Mind Trumpet

Occupy in the sky.....

2011-10-17T21:15:00.000+01:00

We are onto day three of ~~Occupy London Stock Exchange~~ Occupy Some Space Near St. Paul's Cathedral. It's a shame because until the end of last year I worked right next to Paternoster Square and I feel like I'm missing out on all the excitement. Now, I can only read about it on news sites or Twitter, or get information from people I know who still work in the area.

While I genuinely admire the spirit of people who are prepared to sacrifice the comforts of home life to live in a tent pitched on concrete, next to a cathedral whose bells ring every fifteen minutes, it's impossible not to point out the utter silliness being spouted by some of the collective. It's very easy for me to make glib comments but then, when people are putting up stupid signs like this, they really are asking for it:

Let's be clear here: protesting about the iniquity of western capitalism is not on a par with the Arab Spring. It just isn't. To compare yourself to the people of Tahrir Square, who were standing up to a military dictatorship for basic political freedoms, is just insulting.

Or there's this one. I love this one.

Courtesy of - who else? - the Socialist Worker. "JOBS, HOMES & SERVICES NOT RACISM". Sorry, I had no idea that this was the choice we were facing. So let me make sure I understand: we are presented with a choice of, on one hand, jobs, homes & services or, on the other, racism? Well, if you put it like that I'll have to go with the former. Can't abide racism. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

But ooh, ooh, we now have a manifesto of sorts from the Occupy London movement. Nine points in total. Shall we have a look at them? I've added a few thoughts of my own in italics.

#OccupyLSX initial statement

At today’s assembly of over 500 people on the steps of St Paul’s, #occupylsx collectively agreed the initial statement below. Please note, like all forms of direct democracy, the statement will always be a work in progress.

1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them. One of the nicest features of a democracy is the right to gather and make statements like this. Which, neatly, disproves your point about the current system being undemocratic. Funny eh? But yes, you mentioned alternatives and working towards them. OK, we're all ears. Hello? Are you still there?

2 We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world. OK. Get to the point.

3 We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis. Which brings us back to alternatives. The alternative was wholesale collapse of the banking system with nothing else in place. This is why the banks were bailed out - an unpopular measure was taken because the other option was even worse. So now what?

4 We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people. I'll give you this one. No major objections. Although not sure I buy the line about government only representing corporations. But we'll move on.

5 We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate. No argument from me here. That would be a good thing. But what regulators and what industries are you talking about?

6 We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing. As is your democratic right. See point 1.

7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich. I can't object to this per se. That would be a good thing. So - what's the plan?

8 We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression. Hmmm. Bit vague this one. Which actions of our government? We were quite instrumental recently in supporting the Libyan uprising, for example. The Libyan people were quite oppressed and we helped them. Is it possible that sometimes, just sometimes, we are not the bad guys?

9 This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us! You're right. This is what democracy looks like! You have every right to do this, it's enshrined in law. Hell, even the canon chancellor of St. Paul's has given you his blessing to be there. There is absolutely zero chance of David Cameron sending in the tanks to crush your camp and shoot your ringleaders. Which is why any attempt to claim "solidarity" with the uprisings in the Middle East is so utterly fatuous.

So overall, I'll give you two, maybe three, of your nine points. Not bad.

The occupiers say they are there for the long haul. The temperature is meant to drop considerably towards the end of the week. The people gathered are still no nearer to their stated objective of occupying the stock exchange, but are still sticking it out. This is going to get very interesting....

Call out the instigators, because there's something in the air....

2011-10-15T14:00:00.001+01:00

Are you ready for the revolution? Because it's happening. It's happening today! Can you smell it in the air? Can you feel it in the wind?

No, me neither.

However, a group is currently gathering in Paternoster Square in the City of London with the stated intention of kicking.... something off. The organisers of Occupy London Stock Exchange (#OccupyLSX), inspired by the ongoing Occupy Wall Street campaign in New York, are planning to, well, occupy the London Stock Exchange and, erm, I think that's about the extent of their planning.

Just a couple of problems with this. Firstly, it's a Saturday so the stock exchange will be closed. Even rapacious capital markets stop for the weekend to allow bankers to gather their thoughts before continuing their pernicious campaign to hold us all in financial slavery again on Monday morning. Secondly, the London Stock Exchange doesn't really perform the function that I suspect a lot of these demonstrators think it does. It's an administrative headquarters so, while it no doubt has symbolic value and is certainly the centralised hub of all London share trading, 'occupying' it wouldn't really be very disruptive given that all trading is screen-based and takes place inside the premises of the individual banks and brokers. Perhaps the organisers are expecting to see hundreds of traders, wearing jackets, waving bits of paper and shouting at each other. And they would see this, if they were also able to invent a time machine and visit the old stock exchange prior to October 1986, when the 'Big Bang' ended open-cry equity trading in London.

