they demand.
But it's not that easy. This was a long time in coming. The Feds sit on the border, contemplating their navels, because they have very little power to detain people coming north. The Minutemen, brave, patriotic men and women who patrol the border themselves, have never had any endorsement or help from any administration, Republican or Democrat. The way to deal with illegal immigrants, we hear, is to grant them amnesty and set them up on the fast-track to citizenship.
Break the law, get rewarded for it. What a country.
In case the more sensitive citizens of our nation have spectacularly failed to notice, Mexico is in the grips of a vicious drug war. Any ability to spread out and extend the war into U.S. territory will be seen as a first-rate opportunity to the Mexican gangs and drug cartel.
Arizona is a "hot spot" for illegal immigrants and has the most problems with border crossings and it is taking its toll on the state, its resources and its ability to provide: for the safety and concerns of its residents and those of the immigrants themselves.
If Arizona sorts the problem of illegal immigration out through this law, might California, New Mexico and Texas all follow suit? Is that what scares Mexican-Americans, the President of Mexico (whose condemnation of the law was predictable), and all their related Hispanic brethren already in the country who so passionately believe in America's future destiny to para hablar español?
As we say in should-be de facto American English, "you betcha."
But no strong-arm tactics in defense of American property or values pass politically correct muster these days. This whole furore over Arizona's law means that lots of Americans believe their country has no right to a secure, stable future. And that is sad beyond words. The Obama-effect, I call it.
So, f*** you, all you liberal, dickweed, Messiah-voting c*nts. You're the reason Arizona took these drastic measures. Boycott Arizona, you say? Well, I'll be going out of my way to purchase Arizonian products. A tall glass of Arizona Iced Tea, anyone?

Why can't my life be "ruined" like this?

2010-04-03T07:33:00.001+01:00

Pity poor Keith Gough, who recently died of a heart attack. Life had really knocked this guy around. His life, you see, was "ruined" by the acquisition of £9 million. I really don't need to say anything else, do I? The point must surely be taken. Life doesn't get more soul-degrading or just plain shittier than that, eh?
Five years ago, this individual won the Lottery, spent it all on fast cars, race horses and an executive box to watch a group of men, as rich as him and wearing basketball shorts, kick a ball up and down a field.
You know, if I won £9 million, I'd be paying people to keep that woefully silly game out of my life. Alas, I digress ...
How do these people do it? How do they get their hands on that serious sort of cash—and then actually end up worse than they were before they won it? Well, I know how: By spending on pointless extravaganzes like those just described. That tells me that certain people should not play the Lottery.
But hey, it's anyone's right to play and win, then spend without thought, watch their marriage go down the drain and drink themselves into a coma nearly every night. I particularly like what Mr. Gough had to say after his millions caused him such misery. "[T]he lottery has ruined everything. What's the point of having money when it sends you to bed crying?" he philosophized. "Now when I see someone going in to a newsagent I advise them not to buy a lottery ticket."
I see. So, because you're a top-rate dickhead, whose intellectual capacity makes Gomer Pyle look like a Rhodes scholar, that means no-one should play? Of all the things I should be worried about, putting myself in a position to win millions is what ought to frighten me the most? Please. Spare me your advice, sir, because it's clearly the product of an empty head.
If I win the Lottery, I'm treating the money wisely. Give some to family, best friends and non-animal testing charities. Keep just enough to live comfortably, never have to work again and wake up every day prepared to have some fun with my life. Although I might just splurge on a first-class seating season ticket at Fenway Park, so that I could follow a real sport.
In fact, I can't help but think, why can't my life be "ruined" like that?
You can be assured that the last thing I'd do is drink myself to pieces, drive Squirrel away in the process, then moan about how the money ruined my life. It's hardly the money's fault that I would have acted stupidly.
That's why I never feel sorry for any of these ruined Lottery winners that you see in the news every now and again. In fact, not only do I not feel the slightest bit of empathy for them, but I yearn to bash them into a brick wall anywhere from 20 to 50 times, depending on how generous a mood I'm in at the time.
Mr. Gough doesn't have that to worry about from me, though. Our paths won't be crossing. He's already dead.

Proud, doting parent, moi?

2010-04-01T17:14:00.004+01:00

After 11½ years, I've finally done it—something to consolidate my marriage even further.
Squirrel's pregnant.
I admit, I lost sleep—and the baby's not even here yet!—upon first hearing the news, and I was doing strange things like wandering the streets aimlessly and talking to myself in shops, but I'm over the initial panic. Now I'm wonderfully excited.
It's amazing how much your view of the world changes once you find yourself about to become a parent. Things that bothered you before cease to be of any concern.
I was worried about the cost of having a kid, how that would affect both my finances and free time. That's just selfish. People are making these sacrifices at only half my age to bring a human being into this world, and I was still carrying on about the things I'd "lose." Embarassing really.
Being able to relate to other parents is a huge plus too. Before this, all our friends were childless couples. Well, we love them no less, but we're networking with couples with children. Now that our priorities have changed, it is essential that we make the right friends. As I say, being able to identify with struggling to get on the bus with a pushchair or finding the right nursery school will come naturally now.
I no longer fume at the thought of doing extra work and working extra hours in an attempt to fill in for the absence of a co-worker due to parental leave. It was selfish and unthinking of me to complain about having to do more because of something somebody else chose to do. It is everyone's rock-solid, fundamental right to have a family and we are right to encourage it. Work those extra hours with a smile on your face, that's what I say. You might have the favor returned to you someday.
I used to think, where's the "miracle" in being born? You do the dirty, an egg gets fertilized, an embryo forms and out comes a partially developed creature. Happens all the time. Big deal. I cannot believe I was callous enough to think that way. It is a miracle, a beautiful one. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. I think I am definitely going to share my wife's emotional roller coaster ride throughout her pregnancy.
Then, there were all my environmentalist concerns. Disposable diapers are bad for landfill, but cloth diapers add to the laundry. How many more resources are we going to use now that we have brought another person into the world? Can we take care of a baby the carbon-friendly way? Oh, please. There's plenty of space left in the world for more people and their rubbish. Look at ants—relative to their size, they create huge, almost obscene, amounts of waste. Doesn't seem to affect the livelihood of their communities, does it? Ants seem perfectly happy and prosperous to me. How are we humans any different? We're just larger. The Earth can easily handle another 20 billion of us. So, I've stopped worrying about that. I'm proud to be bringing another little consumer into the world.
Who knows, we might not stop at one. After all, with the Government ready to help out with child care benefits, we might go the whole hog and have eight or nine kids. Why not? Large families are beneficial. Plenty of family members to help us out in our old ages and it's good for the economy.
Let me not forget the most important bit here:

APRIL FOOL'S!!!

Take it from me, dear reader, I'd sooner take two weeks' vacation from work and do nothing with it but hole myself up in a darkened living room, watching episode after episode of past series of Dancing on Ice, Strictly Come Dancing, The X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent until my eyes bled and my brain no longer functioned properly then to find myself in the situation I just described—or to seriously believe any of the malarkey I wrote to justify it.

Rubbish music and the cross-generational moment

2010-03-27T08:35:00.001Z

The Ramones once sang: "We need change, we need it fast/Before rock's just part of the past"—and how right they were.

When you've worked all night long, then done 52 laps in the public pool (during what's known as "adult swim" time—what a great phrase; if only there were more adult-only things around) it really makes you feel alive. But once the endorphin high wears off, you feel just as wired as before—and even more exhausted.
Only one thing stood between my grocery shopping and going home and that was a pint of Guinness. As I sat in a corner booth just across from the kitchen—dear non-British reader, our pubs nearly always serve food; they are what Americans think of as taverns, and yes, you can get alcohol even at 9 in the morning—I noticed a growing irritation welling up within me at the music being played. Whoa, did I just write "music?" I meant simplistic keyboard rhythms and the shrieking of even more simplistic lyrics. I don't know quite what the term for that is, but I call it garbage. It was being broadcast from any one of a truly depressing number of contemporary "hits" radio stations. It was loud enough to begin with, but every time the door swung open and closed, which was happening a fair bit as it was breakfast time, it became even louder.
This was ruining the enjoyment of my Guinness. You've got to be in a mood to enjoy one and I was fast losing that mood. So I threw my headphones on and played my iPod while sipping my pint and working on my Sudoku. Bliss. I was now in my own little world and happy with it.
About fifteen minutes into the existence of this little universe of my own making, I saw someone approaching my booth. I don't like being approached by anyone in a pub; you never know what kind of interaction is going to ensue.
I took off my headphones and noticed a gent of about 70 smirking at me. "Don't like the music either, young fella?" he asked.
I smirked back. "No, not my thing at all. It depresses me."
"Certainly not what my generation grew up with," the elderly man said.
"Nor mine," I was proud to reply.
"Really now?" His eyebrows arched as he said this. "Young man like yerself?"
"I'm forty," I said. "I like rock 'n'roll. Real guys playing real instruments and not caring if they sounded a bit raw. That's what I grew up with."
"I'm a big band man myself. Count Basie and Glenn Miller," he said, looking away momentarily, as if in a dream or pining for the olden days. Then he looked me in the eyes again. "But at least we both agree that this stuff"—he pointed at the kitchen—"is rubbish."
I smiled at the thought that during the '70s and '80s this swing fan probably railed against the stuff I listen to and enjoy. But we found ourselves united in our loathing of the contemporary "music" on offer, a real cross-generational moment if ever there was one.
The fact is, take any song on my iPod—Billy Joel's "My Life," for example—and I could listen to it 1,000 times in a row and still not be as sick of it as I am of the first twenty seconds of anything I hear on contemporary "hits" radio. And by giving any modern "song" twenty seconds before I start thinking "next!", I'm being generous and fair-minded.
I feel sorry for kids born in the late '90s and '00s. That rubbish is going to be what they think of fondly and reminisce about when they're forty. They don't realize for one moment how laughably pathetic that is. And the reason it's laughable is because the only other alternative is to weep.
I just shudder to think how much worse the music scene is going to get under the generation being born today. It's hard to imagine how much worse it could get, but it is a comfort of sorts to think that this newborn generation might just scoff at their parents' taste in listening preferences—just as I do.
Maybe, just maybe, this generation will provide the next Ramones or Guns 'n' Roses that we so desperately need to blow every other bit of flotsam out of the water, just as those two bands did in their respective days.