There is also the problem that Paternoster Square is privately owned and entirely paved. So good luck getting settled and even better luck creating a campsite. I'm not sure how many people are turning out today but they are likely to be greeted (and possibly outnumbered) by bemused tourists visiting St. Paul's Cathedral. Still, there is a Sainsbury's next door, plus a Pret a Manger and Starbucks, etc. I'm sure they'll appreciate the extra weekend revenue.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the sentiment behind this gathering. I can fully appreciate why people are angry with the banks, the state of the economy, the scarcity of jobs, the imminent cuts in public spending, the fragility of the entire economic system in fact. But as is so often the case in such demonstrations, beyond the intended (and childish) stunt of occupying the London Stock Exchange, there is barely any coherence in their stated aims, targets or - crucially - any viable alternative proposed. The extent of the argument seems to be: the banks were bailed out, 'bankers' still pay themselves obscene bonuses, normal people are suffering so.... we'll gather here for a bit and maybe Billy Bragg (or, even worse, Penny Red) will say a few words and then, oh, let's see what happens.

The near-collapse of the banking system and the subsequent economic fallout was largely caused by reckless lending on the back of an unsustainable property boom, predominantly in the United States and particularly in the sub-prime market. These mortgages were then repackaged into complex financial instruments and sold all around the world, ensuring that when the property bubble burst, the contagion was spread all over the globe. Attempting to occupy the London Stock Exchange in retaliation does not even make symbolic sense as none of these products would have gone anywhere near it. But hey, it's a financial centre and representative of capitalism and stuff so it'll have to do.

It's this lack of attention to detail, lack of understanding and lack of anything approaching a workable solution that makes this event so utterly futile. If you want further proof of this, have a read of the accompanying 'manifesto' of the wider global movement which conflates first world anger about the recession with the democracy struggles raging in the Middle East.

If there's going to be a revolution, these are the last people on earth that should be leading it.

Why I love Twitter

2011-07-23T12:13:00.004+01:00

I first learned of the horrific events in Norway yesterday not through traditional media channels but, as is so often the case nowadays, Twitter. I immediately went to the BBC and then The Guardian websites for additional information but, finding only a placeholder news story with minimal information, returned to the social networking site where I was able to immediately find first hand accounts of what had occurred and immediate reaction from a variety of different people. Twitter has changed, and continues to change, the means of people being able to distribute news and opinion. Old media simply cannot compete and this is why I love Twitter.

At first I was sceptical of the medium. I didn’t understand the appeal of something that restricted you to just 140 characters (including spaces). How limiting, how frustrating, I thought. But in many ways this is actually quite liberating. You soon become adept at distilling your thoughts, Haiku-style, into concise and neat little packages. Even better, you do, over time, link up with other like-minded people and you soon find you have a nice little (virtual) community to interact with and share interesting things. Unlike, say, Facebook, where you generally connect with people that you know in real life yet it somehow manages to be excruciatingly dull. It has been said that Twitter connects you to people that you don’t really know but should, while Facebook keeps you in contact with people that you do really know but perhaps shouldn’t.

As ever, there are tedious naysayers who dismiss the entire thing. Here’s Rod Liddle being typically contemptuous of something he clearly does not understand. Or John Humphrys, another curmudgeon who simply does not get it. You’d think, as journalists, they’d be able to easily grasp the potential of such a powerful and simple tool to disseminate ideas and opinions, but no, they join in with the rest of the clueless who think it’s just a load of people saying what they had for breakfast. Well, I dare say a lot of people do use it in this way - I wouldn’t know as I only follow people who interest or intrigue me (or, occasionally, I follow people for sheer curiosity value - there are some bizarre people out there). Accusing Twitter of being a platform for banality is pointless. Banality exists wherever groups of people might assemble: the trick, as with any social gathering, is to weed out the boring, stupid and ignorant and seek out the clever, witty and interesting. It may take a while to find them at first, but they are out there.

By the way, should you be wondering, I had Eggs Royale for breakfast.

The revolting tentacles of News International

2011-07-08T23:13:00.006+01:00

My, but how the plot thickens. Today it was Dave Cameron's turn to get a sound kicking: in this case at the Number 10 press conference where he desperately tried to put some clear blue water between himself and News International. Easier said than done, of course, given that he recruited Andy Coulson as his communications director even though he must have known that there could be some rather fishy baggage coming along for the ride. Clearly this was the risk he was prepared to take, so keen was he to have someone who could feel the pulse of the British public. Or so Cameron figured, anyway. I don't know why a former entertainment reporter for the Sun and, later, editor of the News of the World would automatically be the best man for the job. I suppose he wanted his own Alastair Campbell. Campbell had a tabloid background, too, of course, but he was at least a political reporter and editor in his day, as opposed to Coulson who was little more than a stalker of third rate celebrities and a peddler of prurient tittle-tattle.

Coulson was, as predicted, arrested today and later released on bail. Rebekah Brooks will no longer be heading the internal investigation at News International, but is still, somehow, holding onto a job. Her position is now nothing short of farcical. Even Cameron, at his press conference today, said that he "would have accepted" her resignation. It can only be a matter of time.

Brooks met with the dumped NotW journalists this afternoon and seemed to suggest that the real reasons for closing the paper would be clearer in a year's time. Christ knows what this means. "Who is she? The fucking Riddler? asked Charlie Brooker on Twitter. If she is The Riddler, then that must make The Guardian Batman because, through their constant refusal to let this story die, they have delivered News International an almighty kick in the throat.

And hooray for that. I'm not vehemently anti-News International: I subscribe to The Times and think it's an excellent newspaper; I have no beef with Sky TV, in fact it's a great product. But it is very clear that Murdoch's empire has too much concentration of media, too much power and has some revolting tentacles attached to the main body. They deserve everything they are being hit with. If this ushers in an era of politicians being less in thrall to Murdoch and his hideous tabloids then that is a long overdue development and can only be a good thing for democracy in this country.

Check before you spread News of the World

2011-07-07T23:33:00.000+01:00

Sooner or later I had to break my blogging hiatus: it was just a matter of waiting for a suitable jolt to come along. Something that I couldn't let pass without comment. Without doubt, the extraordinary events that have taken place concerning the News of the World, its parent company News International and the implications for the prime minister, the police and the entire news industry was that subject.

By now everyone knows the story, more or less. Tawdry Sunday tabloid allegedly employs all manner of devious and underhand methods to obtain information about celebrities: namely, phone hacking. On the whole, the nation shrugs. Then it transpires they are accused of employing the same methods in the case of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. Cue righteous and justifiable outrage. Then it gets worse: the family of the murdered Soham girls, 7/7 victims and their friends and families, relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were all targeted too. There seemed to be no end to the depths of the paper's depravity, no ethical barrel they would not scrape the bottom of to get a lead on a story. National outrage ensued, questions asked in Parliament, much heat on David Cameron (who famously recruited former NotW editor Andy Coulson), accusations of the paper paying the police for information, campaigns on Twitter and Facebook to boycott the newspaper and, indeed, anything else to do with parent company News International. All made the more interesting, of course, by the fact that a decision is due to be made on whether News International should be allowed to pursue its takeover of BSkyB. Soon, reacting to the public outrage, major News of the World advertisers began pulling the plug. News International, meanwhile, announced that they were performing their own internal investigation to be led by chief executive Rebekah Brooks (née Wade), who is herself at the centre of the storm given that she was editor for much of the period under scrutiny.

What a morass of moral torpor.

Then today News International took the remarkable step of shutting down the newspaper altogether. Their best selling and most profitable paper (indeed - depressingly - reported to be the most widely read English language newspaper in the world), brought crashing down in less than a week, after 168 years of publication. A remarkable series of events.

The whole thing still has a putrid stench about it of course. The people paying the ultimate price are the current staff of the newspaper who, as it stands, are not suspected of any wrongdoing (other than being tabloid journalists, of course, which, shameful as it might be, is not actually illegal) while the executives at News International remain in gainful employment. Of course their main motivation is to clear the decks to continue to lobby for BSkyB ownership. They could never do that while there remains such fuss around the actions of the paper. By ridding themselves of this toxic brand they hope to draw a line under the whole affair. Undoubtedly they will at some point soon re-enter the Sunday tabloid market - already rumours abound that the staff at The Sun have been told that the paper should prepare to be produced seven days a week instead of six. Additionally, the web domains sunonsunday.co.uk and sunonsunday.com were apparently registered a couple of days ago. (Meanwhile some wag has already nabbed the Twitter identity....) You can hardly expect News International to give up several million readers to their competitors now can you? Expect The Sun on Sunday within months, if not weeks.

Rebekah Brooks clings onto her job for now despite continuing clamour for her to step down. Somehow she still has the unambiguous support of the Murdoch clan: James Murdoch said earlier this evening that he is "happy with Rebakah Brooks' ethics". Yes, well, when prompted Satan says something very similar about his chief demon. This is not exactly a credible endorsement. I suspect the pressure will continue to build against Brooks and she will, eventually, have to stand down to "protect the brand". We can probably also expect some more incriminating information to come from disgruntled NotW hacks who, come the weekend, find themselves unceremoniously dumped from the NI payroll.