Open letter to Jamie Oliver

2010-03-25T10:06:00.005Z

Dear Jamie,
You recently had a tough time of things in West Virginia. Folks there gave you such an ass-whuppin' over your healthy eating campaign that you broke down in tears at a press conference. They don't understand why you're there or what you're doing, you complained.
You will recall that preaching healthy eating to children in inner-city London schools didn't go down a treat either. You put yourself in a vulnerable position and you got pinned to the mat by these insouciant youths. They considered you no better than one of their teachers.
Overall, people don't really take too kindly to being preached to by a millionaire. Don't forget, you're also the face of a supermarket. People don't want to be lectured to by big business either. Yes, I know that's an unfair connection to make—and no doubt Sainsbury's did well to recruit you, even if you have had the odd tiff with them. In fact, I'm thinking that you ought to return home and do some more television commercials for them; the chain just reported their smallest growth in underlying sales in five years, having been hammered by promotional and price campaigns waged by their rivals, Tesco and Asda. That's one difference Sainsbury's doesn't want to taste. [Dear reader, click on this if that joke is lost on you.]
But, Jamie, in all seriousness, you're trying to appeal to a population of moo-moos. West Virginia is an Appalachian state. They're quite patriotic and believe in their God-given right to consume the equivalent of the annual Nigerian GDP in food every day. These people take the phrase "fat of the land" very seriously, and for them this healthy eating and lifestyle campaign is the work of long-haired Commies who, of course, are working in league with the black helicopter brigade just waiting to kick down their doors and take their rump roasts and T-bone steaks away.
The fact that this un-American drivel is being propogated by a cocky Londoner doesn't help either, Jamie. It's only a matter of time before they start turning their hunting rifles on you. You ought to think about adopting a south-of-the-Dixon-line drawl. It might buy you more credibility. Just say you think everyone ought to be healthy enough to enjoy their guns and breed large families and they may just listen.
Of course, not to worry. I'm sure Obama-care, the most recent law of the land, will sort everything out. Talk to every medical practitioner you can find. When these people start signing up for health insurance, or face punitive action if they don't, you can have the points of your campaign rubber-stamped on to the insurance requirements. Talk about taking America by storm, Jamie!

Best of luck,
Nightdragon

Assaulting a dragon will even land a Lord in the hot seat

2010-03-19T11:21:00.003Z

Lord Norman Tebbit is an interesting man. I agree with him on a lot of things. A Member of Parliament since 1970, he has campaigned against the Maastricht Treaty (the first step in consolidating the European Union), had the guts to opine that some immigrant communities would not assimilate into the majority society, a view he claimed vindication for in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings, and once told someone that rioting, as happened in Brixton in 1981, was not a natural consequence of unemployment. Tebbit told the young man in question, "I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it."
He also dared to criticize the "saintly"—and just recently deceased—Michael Foot, and was injured in the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel, where the 1984 Conservative Party Conference was being held.
But I was somewhat bemused to read that Lord Tebbit could be prosecuted over "dragon assault" charges.
During the Chinese New Year celebrations in his neighborhod of Bury St. Edmunds in late February, Tebbit was so upset by the noise of the parade that he ran outside his home to complain. He put his hands over a drum that someone was beating, and then he was jostled by someone in a dragon costume. This did not sit well with him.
"I got my knuckles rapped for my pains. I then got jostled by a dragon. I have never been jostled by a dragon before. I gave it a shove, then got on my way."
Lord Tebbit, you're not one of the crotchety creatures I kept having to avoid in the supermarket this morning, are you? Sometimes we dragons have to jostle you—it seems to be the only way you elderly folks ever get the message to let all the younger folks do their shopping. Honestly, I am so tempted to tell your kind, "Hey, I'm sorry that I was only born in 1969—I know you see me as just another uppity young person—and I don't blame you for moving only one-mile-per-hour, but when I respectfully stand out of your way and wait for you to pass, a 'thank you' would be nice!" So much for the civility of the older generations. Grumpy old bags ...
Anyway, the story is, Tebbit didn't just shove the Chinese dragon. He reportedly kicked at it. The front of the dragon was held up by an adult; the back was being commandered by a child. Tebbit was kicking at the back. A witness at the parade reported, "'He grabbed the drum and cymbal being played and then started violently kicking the dragon itself."
Suffolk Police have simply said that "inquiries are continuing into this incident." I don't think it's a stretch to say that Lord Tebbit will probably face nothing more severe than a fine.
In Tebbit's defense, he was new to the area where the Chinese New Year celebrations were taking place. But it's not much of a defense. I mean, it was a dim moment in his life to see all the costumes and Chinese paraphernalia and not put two and two together. Here's hoping the old boy can get his dignity back.
In the meantime, Lord Tebbit, don't go kicking at dragons anymore, OK?

Lesson for today: Don't try adding apples and oranges

2010-03-16T09:14:00.005Z

Someone recently left me a comment with respect to my "Of Homosexuality and Ice Dancing" entry, and they had this query to pose to me: "So . . . you're bisexual yet have never had a homosexual experience. I'm sorry, but this makes you bi how?"
As the seconds ticked by after first reading that, the more stupid the question seemed. Now it's gone beyond that. I'm plain offended.
I don't like being questioned when I deign to reveal personal matters about myself. If I say I'm bisexual, I'm bisexual, damn it all. If I said I was next in line to inherit the British crown, then you may question what I say. But not on a matter such as this.
You don't find yourself looking at some members of your own sex, over the course of over 20 years, and thinking "hot damn" if you don't have considerably more than a slight touch of the alternative sexuality about you, now do you?
You bring me a 5-foot, 8-inch, pumped, surfer-dude type in bulging Speedos, and I guaran-f***ing-tee that my eyes won't stray. How's that for being up front? (You decide if the pun was intended.)
All I said was that I wasn't one bit bothered to be leading a straight lifestyle, that I love the female I chose to share my life with, and that the only sex I've ever had was with her. From this, my interrogator felt at liberty to add A (married, only ever been with a woman) + B (never had a gay experience) = C (not bisexual). You did the math, my friend, but too bad it was based on expectation and not logic. That makes it wrong. See me after class.
I suppose what bothers me more than anything was not so much the fact that I wasn't taken at my word. It's this inane theory that you can only be a certain sexuality if you've had sex. By this assessment, the 40 Year Old Virgin must have been asexual before he finally did the nasty, eh?
You want to know why I never had a homosexual experience during my single days? Because I've got this amazing, astounding ability to keep it in my pants. I didn't go looking for young men to sleep with—that didn't interest me. If at some point, I'd been with some fit, frisky and dreamy young thing who I'd known for half-a-year at least and had a good, solid relationship with, then who the hell knows? But my attitude towards my own gender is the same as it is towards the opposite: Keep it under wraps until you've got a committment.
I don't willingly give myself away to just anyone. No, sirree, you've got to work hard to get to know me. This might have put people off me during my single days. Too bad, so sad. Their loss, darling.
You know what, though? I couldn't be happier. Because my wife was entirely worth waiting for.
I hope that clears things up.

What've we got to fear from the Jihad Janes?

2010-03-15T15:20:00.001Z

The title of the news article in this week's Sunday Times said it all: "Jihad Janes spread fear in suburban U.S."
It refers to those whackjobs of the "fairer" sex, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez and Colleen LaRose, who were both arrested for taking part in an Islamic fundamentalist conspiracy to kill the editorial cartoonist Lars Vilks. Vilks' supreme crime against mankind was to draw the prophet Muhammed's face on a dog's body for a cartoon in a Swedish newspaper.
Vilks has said of the threat he faces, "If anyone comes I will be able to fight for 30 minutes. I won't hesitate to use the axe if it is a life-or-death fight."
However, I don't think we necessarily have to fear legions of stay-at-home women bored with the daily litany of housework, game shows and grocery stores. Most of them are smart enough to drop chill pills and go to the park to feed pigeons and squirrels.
As for these sad-sack domestic terrorists: you know how to deal with them? Strip them of their citizenship. Now, don't get all Constitutionalist on me. They've obviously taken an oath against their country by committing themselves to the enemy cause. Then you lock them up in a mental institution for the rest of their lives, because it's obviously where they belong.
Of LaRose, a former boyfriend of hers said, "She was no rocket scientist." And how. The closest she ever intended to study jet propulsion theory was to strap TNT to herself and let the body parts fly.
Sue Myrick, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, who said, "I think these [LaRose & Paulin-Ramirez] are just the tip of the iceberg ... [P]eople in this country are in denial. They don't want to admit what's happening and it scares me." No offense to Ms. Myrick, but I honestly don't think we're about to see hundreds of thousands of women across the country, coming out of the Al Qaeda-inspired on-line network like carpenter ants from the woodwork, swarming us with chants of "Allah akhbar!" (While, of course, demanding that we stop calling their kind terrorists.) It would make a cool zombie movie though. We could call it "Hassan of the Dead."

Mr. Health Care Reform topples to tobacco

2010-03-14T18:16:00.000Z

Fidel Castro has reportedly not smoked since 1985 (amazing when you consider how iconoclastic he is with his cigar). Now, the 64-year-old Brazilian president, Lula de Silva, has given up smoking, something he's done since his teenage years.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, is struggling to give up. He has tried since attaining office to quit and hasn't been successful yet. "No, I can't," Mr. President?
De Silva takes a detached point of view on the issue. "On these sorts of things, you don't give advice," he said, referring to Obama's apparent lack of will power. "Everyone can do what they want if they're of age. Everyone knows that it's not good for your health." No arguments there.
The Guardian newspaper opines that if smoking provides the Messiah with stress relief, then it may be good for him, despite the fact that he may be seen as a bad influence on impressionable teens. They related a tale of Lyndon Johnson who didn't smoke once as President, but engaged in an orgy of tobacco upon leaving office and died four years later.
It is hard to know if The Guardian is being serious here—certainly not the first time I've felt that way about them—but I do know how hard a habit it is to kick. I smoked off and on myself for five years, and, like de Silva, I preferred cigarillos, sucking on rough, unfiltered smoke. Enough was enough, though; after five years of trying to beat a habit I had stupidly been sucked into, and being quite depressed about it, I gave up for good in February 2008. It has now been over two years. I still have a penchant for nicotine gum—don't know when I'll kick that habit—but my lungs are recovered; I hardly ever cough and I'm passionate about running.
Obama wanted the Presidency, and now he's dealing with loads of fallout that seemed inconceivable the day he was elected. He reminds me of the head of air traffic control in the movie Airplane: "My cabinet's in disarray, I'm still struggling to pass health care reform, Republicans are winning Senate seats, got this war in Afghanistan to figure out ... Looks like I quit the wrong year to quit smoking!"
So, I agree (for once) with The Guardian. Let the man smoke. America can ill-afford a twitchy, nicotine-deprived grouch at the helm.