Meanwhile, according to The Guardian, Andy Coulson is going to be arrested tomorrow morning over his involvement in phone hacking and alleged payments to police officers, which could have serious repercussions for David Cameron.

The press. The police. The politicians. The whole story could have been scripted by James Ellroy. Looking forward to more revelations in the coming days.

Calling occupants of interplanetary craft

2011-05-15T22:30:00.000+01:00

I'm still here.

(In case anyone was wondering.)

I will be back.

Suffice to say that having two children (one 17 months old, one 5 weeks old) is not exactly conducive to blogging. Or anything in fact. But I hope to make some sort of reappearance very soon......

Votes for prisoners

2011-02-10T22:47:00.003Z

MPs have voted against the motion to extend voting rights to prisoners, defying the edict of the European Court of Human Rights. I was still unsure what I felt about this subject until recently. Just over five years ago I touched upon it on my old blog and had no doubts at all:

But it seems to me that while they are serving their sentence, repaying their debt to society, whatever you want to call it, they should also be excluded from the benefits of being part of that society. Voting is one of those privileges. Why should someone who has committed a crime have a say in how society functions in the meantime? When they’ve been released, yes, absolutely they can have their vote back but while they’re in prison? No. It defies sense. It’s the sort of frilly proposition you’d see raised and carried at a Liberal Democrat convention. “Oh, those poor prisoners, serving their time and they don’t have political representation.” Well, you make your own choices don’t you?

I'm not quite so convinced by this argument now. I still generally feel that if someone is in prison it's for a legitimate reason; they have been removed and excluded from the niceties of society for a specified period. Losing the right - temporarily - to political representation is one of many rights that can be suspended during this time. That said, however, I've been considering some of the other arguments and I think they make a stronger case. The best argument I have read was by David Aaronovitch in The Times (subscription only I'm afraid) who built his case around the common sense question: who gains from denying prisoners the vote? The unavoidable answer, when you really think it through: nobody.

Ultimately, regardless of what someone is in prison for, it's safe to assume that everyone would prefer they come out a better person than when they went in. That won't necessarily happen of course, but removing the right to vote certainly isn't going to help. Maintaining a link to greater society is part of the rehabilitative process along with access to the tools of education. I would not be in favour of removing libraries and access to training from prison so why the right to vote?

So yes, I changed my mind. It happens, occasionally.

Cameron, multiculturalism, etc.

2011-02-10T20:44:00.002Z

I think it's very unfair to accuse David Cameron of being racist on the basis of his multiculturalism speech. Why, he celebrates the multi-ethnic tapestry of British society and mixes personally with people of different colour and background every day. There's that black chap who polishes his shoes. Then there is that Asian man who brushes the fluff off his top hats. Both staff, of course.

I jest. A little bit.

The fundamental problem with any debate about multiculturalism is that neither side is working from the same definition. To its advocates multiculturalism is a wonderful illustration of tolerant, multi-ethnic modern Britain: people of different colour, religion and national origin working and living peacefully side by side. To its detractors, it is evidence of fragmented communities: a society lacking cohesion with certain minority groups living in isolation from the mainstream with no common language or culture.

I have always tended to view it more as the former but recognise that there are clearly pockets of this country where the latter holds true. It is silly to pretend otherwise. There is also a high degree of sensitivity around discussing this issue candidly for the fear of being branded 'racist' - an accusation that Cameron faced in some (predictable) quarters. My earlier joke notwithstanding, I do not think that the Prime Minister is racist - it's too easy for some to paint him as such seeing as he's a wealthy white Tory from a privileged background, but that doesn't naturally make him a bigot - and I do not think it is racist to point out that that there are sections of communities in this country that have not fully integrated into British society and do not want to either.

The real problem: how have such elements been allowed to fester and what can be done about it? This is the crux of Cameron's criticism: the suggestion that cultural division has been purposefully engineered by do-gooding liberal lefties. If this is the case, what alternative policies are the government going to implement?

The Guardian on China

2011-01-19T13:48:00.003Z

Oh, the horseshit one reads in The Guardian sometimes. I'm accustomed to disagreeing with the majority of their columnists these days and I've long found their editorial stance antithetical to my own on many issues. But I can't recall seeing such a blatant example of editorialisation in one of their news stories as this one today, concerning the arrival of Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, to the USA for a four day state visit. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps this is an opinion piece - but it isn't marked as such. I have only read this online but it looks like it would form part of their overall news coverage of the event, perhaps even as a front page piece.

There were two standout segments for me. Firstly this little peach:

In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and the global economic recession, the US democratic-capitalist model no longer appears to be such an inevitable global template.