One case to be put to bed

2010-01-29T09:42:00.006Z

I had to laugh at the plight of one Elaine Carmody who was told to leave a supermarket in Wales for shopping in her pyjamas. But even more amusing than that is the fact that Ms. Carmody thought she was presentable because she was in her "best" PJs.
Tesco doesn't agree that anyone in pyjamas or nightgowns, or any other sleep-time attire, constitutes a tidy look. The store banned all nightwear in addition to bare feet. Bravo to them.
Firstly, I cannot comprehend why anyone wears those ridiculous things in the first place. I ditched pyjamas at the age of 13 and I've never gone back to them. Never even been tempted to. A plush bathrobe warms me up just fine for puttering around the apartment at night or on lazy days off. However, I wouldn't expect any retailer to let me onto their premises dressed like that. (No danger of me "flashing," but, hey, you know ...!)
Secondly, what on earth are people thinking when they go shopping in PJs and slippers? Some people are natural attention-getters/exhibitionists. Others tend to think of their local supermarket as an extension of their home. But, more than anything, it's the fact that people dress so down these days, they no longer know what's appropriate.
To see what happens when a store does not have some kind of dress code, you only have to visit the hilarious site People of Walmart. Men in hot pants, women in thongs, people with liberal amounts of ass-crack showing. It's all there.
I enjoy grocery shopping, believe it or not (I'm a domestic little dragon; just don't ask me to go clothes shopping). But when I'm pushing my carriage through the aisles, I would like to concentrate on what I went in the store for: groceries. I don't go shopping to look at other people's underwear—or lack of it—or pyjamas. Other shoppers feel the same.
In response to the Tesco ban on nightwear, one customer said, "I'm not a killjoy, but it is embarrassing seeing so many people shopping in their pyjamas and slippers. It is almost as if people have given up and forgotten the basic rules of civility."
And how.
A Tesco spokesman explained the supermarket's ban: "We're not a nightclub with a strict dress code, and jeans and trainers are of course more than welcome. We do, however, request that customers do not shop in their PJs or nightgowns. This is to avoid causing offence or embarrassment to others."
In other words, Tesco is not asking that their customers come attired in ballgowns and top hats, but to recognize the basics of civilized clothing. Not an unreasonable request by any means.
Carmody, however, does not get it. "I go in other shops in my pyjamas and they don't say anything," she protests. "You used to always be allowed in Tesco. But not now—it is ridiculous and stupid. I've got lovely pairs of pyjamas, with bears and penguins on them. I've worn my best ones today, just so I look tidy."
I mean, c'mon folks—bear- and penguin-themed pyjamas! How can anyone possibly object?
People can have legitimate grievances against supermarkets like Tesco for their overzealous monopolizing, disregard for farm animal welfare and lax enviornmental standards, including their plastic bag fetish.
But not allowing people in pyjamas in their stores? Hardly a reason to kick up a fuss.

"And now for something completely different ..."

2010-01-27T09:12:00.002Z

Squirrel and I recently purchased the complete Fawlty Towers collection on DVD. There are, naturally, extras to watch and they include an entertaining interview with John Cleese.
At one point in the interview, Cleese mentioned the taboo subjects they tackled in Fawlty Towers, which gives him cause to ruminate on the subject of political correctness:

[T]he P.C. lobby—the politically correct lobby—is something I don't understand. A lot of what I see on television now, both here (Britain) and in America, seems to me much riskier than we would have gotten away with, even in the Python days. And then at the same time, you hear about these politically correct movements which I think are by and large run and staffed largely by obsessions.
There's a good idea at the back of political correctness, but it gets taken ad absurdum, and I think that the danger is this: If you're in a group of people, and you find that one person is particularly touchy, they have difficulty controlling their emotions—greater difficulty than the other people in the group—then you can't have so much fun about them, because they're touchy and they're likely to explode. So when they're around, you're not as relaxed. You're not as spontaneous, you can't be more real; you have to kind of be more formal.
If you find that society is being run by the touchiest members, then, in a sense, that's a bit sick. Because you're trying to take as the general standard, the standard of the people who have the greatest problem controlling their emotions in that area.

Coming from an avowed liberal such as John Cleese, this is an incredibly truthful observation.

Of homosexuality and ice dancing

2010-01-26T07:43:00.004Z

As we returned home from the supermarket this past Sunday evening and settled down to relax, my wife tuned into this program called Dancing on Ice, in which certain B-list celebrities team up with professional skaters and perform two-minute long dance routines. Then the show's panel of judges assess their performance.
This show gets on my nerves, big-time. I don't like the music, all the hyped-up cheering or the diva judges. I cringe at the sight of a man wearing a pink, sparkly costume. Most of all, I don't like watching ice skating, espcially ice dancing. Just not my thing. It never was, isn't, and—for all I can tell—never will be.
I let her watch the program while I busied myself in the kitchen, putting the groceries away and tending to the homemade mushroom pizzas that were cooking. But as I came into the living room with our dinners, I told Squirrel, "You're not going to make me suffer through this fag-o-rama, are you?"
Squirrel's jaw dropped. "You ought to be ashamed of yourself," she berated me. "How can you use such a word? And you, a bisexual!"
I didn't say anything while she chewed me out. I just shrugged.
She calmed down later and said, "Well, this is a woman's program, I suppose. I can't blame you for not liking it. Things like this really bring out the macho in you."
"Damn right," I said. "I tell you, hon, if I ever meet a man who tells me he likes Dancing on Ice, I'm running away as fast as my legs will carry me."
Now here's the clicker: Despite my use of a disparaging term for homosexuals and my promise to run a mile from any man who possesses a certain affection for this effeminate programming, I do not consider myself a homophobic person. Genuinely, I'm not.
I was reading a travel book recently about the Caribbean Islands. The book advised gays that Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Barbados are all quite homophobic and that violence towards gays is a real danger in these places. In fact, in Jamaica, lyrics to their popular dancehall and ragga music encourages attacks on gays. Human-rights groups call Jamaica "the most homophobic place on Earth."
I was disgusted upon reading this. Not that I ever wanted to go to crime-ridden Jamaica in the first place, but I especially wouldn't go now. I won't be among a people this hostile to sexual preference.
So why did I spout such disparaging abuse at Dancing on Ice, essentially labelling the program "gay?" Why does my machismo prevail in situations where I sense emasculation?
Quite possibly, it's because I've never fully accepted my bisexuality. I have never had a homosexual experience—for which I feel more pride and relief than regret and desire—and furthermore, I am proud to be heterosexually married and living a straight lifestyle. I have never had cause to regret marrying a woman, and I don't ever feel guilty about my "het privilege."
Yet, at the same time, bashing someone just because of their sexual orientation—or because of anything that they do in the privacy of their own bedroom—is unthinkable to me. I am with the gay community in believing that homesexuality is a product of nature, not nurture. There is no cause for me to get riled up just because someone is a homosexual. I have been to gay bars with or without Squirrel (and still continue on an infrequent basis to visit them), not to solicit anyone's attention, but simply to soak in the atmosphere, which I enjoy. I do not mind civil unions—though I'm against gay "marriage"—and I do not regard homosexuality as immoral.
Let's face it, awful though it may be, if you really want to express your total disgust at something, there is no more effective way of doing that in Western society than to declare it "gay." It's endemic, and, wrong though it was, I found the ultimate way to proclaim my hatred of that show by tying it up with the word "fag." The problem is, it did make me sound less of a 40-year-old married man and more like some punk-ass teenager who still has yet to completely figure out, deal with and ultimately accept his own sexuality.
My wife had a point. If I'm not like the Jamaicans in my attitude toward gays, then I need to stop using certain words in certain contexts.
Alas, only time will tell if I actually do.

Massachusetts ain't what it used to be

2010-01-25T08:21:00.001Z

Well, dear reader, in case you're wondering, I am ecstatic about Scott Brown's win for the open Senate seat in my native Bay State. The Republican won 52 percent of the vote, beating state attorney general Martha Coakley and stunning Democrats in the process.
Barack Obama cannot any longer count on a Senate majority needed to sail his legislation through.
Even though Brown is an abortion supporter—as Northeast Republicans tend to be—he is adamantly against gay marriage, approves of waterboarding as a terrorist interrogation technique, and opposes fast-track asylum for illegal immigrants.
I am not a rabid Tea Party member, and no fan of Sarah Palin am I. I prefer my Republicans to use their brains or, to wit, possess one and not simply appeal to the "big families and guns" element of conservative society. It would be nice to know that if I vote for a conservative guy or gal, he or she will represent me a lot more meaningfully than trying to protect one's right to consume cigarettes and trans-fats. And actually being able to point to Afghanistan on a world map or a globe is always a plus too.
But I like what Scott Brown represents. He represents a crucial change of mood in notoriously liberal Massachusetts, and the Bay State could be a crucial test case for voters in other parts of the country. In other words, if Massachusetts voters are fed up, think what could that mean for traditional swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Does anyone think that Ohioans and Floridians are still mad on Obama? And we've already recently seen an open Senate seat in Virginia go to a Republican.
The Republican resurgence we're witnessing could put the brakes on the administration's quasi-socialist agenda.
It seems incredible that just one year after all the Messiah-mania, President Obama finds himself in an implausibly precarious situation. Just as I predicted, this man isn't turning out to be another Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman. He's resembling Jimmy Carter.

I love this commercial!

2010-01-12T09:33:00.005Z

Now then, dear reader, commercials and I usually don't mix. Ordinarily, I think they're stupid interruptions to a program that I enjoy, like Judge Judy (which, believe it or not, is shown here on one of the Freeview channels). When you consider that TV commercials are also a big part of my work, you can understand my antipathy toward them.
However, this commercial grabbed me. I like the flourescent glowing symbols and the way the camera pans slowly across throughout its length. It's very well done. The voice-over is a bit too lush, but who cares? Listen to the music! The soundtrack is light pop—some might even consider it muzak—straight out of the late '60s or early '70s. I just melt upon hearing it.
Why? Because this is the sort of cheesy but relaxing stuff they played in supermarkets when I was little. They didn't start playing contemporary pop or soft rock until the mid '80s. And I have pleasant memories of lazy days off from school, either during the summer or on a snow day, of grocery shopping with my mom, and I'd hear music exactly like this while we shopped.
I guess what I'm trying to convey here is a sense of the halycon days of my '70s youth. I miss them.
Kudos to you, TalkTalk, for making my year with this advertisement. If I ever want to escape 2010—and I imagine that I'll be doing that quite a bit—and ignore the scary fact that I'm now 40 years of age, I know where to turn.

Thank goodness for global warming; I might feel too hot otherwise

2010-01-09T09:56:00.004Z

As Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn recently wrote, "Whatever they agreed at Copenhagen to tackle 'global warming' has obviously worked. It hasn't stopped snowing since."
For more than a month now, we've had temperatures not going much above freezing point at midday and well into the 20s or lower at night. That may be par for the course for some folks in the winter, but for Britain to be this cold, for so long, on a consecutive basis, is highly unusual.
We've even had three—count 'em, three—snowstorms in the space of two weeks. Again, highly unusual for this part of the world.
Worse yet, there's no end to this Arctic blast in sight. The Met predicts that not only will we remain in the deep freeze for the foreseeable future, but that it might just get even worse. I actually believe them. When terrible, soul-stabbing weather is on the cards, such as endless grey skies, floods or cold so severe that your feet never quite warm up, they couldn't be more right. Whenever they predict beautiful conditions, such as the "barbecue summer" and the "mild winter" they previously promised us, they couldn't fall on their faces any flatter.
As Littlejohn wrote, these guys can hardly get the weather right from one day to the next—or, as I see it, they're only right when the forecast is horrible—yet we're expected to believe that their forecast for 50 years from now is completely accurate?
I know that it's difficult and a lot less straightforward to predict the weather in an oceanic climate such as Britain's as opposed to a continental climate like most of my native North America. But the Met Office's predictions are becoming parodies of themselves. I can hardly wait to hear their prediction for this coming summer. If they say it will be hot and sunny, it'll be crap. If they say it will be crap, it'll be crap. The summer is going to be garbage—and we all know it—no matter what the British weathermen say.
And yet, in the midst of the Northern Hempishere's latest ice age, and with no real summer to look forward to as compensation for it, I'm expected to heed warnings about out-of-control global warming? This has to be the least funny joke I've ever heard.
You know why the Met Office loves to predict broiling summers and mild winters? Because, on the one-in-15 billion chance that they'd have guessed correctly, it would, in their minds, justify the global warming doomsday scenario of which they're such devotees. The Met would get all smug and start treating us to thinly disguised lectures along the lines of "I told you so" with every daily (and nightly) forecast.
As Littlejohn wrote, the Met Office "is little more than a full-time government-funded global warming pressure group." They don't enjoy seeing the sort of weather that the rest of us would enjoy immensely not coming to pass. Because, if we're all shivering—be it in the winter or the summer—then that means that the average citizen just might conclude that "global warming" is a farce, an excuse to tax us into oblivion, or—at the very least—a story with a heavily biased slant.
Let me tell you, if we start getting incredibly warm weather that goes largely unbroken from April straight through to November, year after year, then I may start to believe in global warming. But, I assure you, not a moment before then. I do believe the Earth is going through some climactic changes, but I just don't buy into this doomsday scenario. The biggest climate concern is the climate of fear that we're having pushed upon us relentlessly.
Now, if you'll excuse me, dear reader, I need to go put some gloves on. My hands have only been uncovered for about three minutes ...

How else would Rémy get his cooking ingredients?

2009-12-27T18:17:00.001Z

When I mentioned in the last entry that our twitchy-nosed family members bought Squirrel and I presents for Christmas, one of my friends here on Blogger replied:
"Wait, did the twitchy-nosed critters go shopping?"
Well, in fact, I can report that they did and they do. See for yourself, dear reader:

Presents!

2009-12-26T08:54:00.001Z

What I received:
■ From the folks, a miniature replica of Fenway Park. I have no idea where to display it in this apartment that's already choc-a-bloc with frou-frou, but it's awesome.
■ From my grandmother, a Tom & Jerry Christmas tree ornament.
■ From Squirrel, a pair of boot-like sneakers and a digital weather station that displays the temperature, humidity and weather trend.
■ Molly the Rabbit gave me the original Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis Out-of-Towners on DVD. What a great film.
■ And the four long-tailed, twitchy-nosed critters gave me a dragon photo frame.

Squirrel received from me and the rest of the household:
■ A 3-CD Ministry of Sound collection of electronic '80s anthems, an Arctic fox stuffed animal, and six pairs of warm socks.
She badly needed the socks, I might add, as most of her others were getting threadbare. Those twitchy-nosed critters could not have chosen wiser!

Time to rage against the corporate pop machine

2009-12-20T08:32:00.006Z

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Every now and then, Daily Mirror columnist Brian Reade has something valuable to say, and his most recent column is one such example.
First, a little history. Here in Britain, a massive campaign is underway to declare Rage Against The Machine's "Killing in the Name" the No. 1 Christmas single. Currently, that little ditty is neck-and-neck with X-Factor winner Joe McElderry's current single "The Climb."
Like every other thing that X-Factor (and Britain's Got Talent / America's Got Talent) has produced, the music is syrupy and has got a bigger corporate stamp on it than Microsoft, another meaningless mass-produced bit of balladry for the masses.
And that's my problem with it.
Like Reade, I have absolutely nothing personal against Mr. McElderry. He's handsome, can obviously play the vocals (my little term for singing), and seems like an all-around great fellow. Plus, it's always refreshing to see a man of 5-foot-4 being idolized and adored. He earned his fame and deserves the resultant limelight.
But it's the way he earned his fame that bothers me. He went through the corporate music world's machine to achieve it, with the unctuous Simon Cowell as Chief Executive Officer, monitoring the young man's every move and coaxing every note. It's no wonder that a band called Rage Against The Machine is being brought out of their hiatus to offer some no-holds-barred competition.
It's this sort of corporate mush—with all the sappy violin backgrounds and boring piano playing and gooey, pointless warbling—that rendered one of my own favorite bands ineffectual. So I have a reason to be particularly outraged.
I speak of Chicago, a band that used to have killer rock chops, but cannot produce this kind of creative honesty anymore thanks to their record company overlords who can't understand it. Nothing disturbed me more than their last effort, recorded in Nashville (shades of Miley Cyrus here) with Jay DeMarcus of the Rascal Flats as producer. Their entire 30th album consisted of the sort of bland, countryfied American pop so prevalent on the radio these days. That's when I knew this band that I love so much had officially lost it. British radio is no different—it just doesn't have the cheesy C&W influence.
A guy like Harry Nilsson paid his dues, honing his skills as a recording assistant, a songwriter for others and a television commercial crooner. But it was only through applying himself through his own vision and individuality that he became the legend he was. Same for Randy Newman, Billy Joel, Steely Dan, anybody from the '60s and '70s. Talent was about more than how many sticky love songs you could sing. You had to have individuality and strike out with new sounds.
Getting a new sound these days is like getting blood from a stone, if you'll excuse the cliché. But, when it comes to "music," clichés of sound are all we're getting.
My father once took great pains to convince me of what I missed by not having been around during the 1950s. (My retort was that the '20s were one hell of a decade too, but we both missed them.) And it's true that Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran and, of course, Elvis Presley made the decade notable. But when I think of '50s music, I yawn. It was, in a very real sense, no different to today's music scene, with young people being groomed by their masters and told exactly what to sing and how to sing it. Reade agrees:

"X Factor is ... brilliant television but its ultimate aim is to drag us back to the 1950s when cynical Svengalis created cardboard cut-outs such as Adam Faith and Eden Kane to swell their bulging pockets."

Hey, Dad? Still missing the 1950s? Look around you—they've returned. With a vengeance.
This is why no-one will ever convince me that the years 1964-1984 weren't the best that pop music had to offer. It was original. It was inventive. It had soul. You actually looked forward to hearing what was in the Billboard Top 40.
How many bands who actually had a sound worth hearing during those brilliant two decades would we have missed if today's music industry rules had applied? No Rolling Stones, no Police, no Duran Duran. The Beatles probably wouldn't have gotten a second look. Yes, they were groomed a bit too in the beginning, but Revolver is when they broke away from that, and kudos to them for it.
If Seymour Stein had been some corporate jack-ass, looking for clean-cut guys that your grandparents could comfortably listen to, he'd never have been sitting in New York City's CBGB club, listening to the no-nonsense firepower that The Ramones delivered and wanting to put it on vinyl. Why did Stein hang around there? He was looking for genuine artists, bands with something to say and a unique, exciting, inticing way of saying it. The Talking Heads and Blondie were also alumni of CBGB's and Stein didn't waste a moment in getting them into the recording studio either.
Recording company bosses like Stein cared about music, and the money they made resulted from the quality product they delivered. These days, the recording companies, and radio stations with their mangled fingers to the pulse, care only about money.
Enter Mssr. Reade again:

"Those kids who form groups in bedrooms, write songs about issues relevant to their age and develop an original sound: If we carry on buying into Cowell’s cynical manipulation of the music industry, we may get the next generation of cruise-ship cabaret artistes, but where’s the next Lennon, Strummer or Gallagher?
How many angry, edgy geniuses will be written off for being too risky, become disillusioned and end up in accountancy school?
British music desperately needs another punk moment, when pre-packaged pap was blown away by kids with attitude, desperate to reclaim their youth culture from bloated old farts."

I have issues with Rage Against The Machine. They will embrace any far-Left ideology, to the extent that you must think it's simply for notoriety's sake. They once burned an American flag onstage, and that was during the Clinton era.
But I see it this way: Anyone who supports this band for the Christmas No. 1 spot will investigate them further and if they disagree with the ideology, then their vote will simply have been in protest. And that is the sole point here. This is not a campaign to validate RATM's warped world viewpoint; it is simply a way to stick two fingers up at the bloated, bland music industry.
That having been said, I, like Mssr. Reade, support Rage Against The Machine's "Killing in the Name" for tops of the pops this Christmas time. If we don't make some kind of stand now, good music may continue to come at a high premium.

I left out something very important in my letter to myself, something that my 16-year-old self would definitely want to hear:

"You know how you recently begged your biology teacher, Mrs. Amara, to excuse you from watching that film of a birth? You know her response, that I was going to have to face this sort of thing eventually? You resolutely told her 'no, that won't happen.' Well, I can happily report that twenty-four years after the fact, you will still be childless—and loving it."

I couldn't possibly leave myself wondering for years if I'd move to England to mind after some brat!