Really? That's a bold and sweeping statement to make. Who thinks this exactly? The authors, clearly. And, I suspect, a fair few of the paper's staff and readers, but that's someway short of being the collective view of the entire world. I love the way they have conflated two entirely unrelated events to make their point, which seems to be: the US model is in decline - yay!

Then another beauty:

China's inferiority in "hard power", meanwhile, has turned to Beijing's advantage. It is benefiting from being the country that did not invade Iraq, and is not currently bogged down in Afghanistan. After the Bush experiment in exporting democracy militarily, China's mantra of non-interference in the affairs of other states seems benign by comparison, particularly in the developing world, where Chinese "soft power" has expanded dramatically.

There's Iraq again (and Afghanistan), chucked in for good effect. Good old China, eh? Stayed well away from those hot potatoes - for selfless reasons, no doubt, principled nation that it is. I'm sure their motives for non-involvement were pure. "Non-interference"? "Benign by comparison"? China? Amazing.

Yet again, a blatant train of thought that is anti-Western and anti-American leads The Guardian by the nose and to some absurd conclusions. Anyone with an IQ above 35 could quickly Google some of the actions of China of late (both internally and where it has projected its power beyond its borders) and deduce that it is far from being a "benign" force in the world. But, being The Guardian, it's only bad when the USA exercises its influence.

I genuinely wonder why I continue to read or buy this paper anymore. Other than habit (coming up to twenty years of dipping in now) I think it must be only to see what lazy, half-arsed, blinkered nonsense passes for thought these days on the so-called 'liberal left'.

Cringe, Hollywood, cringe

2011-01-17T20:40:00.006Z

Could anything be more sickening than a Hollywood awards ceremony? An arena full of pampered, self-congratulating TV and film folk all slapping each other on the back and sniffing each other's bottoms, telling themselves how wonderful they all are and handing out little trophies. Best Film. Best Actor. Best Director. Best Lighting. Best Trousers. Best Smell. Best Use Of A Windmill. How thunderingly dull.

So I say bravo to Ricky Gervais in his role as host of the Golden Globes for shaking this self-satisfied collective up a little bit. Which is exactly what he was hired to do, of course. Having Gervais as your host then acting affronted when he tells jokes that skirt around the borders of comfortability is a bit silly; like inviting Pope Benedict round then saying "Ooh, he's a bit more Catholic than we were hoping....."

Gervais's turn seems to have split the audience, with many thinking he has "gone too far". For me, it was a welcome return of a comedian who has slipped a little too much into the comfortable world of Hollywood for my liking, become a little bit too chummy with celebrity. This is back to the sort of humour at which he excels: making us uncomfortable, blurring the line between laughing and cringing. And who were his targets? Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr, Bruce Willis, "gay Scientologist actors" (can't think he who means), Mel Gibson and others. All fair game if you ask me - these people are, for the most part, ridiculous and thoroughly deserving of the wisecracks.

Well done Mr Gervais. I approve.

Hugo Chavez - champion of the people

2011-01-15T22:52:00.003Z

Ah, Hugo Chavez, hero of the people. A socialist stalwart, standing up to US hegemony, a beacon of virtue in a corrupt capitalist world. Beloved by so many of the left, prepared as they are to hero worship any authoritarian figure as long as he's on their side of the ideological fence. Here he is with his good friend (and fellow champion of democracy) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Touching.

Here he is with another principled leftist, Alexander Lukashenko, the President of the socialist utopia that is Belarus:

Truly, you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Oh, speaking of judges, Mr Chavez - as part of his continual onslaught of the concept of the rule of law - has imprisoned one for delivering a verdict that he did not personally agree with. Judge María Lourdes Afiuni has been in jail for a year (with, it would seem, another 29 to go) for sanctioning the release of another prisoner who had been in a cell for three years without having been charged with anything. Chavez, man of the people, would appear to have personally ordered this himself. Will anyone on the left denounce him? Nah.

Hugo Chavez. He's a champion of the people! He stands up to US hegemony! He's abolished the rule of law! He's president for life! Rejoice!

(HT to Carl Packman for sending the photo links.)

Friday, Friday, Friday

2011-01-07T23:05:00.001Z

Rejoice! It's Friday. Week one of January is already gone. Soon we will get a whiff of February, before you know it March will be striding towards us, bold as brass. That's progress.

Now, to sleep, perchance to wake up on Saturday, full of weekendiness.

EastEnders in implausible storyline shock

2011-01-06T22:27:00.000Z

It is beyond my comprehension why anyone would subject themselves to the relentless tsunami of misery that is EastEnders. Yet millions of people do, four times a week. I don't think I have watched an episode voluntarily since the 1990s, but when I have been unfortunate enough to catch a segment of this utterly dreary and ridiculous programme I have found myself incredulous that the BBC continues to pour enormous resources into making such utter drivel. I'm a staunch defender of the BBC and the licence fee, but EastEnders tests my faith. TV Go Home, the legendary spoof TV listings page written by Charlie Brooker, perfectly summed up the show by describing it as a "Soap opera so transparently fictitious it might as well be set on the fucking Moon". And that was in 1999; there's been another 12 years of this bollocks since then.