"Dear me": A letter to my 16-year-old self

2009-12-17T10:00:00.004Z

There is a book out there entitled "Dear Me: A Letter To My Sixteen-Year-Old Self." It features many celebrities who are pretending to send a letter back in time to their teenage doppelgänger. Upon hearing about this tome, I thought, "Now, damn cuz, that sounds like a great idea for an entry!"
What would you/should you say to yourself at sixteen years of age? Here's my idea:

Dear Mark,
You will no doubt wonder why you are receiving a letter from Britain. You don't know anyone over there, you're thinking. Is it perhaps one of your Yorkshire relatives, a member of the esteemed Cuttells getting in touch with you? Well, you're wrong, but I am technically a relative. You see, I'm you.
A special time portal has appeared which has allowed me the opportunity to send you a message from 24 years in the future. "24!" I hear you exclaim. "I'm not even that old yet!"
You have nothing to worry about. Well, not really. You'll still enjoy running, though you won't be doing it as often as you do now. You'll even have a few road races under your belt. You'll still be reasonably slender and you'll still look young, even with a full beard. And yes, sonny, you'll be able to grow one of those! You will have some swathes of grey in your hair, around the temples (the left more than the right), but you'll discover the beauty of dark brown dye shampoo!
Age will have knocked you about somewhat by then. You'll have had three kidney stone attacks, and will suffer frequently from patellofemoral pain syndrome ("runner's knee"), and another syndrome called irritable bowel syndrome. Don't worry about any of it, they're all manageable and won't impact your life too greatly.
The first real love of your life will come ten years from now, a really special girl. Only thing is, she'll be a rat. Go ahead and laugh, you'll see what I mean when the time comes! The second real love of your life will be the reason you'll end up in England. I'll say no more about that. I can't give all your secrets away, after all!
You'll have stepped foot on three continents by 2009. You'll still have all core members of your family left, even Grandma, who will remain as sharp as ever.
You'll earn your Bachelor of Science Degree in Geography, have some columns published in both The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald, and you will work for a newspaper company for a while, the one that publishes all the Greater Boston suburban papers, including your own Watertown Press. You'll also be a really hot shit on campus at UMass-Boston, earning quite a reputation as the Editorial Page Editor.
All I can say is keep writing those space science fiction stories. Work on them, hone them, don't lose that passion. Writing is your art. Keep reading those cosmology and rocket science magazines for your research, it's great training for that young brain (though by the time you're 40, you'll wonder how you ever understood them!) Will you have a book published someday? Well, I need someone from my future to tell me that! I can say that it's still possible, although you'll be quite a procrastinator.
You'll also be quite proficient at computers by then. Not a whiz or anything, but you'll know enough to have fun with them. Technology is moving at a really fast pace right now. You'll still own a cassette Walkman, but you will hardly use it. A portable CD player, an MP3 player, and then an iPod Shuffle will have replaced that long ago as sources of musical mobile entertainment. You'll know all about those when the time comes!
You will re-discover the guitar and become much more proficient at it. Your knowledge of music will expand. And this will also help your bass playing.
Tu vas parler le français—that is, you will speak French, good enough to be understood, though you'll struggle to understand what is said back to you. The same as your Spanish abilities now!
You will also discover something about yourself, your true heritage and who you really are—what you're supposed to be. But that again is a secret I choose not to reveal.
In five years' time, this time portal will close and you'll forget everything you read here. The letter will disappear and you will remember nothing about what I've written. But I'm hoping the knowledge you have here, for the time that you have it, will motivate you throughout the rest of your teenage years and into your early 20s. Don't bother telling anyone else, not even your family, about this letter. If you show it to them, all they'll see is blank pages. This is solely between me and you, sonny.
In closing, I submit a photo of yourself from the future:

Not bad for 40, eh?

It's beginning to stink a lot like Christmas

2009-12-16T09:23:00.006Z

"It doesn't mean anything to me at all. I hate Christmas. I think it's just a racket for the shopkeepers and everyone else. Everyone sings 'Goodwill to all mankind' for one day, then they're back to being at each other's throats."
While monitoring a Northern Irish television channel at work, I came across this snipet of a man being interviewed in what I'm guessing is Belfast during what I'm also guessing is the '80s. I presume the station is replaying this vox prop as a laugh, but it hit home with me. Considering this was Ulster during a time when the Troubles were still rife, the man's bah-humbug attitude could be forgiven. But you don't need to be living in the midst of two warring sects to agree with his point of view. After all, his observation is an astute one with respect to Christmas and people in general.
Yep, here it is, mid-December and society is pushing that giant poop called Christmas-time out of its collective posterior and there's no escaping the eye-watering stink.
Look, I like Christmas Eve and Christmas day. At our household, they go by quietly, and that's as I like it. No having to pretend to be festive at a big family get-together. My worst nightmare is sitting in the midst of snoring elders and rambunctious children, bored with every single thing playing on the television and wishing I could be anywhere else. I'd rather spend Christmas at a sanitation company's transfer station than to find myself in that situation.
It's the whole fake bonhomie and camaraderie that I hate. This expectation by all and sundry that I should—that I have to—be joyous and full of the cheer that I just ain't feeling. If I'm having a bad day during the Christmas season, then, damnit, I won't hide the fact. And I'm not going out of my way to put on my party hat "just because it's Christmas."
Dragons don't play that game.
I have no problem with giving either, but as long as it's within the limits of my bank account and I'm not expected to acrue charges on my credit card that will take me till I'm 75 to pay off. I just want to bomb every single retailer whose mindset is that I should be happy to trot around their store, humming Christmas tunes while forking over money that I'd much rather be saving.
And I'm not gorging myself on food "just because." I'd much rather remain on the slim side, and if that's being a bah-humbug, than I'm wicked proud of it.
Spend, spend, spend. Eat, eat, eat. Smile, smile, smile. It's like this every year; the message never changes. Believe me, by the time you've hit the big four-oh (and I have), Christmas has long since ceased to be magical.
Garrison Keillor's recent column about Christmas-time in New York is a case in point. I'm not fond of Keillor—he's a liberal dweeb—but I totally agree with him when he writes, "Christmas is a joyful time, or so we're told, but a person gets tired of enforced joyfulness, especially when it's Wal-Mart and Amazon doing the prompting, and you sort of appreciate a little anger to season the season," and "Christmas has some opposition there [New York]. And people don't stifle themselves just because the Messiah is on the way."
Keillor provides a sampling:

"In New York people can express anger in a frank and open way, Christmas or no Christmas, and surely this is a good thing. A man in a big gray SUV was outraged that I stepped off the curb on West 43rd Street and walked in front of his vehicle and he went to the trouble of rolling his window down and shouting the name of a bodily orifice. 'Use the sidewalk!' he said. I pointed out that his behemoth was blocking the sidewalk. 'So? What's wrong with waiting, Orifice?'"

Suddenly, I'm very fond of New Yorkers. They're keeping it real. Give them that much. Of course, mind you, I never noticed much difference when I lived in Boston either; and I certainly don't notice the difference here in London. And you know what? I'm happy with it. That makes me, if not cheerful, then on the right side of sanguine. I'd much rather people be the usual pains-in-the-asses that they always are as opposed to ringing a bell in my face, wanting to hug me or whatever other stupid bull that any Christmas-addled loony may want to dish out.
I'm all for trying to keep Christmas Eve and Christmas itself merry. But please remember that the "private parts rule" applies here. Keep it to yourself and reserve it only for your most nearest-and-dearest.

London NFL game puts spring into Yankee dragon's step

2009-10-26T08:14:00.004Z

Not that I saw the game—and I'm disappointed about that—but the Pats vs. Bucs game in this fair city yesterday has put a little spring into my step.
One, the Patriots were victorious by a score of 35-7. Any Monday is easier to take when the Patriots win on Sunday.
Two—and more importantly—it's the third year in a row that a National Football League game has been played in London. The crowd at the fabled Wembley Stadium was a sell-out, with more than 84,000 in attendance. (True, many of the people in that audience were ex-pat Yanks, but no matter.) The reaction to American football in Britain has been so impressive over the course of this decade that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wants two regular-season NFL games a year played in Britain, is considering holding a future SuperBowl game at Wembley, and is seriously mulling over the idea of placing an NFL team in London.
It wasn't that long ago that Brits sneered at American football, laughing at the helmets and the padding that American football players wear. Now, American football is moving ever closer to rugby and soccer as a sport close to the British male's heart. It's joyous for a Yankee boy like me to witness.
Only last autumn, during a walk through the park, the wife and I witnessed a group of 14- to 15-year-olds practicing American football on one of the lawns, and, during an early-morning run, I saw a semi-professional British-American football team going through the motions in the sports stadium on the other side of the aforementioned park. Believe all that you hear: American football is taking off in the U.K.
Soccer still takes great precedence, and with two Premier League soccer games going on yesterday afternoon, that meant little chance of seeing the American football game in a bar. It was shown on the cable station Sky Sports 2, but, alas, we don't have cable TV.
But along with a greatly increased interest in Hallowe'en, American football is a fall-time tradition that Brits have embraced—my boss is a fan—and it makes autumn a time when I'm less likely to be homesick.

Jung typology test result

2009-10-25T17:06:00.002Z

I took the Jung Typology Test, courtesy of a friend's blog, and scored ISTJ, which stands for Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging. According to this, I am an Introveted Guardian.
I am, among other things, quiet, reserved, serious, loyal, determined, not fond of change, desirous of things being clean and neat and orderly, and secure enough with my experiences to resist trying different approaches. Suffice to say, I'm not very surprised at all by this result.
After all, why should I be? It's a typical dragon personality.

Paying for the fat of the land

2009-10-23T09:25:00.004+01:00

The debate over whether the world's fattest man should be helped further is a matter of common sense.

(Previously published by Blogcritics)

Some people say that Paul Mason needs help. I say he's already gotten enough. One million pounds' ($1,666,666) worth of help, to be exact.
Who is Paul Mason, you ask? The world's heaviest man, at a mere twenty pounds shy of 1,000. Yep, you heard right: If this guy gains just twenty more pounds—and gaining weight is obviously his life's sole goal and achievement—he'll be one thousand pounds in weight.
The 48-year-old Mason knows he's in bad shape. He saw his father die of obesity. Yet, he continues to consume 20,000 calories a day. He has received help before, but gained all the weight back soon afterwards. The taxpayer-funded cost for the NHS to treat him over the years totals £1 million. Living on benefits such as he obviously does, he costs the taxpayer a further £100,000 a year.
His mother had to remortgage the house just to pay his food bills and his sister bemoans, "I still love Paul, but what he does just breaks my heart."
Now Mr. Mason needs emergency surgery or he could die. Well, I hate to be this callous, but the phrase "too bad, so sad, never mind" seems appropriate in this case.
Mason is cursed with a serious illness. It's obvious that he's got an incredibly stubborn eating disorder, but he doesn't even have a redeeming personality or conscience to make up for it. He served time in prison for stealing cash from letters during his former job as a mailman. He slimmed down to 280 pounds during his stint in jail, but only because he had no choice but to eat a limited amount. As a free man, Mason cannot keep himself away from fast food, candies, chips and other junk.
His sister alleges that Mason didn't want help from even his nearest-and-dearest. "I let him get away with it. He has suffered from depression and I know I should have been a lot more supportive as a sister," said Mrs. Mason. "But there is only a certain amount you can give someone if they don't help themselves. He didn't want our help."
And there you have it. You cannot help people who won't help themselves. Therefore, Paul Mason must accept his fate. He has no right to demand a £20,000 stomach operation on the NHS when he has already cost the public health care system £1 million. He's had his chances and he's blown them.
Sorry, Paul, but your six-foot girth will land you six-foot under and you have no-one to blame for that but yourself.
Is there something about being fat that blinds people to reality? And how can they be content to live off society? A non-working Scottish couple, who weigh a combined 666 pounds, had all seven of their children taken into custody over concerns about their weights. It's one thing to breed like rabbits when you're on welfare, but for all seven of your offspring to be on the hefty side really takes the cake, if you'll forgive the pun.
The 40-year-old proud mom offered up her heartfelt defense. "All I hear from the two lassies is 'can we come home?' and I tell them 'soon, darlings'. It hurts. I will take my kids to the obesity clinic and help them get the help that they need. I want the best for my kids. That's the kind of mother I am."
Errr, forgive me for asking, but if that's the kind of mother you are, why were your kids taken into care? The local authority in Dundee disagrees, justifying the move with their own riposte. "[T]he welfare and safety of a child or children is the over-riding priority and in some cases, despite the strenuous efforts of the agencies providing this support, the best option is for them to be looked after away from their home." I agree with the council. We don't need seven future overweight shirkers.
This sort of thing is what scares me most about Obama-care. No strangers to those with planet-sized rear ends themselves, Americans will be footing a bill as large as the fat of the land itself to take care of them. Unless, of course, we adopt L.A. Times columnist Melissa Healy's idea to make fatties pay for a public health care system. It's not a bad idea. Sure, it reeks of the ol' liberal stalwart of throwing money at the problem, but it will raise funds and it will make others think twice about what they eat; they just might realize that there was indeed life before trans-fats. The only problem is, of course, the goverment-funded doctor-crats will take this ball and run with it. You daren't step into a health care professional's office without a BMI chart being waved in your face. I can see the two sides of that issue.
But one thing is for certain: Until people rediscover common sense and start taking back responsibility for themselves and their own lives, we will continue to deal with the Paul Masons of the world and the subsequent creaking and groaning of the public services infrastructure that they cause.

Boris' attack on the bankers—now that beggars belief

2009-10-22T10:39:00.002+01:00

Can anyone figure out Boris Johnson for me? As recently as two weeks ago, the Mayor of London jumped to the City's defense, calling bankers a "vital part" of the UK's economic recovery. No argument there. We are financially healthy when the bankers and stockbrokers do a robust job.
"[N]ever forget, all you would-be banker bashers, that the leper colony in the City of London produces 9% of UK GDP, 13% of value added and taxes that pay for roads and schools and hospitals across this country," Johnson told the audience at the Conservative Party conference on October 5.
Around this time last year, during the thick of the recession, Boris asked Londoners to stop their "neo-socialist whingeing about City bankers." Sounding the same line as with the Tory conference, Johnson beseeched, "Before you attack the bankers of London, remember that this is one of the few global industries in which we truly excel; the City contributes about nine per cent of Britain's GDP."
So what to make of his recent column, "The Barefaced Greed of Bankers and Their Bonuses Beggars Belief," one must wonder?
This is one scurrilous attack on City culture from the man who took such pains and risked such unpopularity to defend it. Referring to bankers as "a type of cockroach," Johnson opines that, "their interests, and the interests of the community, have been intertwined by the fact of state intervention, and they need to show they understand that."
This is very true as well. Bankers showed off, gambled with leverage they didn't have, and played Russian roulette with the money, not caring if they lost the gamble as the taxpayer would bail them out. And yet they have shown that they've learned nothing and are happy to accept their lavish bonus packages for failing.
In my opinion, bankers need to show humility and forego the huge bonuses for at least a year and demonstrate that they're rediscovering the A-game necessary to help bring us out of recession. Instead, they are treating themselves with our money—and even the banks that didn't fail and remain in private hands are still playing fast and loose with the profits.
I praise Johnson's latest column, but hope that he's truly seen the light as opposed to simply jumping on the bandwagon.

Yea for me: I'm a world traveler!

2009-10-21T09:44:00.005+01:00

Make yours @ BigHugeLabs.com

Until recently, whenever I've told family and friends about our travels, they've tended to reply, "Wow, you guys [me and the wife] are world travelers!"
And I would think that while it certainly seemed that way, hopping across Europe and seeing other cities and states in my own country hardly qualified as world traveling. I felt that I would have needed to step foot in at least three continents before I could claim that much.
As you can see here, I've only been to 10 U.S. states, and six of those are in New England itself:

Make yours @ BigHugeLabs.com

I've not been west of Illinois. I've not graced the Caribbean with my presence. I've never been to Canada (and wouldn't go these days due to their brutal, indefensible seal cull). There's too much of my native North America that I haven't seen and experienced.
Now then, I'm quite the European traveler. Comparitively speaking, I'm much more experienced with my ancestors' continent that I am with my own:

Make yours @ BigHugeLabs.com

Well, I think I can live with the title of "world traveler" a bit easier now as a result of our trip to Marrakech earlier this month. For those of you with a shaky concept of geography—I realize that I've got American readers of this blog—Marrakech is in Morocco, and Morocco is in Africa. True, it's North Africa with Europe staring down at it from across the Mediterranean. But what the heck—it is Africa.
See for yourself:

Make yours @ BigHugeLabs.com

It's another world down there, folks. Marrakech looks much like France will come the year 2050—full of jibbering adherents of that ultra-peaceful religion known as Islam. They put barbary monkeys on your shoulders and then charge you $83 for the pleasure. The men stare passionately at male runners wearing shorts (if not for their Allah-sanctioned self-control, they'd have been drooling and chasing after me). You cannot cross a street there without risking your life. Oh, it was an adventure. Any place that can make me feel like a swashbuckler for just crossing a main road and running three miles around the hotel's neighborhood earns the caveat, "watch your back and hold on to your goolies. And beat the crap out of anyone approaching you with a monkey."
Marrakech makes being in the company of drunks who hop up and down the beach like kangaroos seem almost normal—not that I've been to Australia (yet), but one hears rumors ...

Getting in Obama's way: Might that not be a good thing?

2009-09-08T09:47:00.002+01:00

Van Jones has just proven that the Obama administration doesn't really want a Green world. They want a surreal one.

Previously published by Blogcritics

Further proof, if any were honestly required, that we cannot trust Green people to not have Red agendas—and that Mr. Obama does indeed associate with human weasels.
Having previously endorsed a 9/11 conspiracy theory accusing the Bush administration of playing a role in the terrorist attack, and making disparaging comments about Republicans in general, environmental adviser Van Jones "understood he was going to get in the way" of Obama's agenda and resigned via e-mail. Not before decrying the "vicious smear campaign" against him, of course.
He issued a weak mea culpa to Republicans: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize." But those nasty sons-of-bitches still demanded that he resign. Oh, the injustice.
Jones worked in the White House Council on Environmental Quality and was one of Obama's officials in charge of his made-up jobs for tree-huggers project. He is your typical acerbic, angry and downright mean-spirited Leftie, desiring a better world for all while poking anyone who dares to disagree with him in the eyes.
It's a shame that the president opposes gay marriage because the good reverend Jeremiah Wright and Jones are a match made in ... well, certainly and most determinedly not heaven. A match made with Gaia's blessing, shall we say?
Regular readers of this blog will know that I tend to side with liberals on environmental issues myself, insofar as I don't agree with the clear-cutting, development-crazy mindset of some avidly pro-business conservatives.
But I honestly have to wonder what these enviro-types are up to when they oppose the construction of incinerators. Technological advances have made them cleaner and more efficient, we can get "clean" energy from them, and we cannot recycle everything, nor can we force people to recycle if they won't. It is a real solution to a solid-waste problem. And yet most of these Earth worshippers oppose them. I can't figure that one out.
And then their eagerness to "dance on capitalism's grave" during G20 protests and embrace Sept. 11 conspiracy theories: More not-so-lovely examples of polluted minds. Clean up your own heads first, folks, before you try to clean up the planet.
What's so troublesome about all this is that environmentalists are very influential, most of them being part of the Left-wing cabal, such as they are, that sets the trend for so many easily-influenced minds as well as government agendas. For instance, if you're so grateful to someone for their environmental activism, then might you not start listening to their warped views on 9/11 or how all Republicans want to sacrifice children or any other nonsense they may spew and taking it seriously?
I'm grateful to environmentalists myself, as long as they stick to serious environmental issues as opposed to simply saying, "The world's getting hotter! Carbon's building up out of control! And it's all the GOP's fault!" I'm not looking for political rants from these people. I want them to do what they've pledged to do: to find sound environmental solutions that don't seek to destroy the capitalist ethic. I do not expect them to engage in proselytizing for the lunatic brigade. Honestly, if they're a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, I don't think they're to be trusted to play the organ at a ballgame, never mind help set national policy.
Meanwhile, Obama will whitewash the whole Jones incident in his usual I-see-no-need-to-discuss-this style, just as he did with Wright and just as he did with the Islamic terror threat during his love-in tour of the Muslim world.
Yep, it's a crazy world out there. The Jones controversy proves that our president does his damndest to make it just that bit more surreal.

An American health-care skeptic defends the NHS

2009-09-06T19:11:00.002+01:00

Although the NHS might not be the role model Americans are looking for, the government-run British health-care system is not evil.