The show has been at the centre of a significant controversy of late due to its current storyline which, as I understand it, goes something like this: two characters both gave birth to baby boys on the same day. One of the babies dies from SIDS (or Cot Death). Grieving mother of the deceased baby switches it with the other woman's baby when no one is looking.

Jesus.

So far over 6,000 people have complained to either the BBC or Ofcom, enough to prompt a rethink by the producers of the show about how long they are going to drag this story out for.

Viewers should be complaining about the contempt the makers of the show clearly have for their intelligence. Leaving aside the upsetting nature of the subject matter itself, are people expected to believe that new parents wouldn't notice that their baby had been switched? It is simply beyond the bounds of plausibility (even for a soap opera). I can tell you now, my son's facial features would have been instantly recognisable to me if I had only seen him for a few seconds after the birth. If he had been replaced with another new born baby it wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Yes, you could argue that new borns all look a bit similar, but not to their mum and dad. It's a biological thing, you see: the baby looking like its parents.

What a risible pile of old toss.

Why am I writing about this, you might ask? Why am I spending my time engaging in the debate about the credibility of a soap opera story line? That's a good question. I have no answer to that. I'm going to bed.

The latest Zionist threat

2011-01-05T23:09:00.002Z

Just weeks after an Egyptian official suggested that Mossad could be behind a spate of shark attacks at a popular tourist resort comes an even greater threat from the state of Israel: Zionist vultures.

Good night everyone.

The End of Days?

2011-01-04T23:12:00.001Z

An earthquake in Yorkshire, floods of 'biblical' proportions in Australia, thousands of birds dropping dead from the sky in Arkansas (plus a hundred thousand or so dead fish), Republicans back on the rampage, Piers Morgan....

Are we living in the End of Days? The evidence is mounting up.

Holidays are over, now get back to work

2011-01-03T22:49:00.001Z

And then, just like that, the holiday season came to an end. As always the rich potential of ten days off work ahead of you becomes a "What? Was that it? Where did the time go?" moment in what seems like no time at all. The good times of the season are behind us, as we stare down the twin barrels of January and February ("Helluary"), the grimmest, dullest most depressing months of the year. Cheers everyone. Now get back to work and atone for the sins of December.

Actually the only thing keeping me from being engulfed in back-to-work despair is the fact that I am starting a new job tomorrow. It's at the same company, but in a different department and, for the first time in my working life, I will not be based in the City. I will be working....locally. Which is an entirely new experience for me given that I have worked in the Square Mile ever since my first temping job at Barclays Bank way back in February 1997 when I was just a fresh-faced 22 year old, still wet behind the ears. Of course I had no intention of this being a permanent thing, I was just taking some work to make some money, there was no way I would still be doing this in a couple of years.... funny how things work out. "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" as John Lennon is credited with saying.

Not that I have any regrets, I count myself to have been rather fortunate in my working life. I make a comfortable enough living and I have never laboured under any delusions that what I do is important in any way, it's just a job. I shall be sad to leave the City in many ways: I have a lot of memories of some good times there and met a lot of good people. Then again, there were also some bloody awful times and having to deal with people that I would not wish to see again unless it were through the target of a sniper's rifle. It's been a mixed bag, all things considered.

So tomorrow I embark on another new road in my career, ideally one that delivers a much better work/life balance - the chief driver of my decision to change jobs. I have got more important things to do with my time than spend ridiculously long hours working in an office or travelling to and from it. Principally that means having more time to spend with Mrs Sane and Baby Sane (and soon: Baby Sane II). It will also allow me, I hope, to continue to devote regular time to writing this old blog.

So, I suppose I had better get some sleep. Big day tomorrow. Good night.

The importance of a good cup of tea

2011-01-02T23:32:00.000Z

I've come full circle on my attitude to tea. Until relatively recently I was a hardened coffee fiend, addicted to the taste, smell, sensation and caffeine rush of a very strong cup of coffee. While I still love that naughty bean and the beverages that can be concocted, it has of late given way to a resurgent appreciation of the infusion of hot water with the cheeky leaf. Ultimately I grew weary of the caffeine lows brought on by hardened coffee drinking: it giveth, but it taketh away. Tea, on the other hand, is both refreshing and invigorating and is now the drink of choice at breakfast time in the Sane household (for Mrs Sane it always was), while coffee is reserved for weekday mornings to kickstart the working day.