Previously published by Blogcritics

With the health care debate raging in the U.S. currently, the spotlight has been thrown on Britain's National Health Service, NHS for short. Americans are worried that they, should President Obama manage to pass his health care bill in Congress, will be strapped with an inefficient government system that alone will determine how they are looked after.
Inefficient the NHS might indeed be—and this is because not only does it have to care for the needs of 61 million people, but those of illegal immigrants as well. There have also been horrifying examples of neglect, such as at an NHS hospital in Stafford, where up to 1,200 people died from neglect. The NHS also likes to dictate who receives what treatment and when due to cost-cutting.
But the NHS, despite its struggles, does the best that it can, burdened such as it is. And it is not, in the words of that renowned Rhodes scholar Sarah Palin, "evil."
There was a time, during my early years in England, when I scoffed at the NHS. Nothing was guaranteed to make my blood boil more fiercely than Brits who couldn't seem to understand why we Americans won't endorse any form of socialism. I had long arguments with my wife over why the NHS was a waste of money and resources as well as, due to the aforementioned socialist nature of it, immoral.
But then, when I was in need myself, my view toward the NHS ameliorated somewhat. When you are in such pain that you cannot think straight, views are bound to change a little.
In May 2005, I had a serious kidney stone attack and I was in such bad shape that I required an ambulance to take me to the hospital. I was assessed at one hospital, had x-rays and blood taken, and then transferred across London to another hospital with a urology department so that I could be given specialist treatment. I was in this hospital—Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital near London Bridge—for four days. At no point was I uncomfortable, at no point did I think I deserved better. The paramedics, the doctors, the nurses, the consultants: they were all wonderful.
You'll understand my feelings here, dear reader. If I bash the NHS, I bash these people who looked after me when I was in agony. I can't do that.
Over the years, I have come to appreciate being able to see the doctor without filling out cumbersome forms. I won't say it costs nothing, because that's not true. But I have already paid for it through taxes. The tax rate in Britain has consistently been around 23 percent. That is not unreasonable (even if I say that as a 17% flat tax supporter). The majority of Americans pay the same rate, and they don't have a government health care system.
Sure, the NHS is a bureaucracy and in these lean times, and with more and more people living in Britain, it has shown signs of incompetence. But private health care exists in Britain, for those that demand it, and even that is considerably cheaper than American health care. Unlike Canada, Britain does not demand that everyone use their government-provided health care. The NHS is there for those who cannot afford private health care.
Britain, in my opinion, needs to get serious about trimming welfare rolls, stop doling out cash for every baby born (let people pay for their own children), and strike all but emergency care for illegals. There is plenty of waste to be tackled and any money that is freed up can better assist the NHS.
In the U.S., the situation is different. There are 300 million people to look after. If $10 billion of taxpayers' money is to be invested every year over five years to move American health care toward a standards-based care system that exludes no-one, it's bound to be tricky—and it's no wonder that it's scaring the pants off Americans. From the July 27 issue of The Weekly Standard, Fraser Nelson & Irwin Stelzer report that "patients suffering from diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and other chronic conditions will do it the Obama-Biden way or else be excluded from insurance coverage." Canada all over again.
Americans are in no mood to experiment. They do not like their current health care system, but they fear what they might get—or not, as the case may be—with government-regulated health care. According to Stryker McGuire's report in the August 15 edition of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, "[A] solid majority (62 percent versus 32 percent) is in favor of giving Americans the option of a government insurance plan. But that's all they agree on ... By a 55 to 35 percent margin, they're more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than that Congress will not act to overhaul the health care system. By a similar margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds 'significantly' to the deficit, and by a much wider margin (72-21 percent), voters do not believe that Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health-care system without adding to the deficit."
You could write a book—in fact, many have been written—on the inequities, inadequacies, irregularities and idiosyncracies of health care. I obviously do not intend to do that. In fact, my knowledge of the intracacies of health care is hardly in-depth. I know what everyone else does: that drug companies have too much say, insurance company lobbyists are too influential, malpractice lawsuits are a constant worry, and the obesity-producing lifestyle habits of the nation are hardly conducive to a cheap and easy delivery of health care.
But I do not blame my fellow Americans for protesting government health care; in fact, I'm proud of them for it. We are all heirs to Thomas Jefferson's limited-government mindset. His legacy is something we are right to defend so robustly. (One wonders that if Hamilton had won the day, would Americans still be agonizing over health care in 2009?) It is certainly preferable to letting the government control every aspect of our lives as they are wont to do in Europe, where nearly everyone believes that the state will look after them and they'll all live happily ever after as a result. Americans don't believe that rubbish, and more power to them. As Jefferson said himself, a government that big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.
But the point is, despite all that is wrong with government-run health care, the immorality of socialism, the inadequacy of insurance options, what have you, Britain's NHS is not evil.

The results what the kids got was brilliant: Yea for edjumacation

2009-09-04T10:58:00.008+01:00

You will know from this entry, dear reader, that I take the correct usage of the English language seriously. Well, as correctly as you are capable of. I don't always use it properly in speech or writing myself. I, too, make mistakes. But, at the ripe old age of 39, it doesn't take much imagination on my part to confidently state that I am better at using English than 95 percent of the current crop of high school graduates (or "school leavers" as they are bluntly known here in Britain). And it annoys me.
The latest shining examples of our future recently received their exam marks. Just as with the past few years, the results were apparently tremendous. Listening to all the social commentators on TV or in the newspapers, you'd think every baby-faced young adult now trying to enter the job market was a budding Einstein.
However, people above the age of 35 contend that the exams are too easy. I don't think there can be much doubt about that. Is a yout' of today really as intelligent as a graduate from fifty, forty or even thirty years ago? If these kids are so bright, how come they possess a nearly total inability to express themselves coherently in writing? They have no idea of punctuation, cannot use "big" words, struggle with verb conjugation, and the role of the apostrophe is a foreign concept. It's one thing to not "get" math or another science, but proper language is fundamental to our society, our culture, ourselves.
Of course, criticizing the little darlings comes with risk, as I found out courtesy of the following diatribe which a particular young person—who is very much aware of my stance—sent me via e-mail. I beg you to remember that fact: an e-mail, not a text message. Now then, for your reading pleasure, I submit the following evidence to you, verbatim, in doubled font size:

OY, pal, I think its really bad that you poke fun of our exam results ... they were specktacular acros the bord why you got to hate on us ... the results wot me and my mate's got were brilliant ... the problem with u peeple is u think we all on drugs ... oh we no good. dont you beleeve it. Was u not a teenager onse ... your a wanker.

Got to hand it to him, folks. He's got a brilliant career as a social worker ahead of him. Or a politician, only that would require him to spell "Parliament" correctly as well as signing his name.
Or, for a really promising career choice, how about a teacher? (No offense, Eden or Goddess!) I recall this little gem, for instance. Furthermore, considering the latest news report about teachers who are demanding the right to get drunk, I think it's sufficiently evident where the decline of our beloved mother tongue is originating.

Kennedy, Kopechne and karma ...

2009-08-27T09:41:00.002+01:00

As controversial as he was—the drowning at Chappaquiddick, support for the I.R.A.—the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy gives me pause for thought.
If I admire anything about Ted Kennedy, it's that he continued to fight for what he took seriously—even if the rest of the nation didn't—despite not being very well for several years. He still went to work and fought for the mandate that his fawning "Massholes" gave him. He was almost tireless when he should have been constantly falling over from exhaustion.
I'm also glad that he's no longer in any pain. A brain tumor is rough (my wife witnessed her father suffering from one) and I feel a tad guilty for mocking his alcoholism with my entry the other day ("Kennedy's Been Hitting the Bottle ...") It was, I admit, an inopportune time to pick on the man.
Nonetheless, you can't help but feel karma at work here. Drowning is also a rough, and very scary, way to die. Given that he did not die painlessly of old age in his sleep, dying from cancer was Kennedy's comeuppance.
Justice, at long last, for Mary Jo Kopechne.

Kennedy's been hitting the bottle, but what's Kerry's excuse?

2009-08-25T10:51:00.002+01:00

Scotland's release of Abdul al-Megrahi from his prison sentence is indeed a mistake as well as an outrage. But do Sens. Kennedy and Kerry really feel our pain?

Previously published by Blogcritics

Imagine a letter that berates a foreign government—a U.S. ally—for releasing a terrorist from his prison sentence on compassionate grounds. This letter decries the terrible impact the terrorist's act had on Americans, terming it a "heinous crime," asks the government in question to "oppose acts of terrorism," and respectfully demands that there be "no deviation this [the terrorist's] sentence."
It is not hard to imagine this letter because it really exists. What is considerably more difficult to imagine is that such a strong statement was put forth by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, also signed by Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy, and sharing its sense of consternation with the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill went ahead with the decision to release Pan Am flight 103 bomber Abdul al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, given that al-Megrahi is terminally ill from prostate cancer. The British Government claims it had no say in the releasing of al-Megrahi, stating that it was purely a Scottish affair, though time will tell if Downing Street did have any impact on the decision, as furious MPs who opposed Megrahi's release are demanding an inquiry.
The Americans are also outraged at Scotland for releasing al-Megrahi from his prison sentence, and rightly so. Why should we show compassion toward Megrahi? If the Scots jailed bin Laden, would they also release him on "compassionate" grounds should he fall terminally ill? Whose compassion are we more concerned about, Megrahi's or that of his victims? As with so many other instances in today's society, it's the criminal that is treated fairly; the victims just get walked over.
Nonetheless, it was heartening to see Obama declaring al-Megrahi's release "a mistake"—though "an outrage" or "a slap in every American's face" would have been much more appropriate—and Mrs. Clinton urging MacAskill to not release the Libyan.
It was even more pleasantly incredulous to witness Sens. Kennedy and Kerry getting so worked up over al-Megrahi's release and what that means to the families of his victims. John Kerry, in a moment of absolute brilliance and clear-headedness, even went so far as to declare, "Megrahi showed no compassion to the innocent passengers and Scottish villagers he murdered; he should not receive our compassion now." I can't help but think, if only they'd stick up for America on a much more consistent basis, they might actually be considered patriots.
I'm inclined to think that Kennedy may have been hitting the bottle so hard lately that he's forgotten where he stands, but I wonder what Kerry's excuse is?

Nightdragon, the building-spotter

2009-08-17T15:55:00.003+01:00

I like to think of myself as, if not exactly a tough guy, then something somewhat approaching it. However, I now realize an uncomfortable truth about me. I'm a geek.
I've become a bit obsessed about the building I work in. It's a hunk of garbage with a brick exterior that should have been condemned at least ten years ago. But that's what makes me so curious about it.
The company I work for is the only business left in that building, occupying one half of the second floor. As for the ground floor, the first floor, the third floor and the other half of the second floor—they are all empty. On my breaktimes, I used to wander around all the empty office rooms and even a disused cafeteria before I started getting the creeps about it. Now I enjoy standing in the parking lot, looking up at all the empty rooms from the outside, and trying to spot phantoms.
It is, of course, typical of the company I work for that we'd be housed in this creaky edifice, which looks like a prison or an austere schoolbuilding from most angles, right up until its demise. It is scheduled to be imploded in September 2010, to make way for a hotel. The freeholders (the building's owners) actually put a FOR LEASE sign up at the front, though I can't imagine any business being so desperate for space that they'd consider this building, with its capricious-minded elevators, stained carpets and flickery lighting, for the next thirteen months. Indeed, only me and my co-workers have that particular joy.
The building was built in 1953 and used to house the British social security offices. They had the sense to move away five years ago. The environmental agency offices on the first floor followed suit soon after. The travel training agency on the other side of the second floor moved house last year and the business on the third floor moved out just a few months ago. Now we are truly alone. As I say, it's a bit creepy around there now.
But I still can't help but wonder: Who occupied our space on the second floor before our company moved there in 1996? What did the building look like in its heyday, when it was a place you actually didn't wrinkle your nose up at the thought of going to every weekday? I find it incredible that there's an actual cafeteria on the third floor. The thought that at one time dinner-ladies worked there cracks me up; it's so unbelieveable given how forlorn the building is these days.
It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking of asking the security dude (he's only there because of us) if he knows of any old pictures I could look at and any history of the building I could read about. Why do I even have the slightest interest in any of it? I truly don't know, and that's the sad part.
I guess it's because I'm desperate to know if this building ever looked nice. Or I'm just a geek. You've heard of trainspotters? Maybe I'm a building-spotter.

POSTSCRIPT: I direct you, dear reader, to this particular entry (click on the purple words) for further evidence of my buidling-spotter credentials!

Fashion freedom flows in only one direction

2009-08-16T10:50:00.003+01:00

When a theme park banned "tight trunks" for men without placing similar restrictions on women, they re-inforced society's prejudice against the male form.

Previously published by Blogcritics

Recently, Alton Towers, a theme park here in England, banned swim briefs for men, declaring them in "bad taste" as they are a "family venue."
I need only, I hope, report that no such ban on bikinis for women applies to prove the point that what is good for the goose is absolutely not good for the gander.
We belly-ache over the subject of sexual equality. We talk of liberating women from the stringent dress codes of hard-line Islamic societies, which is all very well and certainly has my support. But we ignore the trend taking place in Western society, which in 50 years' time will expect all men to wear burlap sacking from neck to toes, lest the sight of a male elbow or ankle offend anyone's sensitivities.
I will never understand what it is about Speedos that gets some people so worked up. For all you women who say you don't like it, I submit the following scenario to you: You and your man are both sunbathing on the beach. You, of course, have the freedom to bare as much as you please while your male company is wearing baggy, flowery board shorts. Now comes night-time and you're looking forward to a bit of playing around. Your partner peels off his shorts to reveal the following: a tanned chest and abs, pasty white thighs and tanned calves. And you expect to say, with a straight face, that this turns you on? Please, ladies. Next you'll be telling me that all drinks should be spiked with GHB, and probably saying that with a straight face as well.
OK, I do realize that the bald, ugly, beer-bellied, chicken-legged contingent has given swim briefs a bad name. But why should fit, handsome men have to pay for their crime? There are some women out there who I believe should never wear skirts above the knees, because their legs are a horror show. Yet, you'd think me crazy to declare short skirts off-limits to good-looking, in-shape women simply because some pudgy-legged females dared to bare as well.
At my workplace, shorts recently became a banned item of clothing. Yet, men can wear 3/4 trousers. Have you ever seen a more ridiculous fashion item than 3/4 trousers? What's the point in wearing something that's not quite shorts but not quite pants either? And furthermore, does the management even realize where these 3/4 trousers originated? From that moronic "music" and "lifestyle" known as hip-hop. So, basically, our workplace is saying that a nice, crisp, respectable pair of khaki shorts, down to the knees, is not acceptable during the warm weather in our supposedly casual office, but some ridiculous claptrap from the "gold chains, no brains" world of rap is.
I remember when shorts down to the knees used to be considered conservative. Now men can't even show their whole calves anymore.
Who defends this sort of ridiculous fashion? It seems no matter how baggy and how long summer gear for men gets, there's always plenty of people who will defend it and declare it sexy. I don't know: I'm guessing society is just mad about ugly clothes on guys. It's the only explanation.
Why can't we simply admit that, as a society, we are severely prejudiced against the male form? That would at least be a laudable dose of refreshing honesty for once.
On the bright side, when I was at Discovery Cove, the specialist park set up by Sea World in Orlando, I saw a Latino guy wearing Speedos. This is a family-friendly destination as well, yet no-one told him he couldn't wear his briefs. He was the only one there wearing them, albeit—I'd opted for the wetsuit—but no-one was telling him off for his preferred swimgear. Furthermore, a survey conducted by the Metro newspaper found that while 58 percent agreed with Alton Towers' Speedos ban, 42 percent said they were in the wrong. Forty-two percent may be a minority, but it's a large one.
So, fuck you, Alton Towers. Your "bad taste" logic works both ways. You ban fashion freedom for men, I'll ban you from ever receiving any money that I earn.

Want some moobs with your ice cream, girls?

2009-08-15T18:23:00.006+01:00

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Time for a foray into the ridiculous.
A recent survey conducted here in Britain found that women prefer men with beer bellies, body odor and rough body hair to "well groomed metrosexuals."
This survey was conducted by Lion Bar Ice Cream. Now then, if a confectioner's survey on what turns women on can really be trusted, then I certainly wouldn't be interested in abiding by it. So women prefer slobs? They're welcome to them.
Honestly, this survey was biased from the start. Look at the choices here: fat, out-of-shape oiks with rough body hair or preening, fashion-conscious twinks.
No in-betweens? What about men with smooth, silky, plush body hair as opposed to living Brillo pads? What about men who like a beer or two but don't let it go to their bellies? What about men who dab on a splash of cologne but don't care for man-scara or guy-liner? Seems those type of men don't exist, according to this survey. You're either a girly man or a fat slob.
But this is the world according to Lion Bar. Are we really all that surprised?
More ice cream, ladies?

Today's lesson: Obama = Human

2009-07-16T11:43:00.002+01:00

Earlier this morning, my eyes feasted upon an editorial cartoon that (finally) made Obama out to be less than a Messiah.
The Daily Telegraph published a cartoon which showed Obama sitting on a rocking horse which is speeding downhill. Gordon Brown is sitting on the horse, behind Obama. They are surrounded by rocky hills and approaching a sign pointing the way to "AFGHANISTAN, WAZIRISTAN, PAKISTAN." They are both wearing newspaper hats and clutching wooden kiddie swords. And Brown is saying to the Prez, "Did you think I would leave you crying when there's room on my horse for two?"
I don't agree with the Afghanistan war-slamming stance of the cartoon itself, and I'm a bit mystified as to why the right-wing Telegraph published it. The paper is far from anti-war.
But what jumped at me—actually, make that what pummeled me in the face—was seeing Obama taking heat. Because he is solidly committed to the effort in Afghanistan (so far), Obama is slowly but surely becoming a bull's-eye for the "peace and love" crowd—or paleo-conservatives who love to cry "nation-building!"
Golly, does this mean that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is ... a human being, a mere mortal of a man? Perish the thought. What will the tye-dyed, dreadlocked crowd make of that?

All that I need to know about being Irish, I learned from a T-shirt

2009-07-02T21:06:00.004+01:00

BOSTON, U.S.A.— It was with a mixture of amusement and disbelief that I saw the following shirt in a storefront in Harvard Square: It was green and it showed three young men slouched in various positions, unconscious from having drunk too much. Then, in capital letters above the men, the shirt announced "IRISH YOGA."
When I told my sister about my vision of wearing that shirt at work while sitting across from my Irish colleague, she replied, "You should!"
"Oh, I'd get in trouble for that," I said. Let's face it, the Irish aren't exactly known for their ability to laugh at themselves—Father Ted notwithstanding.
But then again, it seems incredible to see that shirt on display in the Boston area, with its heavy Irish Catholic population, of which I'm part myself. Who could have come up with the idea and production of such a shirt but Irish-Americans themselves?
I think it's wonderful that we can have a sense of humor. The Irish themselves may despair of "plastic paddies," but that's mostly a result of our penchant for singing drinking songs we don't fully understand, crying in our green beers, and—to our eternal shame—donating to the IRA. In other words, for taking ourselves far too seriously. But if McAmericans can look at themselves through the lens of sarcastic humor, the whole of Ireland might just respond, "Now that's more like it!"
That maxim applies no matter who you are. For instance, I have a friend who's second-generation Italian and he's constantly using the adjectives "guinea" and "eyetie." He doesn't mean it, of course, but that's just his way of saying "screw you" to the sort of people who would demand that he see himself more as Italian than American. He knows better than that and I admire him for it.
We Irish-Americans need to place more emphasis on our American heritage too. Sure, our blood runs thick with Celtic genes. But let us never forget why we were born here and why we speak with the accents that we do.
And long live the humor with which we finally seem able to view ourselves.

One dead, many spared?

2009-06-04T09:15:00.003+01:00

Previously published on Blogcritics.

All right, I'll be the first to admit that I find anyone who is both a church-goer and a doctor who's willing to perform late-term abortions to have a very strange relationship with his conscience. I do not, however, think that he should be killed. I am anti-abortion myself, but I do not subscribe to the militant pro-life hypothesis that one life killed is many spared.
George Tiller was no angel given the slaughter he engaged in. I understand that the very thought of his work is truly cringeworthy—and I certainly don't comprehend how you could have a relationship with God while tearing a person apart in the womb. It is positively grotesque.
But George Tiller needed to answer to God for that. As long as late-term abortions remain legal, he could not be tried for murder. But for Pete's sake, take it up with your Congressman; no matter how disgusted you may be by Tiller's profession, you are not the jury, judge and executioner in his case.
The far-Christian Right whackjob that shot him was clearly in that frame of mind, and he is far from alone. These people do honestly frighten me. If they had their way, we'd be living in a theological state no different from that of Saudi Arabia or Iran. (Only, our God would be better than their God, and we know that to be true because we said so!) Pardon the pun, but God help us.
(If me having said that, in light of yesterday's entry endorsing the Christian Party, seems strange to you, just know that I consider there to be a great deal of difference between Christian values versus Christian fundamentalism. I revere the former; I despise the latter.)
Ask yourself if you feel sympathy for animal rights campaigners who kill researchers and bomb their laboratories. No? They're insane, and they're terrorists, you say? If I am disgusted and disheartened by vivisection (which I am), you're saying that I must work within the law to express my outrage?
Well, I agree, but tell me why, exactly, is that not also true in the case of abortion clinics and the doctors who work there?
The fact remains, Tiller was a person already out in the world, someone whose life was still technically sacred. How can anyone say that he would not repent for his crimes later in life? You cannot kill to prevent killings, except in war. And honestly, folks, is that what this whole putrid abortion debate comes down to?
At a Wichita memorial service in memory of the late doctor, one mourner's sign read: "Tiller's Killer Is A Terrorist Hypocrite Coward." I whole-heartedly agree.