The process of making tea, of course, is very important. It must be made correctly to be properly enjoyed. No less a figure than George Orwell wrote an authoritative article on the correct process back in 1946, which was in turn the subject of an article by The Hitch this week. This stuff matters. I wouldn't necessarily agree with every one of Orwell's points: I take one brown sugar in mine, for example, and never bother to warm the pot beforehand (what's the point, when it's about to be filled to the top with boiling water anyway? You don't pre-heat the bath tub before you fill it with hot water do you?) and I drink from a decent sized mug, not fine China cups. But on the basic principles I agree: tea should be strong, made in a pot and the milk (not too much) should be added last. These are the basic tenets of good tea-making.

Tea: it's too important to be left to amateurs.

Intentions versus reality

2011-01-01T20:57:00.001Z

I was tinkering with the idea of writing a summary of the biggest stories of 2010, seeing as I wasn't blogging for much of it. In another life I would have done. In this life I'd have dearly liked to. But that sort of thing takes time, something I don't have much of, not to mention concentration - another commodity in short supply at this time of the year.

And coming up in ten minutes on Channel 4: Father Ted Night, an evening schedule dedicated to one of the best comedies ever made. Marvellous. I'm going to pour another glass of Malbec, put my feet up (slippers on) and enjoy. Not a bad start to 2011 so far.

'Happy' New Year

2010-12-31T20:18:00.001Z

I have never understood people's excitement about New Year, I've always considered it something of a depressing time to be honest. Christmas is over, the holiday period is drawing to a close, work or school beckons. Yet people want to celebrate the arrival of January? Why?

Yes, yes, I know. It's the start of a new year, a new chapter in everyone's lives, etc. I understand the symbolism, I just can't get that worked up about it. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I hope the last 365 days have been good to anyone reading this and I also, in the spirit of the times, extend my hope that the next 365 days are also, on the whole, good ones.

I'm off to have a drink (assuming my son finally goes down to sleep) and to watch Harry Hill's TV Burp Gold 3 on DVD with Mrs Sane. Expect I'll be in bed by about 10.30. Ooh, the decadence.

See you in 2011.

Let there be cake

2010-12-30T21:01:00.001Z

It's been a traumatic 24 hours, with Mrs Sane spending the night at St. Thomas' Hospital after what we hoped would be a routine check of the baby. Thankfully there is nothing wrong, spending the night was just a precaution, but this is not the sort of thing you want happening when your wife is 25 weeks pregnant. Suffice to say we are both extremely tired.

We are now off to retire to the sofa with a mug of hot chocolate and a slice of Christmas cake, where we will watch Charlie Brooker's 2010 Wipe recorded the other night. Then bed. So long.

Facebook: neither saviour nor Satan

2010-12-29T23:36:00.001Z

I signed up to Facebook in 2007 (under my real name, not my blogging pseudonym) along with virtually everyone else I know. I go through periods of despising the damn thing, yet I still check in most days to see what people are up to. It is useful for staying in touch with friends and relatives, especially if they live far away or you just don't see them very often. For the most part my list of 'friends' is just that: people I genuinely know or am related to. My privacy settings are set to a level that ensures I cannot be found by anyone I don't want to find me - in particular I would not want to be accessible to work colleagues, for example. I cannot understand how some people have over 500 'friends': they are either spectacularly popular social butterflies or request the friendship of random people they meet in the street.

So in short, I'm a casual user who frequently finds it irritating but occasionally useful. I don't love it, but nor do I follow the line that it's doing the work of Satan. Ultimately it is a free-to-use application and people should be wary of how they use it and who they use it with. Just like anything else in this life.

Time magazine made Facebook founder and übergeek Mark Zuckerburg their 'Person Of The Year' for 2010 which was kind of ridiculous as, if he was ever to have been considered eligible for this award, it should have been a couple of years ago when Facebook was at the peak of its cultural significance. Nowadays I think most people are really rather indifferent to it. It's not going to go the same way as Friends Reunited (remember that?), but it's now a mundane part of the internet furniture. A coffee table, say. It's just there, doing what it does. No more, no less.

Twitter, on the other hand, is far more interesting.

I'm so tired, my mind is on the blink

2010-12-28T22:56:00.001Z

I love my son more than I ever thought possible, but he has a dreadful tendency to wake in the night for no discernible reason. Last night was a case in point: around midnight he just woke up for seemingly no reason whatsoever. It's like he'd just had a couple of espressos and wanted to engage with things. In particular, he wanted to open and close his wardrobe door repeatedly.

Consequently there is much tiredness in the Sane household today. I am falling asleep now as I type this. Sleep beckons like a huge beckoning thing. Good night. Wish us luck.

Up the Arse

2010-12-27T23:29:00.002Z

I remember when Arsenal beating Chelsea was habitual, more or less guaranteed. This was more than half a decade ago of course, before they became a super disciplined winning machine honed by that enormous arrogant cock Jose Mourinho. So it was hugely satisfying to see Arsenal win 3-1 tonight, like a glorious flashback to a happier footballing age. A time before the petro-dollars of Roman Abramovich lifted Chelsea from the verge of bankruptcy and perpetual non-achievement to formidable automatons grinding out victory at the expense of entertainment.

Chelsea represent everything about the modern game that is loathsome. The sugar daddy providing funds far and above their status, buying their way to success, playing really dull football in the process. A team packed with some of the biggest arseholes the game has ever seen: John Terry, Frank Lampard, Didier Drogba, ASHLEY COLE. Jesus wept. A soulless club with no history instantly propelled to the upper echelons and kept there by oil money. At least Man United have years of success and a huge fan base, ditto Liverpool. Bad enough as it is when you lose to them, at least they are big clubs by virtue of their history and past glories. Chelsea are the Dubai of football.

Safe to say: not a fan.

P.S. Manchester City are arguably even worse, but until they are actually organised enough to win anything they're not quite in the same category. In the meantime, let's enjoy Chelsea's decline and hope it is inexorable.

Rod Liddle on Julian Assange

2010-12-26T23:35:00.000Z

I'm never sure whether I should like Rod Liddle or not. He has had some, shall we say, 'unfortunate' outbursts, with a tendency to come across as a broadsheet version of Richard Littlejohn. However, he tempers this by frequently writing articles that I largely agree with. He's at his coruscating best when prodding the complacent and self-satisfied moral reasoning of the liberal leftists that largely reside at The Guardian (where he used to write a weekly column, of course). It's something he's very good at, too.

He's bang on target in today's Sunday Times article (subscription only, thanks to Murdoch's firewall) about the left's attitude to the allegations against Julian Assange.

The British left is in a wonderfully entertaining dilemma over Julian. There he is, a hero of the bien pensant liberals for having embarrassed America with his various WikiLeaks — but at the same time someone who is accused of having sexually assaulted and even raping a woman. That’s an incredibly non-left-wing thing to have done, if he did it. And don’t forget that in normal circumstances, when a woman complains that she has been raped or sexually assaulted, and the accused man somehow avoids prosecution, the liberal left becomes incandescent with rage and demands redress.

Ah, but this is different of course, because the allegations have obviously been fabricated by unconfirmed powers desperate to sully his good name and to put a stop to the brave work that hs organisation does. Although if this is the case they're not doing a very good job at it because the allegations are fuzzy to say the least. You'd have thought that the all powerful forces would have come up with something a bit better really. Something, I don't know, more convincing. How disappointing for the conspiracy theorists, then, to be confronted with the mundane reality that the all-powerful shadowy entity that they are fighting against would appear to be somewhat ineffective and underwhelming. How...unexciting.

I listened to Assange being interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today Programme the other morning and it was fascinating. Assange's answers were just as guarded, equivocal and carefully worded as any politician you can care to name. This buccaneer for truth and transparency was as slippery as anyone else operating within the 'machine'. Perhaps the most bizarre response he gave was describing the women who raised the allegations against him as getting themselves into a "tizzy". Back to Liddle:

In a tizzy. Can you imagine in any case, ever, where rape or sexual assault had been alleged by a woman, any man on earth, except for Julian Assange, could get away with claiming that their accusations were the consequences of them being "in a tizzy"? They’re just being a bit silly, these women — ha, let's forget it.

And so it is that the left, doctrinaire and immovable, has decided that Assange is innocent. Like a game of Top Trumps — his work for WikiLeaks slightly outscores the allegation of rape. And, therefore, in this mindset, he is innocent.

100% correct of course. There is a significant portion of the left prepared to overlook any transgression as long as the person in question is suitably anti-western enough.

In praise of... The iPad

2010-12-25T23:52:00.003Z

Mrs Sane, already officially The Best Wife In The World^TM, surpassed herself this year by getting me an iPad for Christmas. As an Apple acolyte I had long coveted one of these beauties but couldn't justify the cost. Now, having had this dilemma taken away from me, I can just get on with using it in a guilt-free fashion. It is, I can confirm, a joy to look at, hold and use - as you would expect from an Apple product.

So here I am, on Christmas night, in a warm bed, after a really rather lovely day, fulfilling my daily blogging commitment using the BlogPress app for iPad. Nifty.

Off to the folks's place tomorrow for more meat, beer, wine and shenanigans. I could get used to this.

In praise of... Christmas Eve

2010-12-24T21:59:00.000Z

I loved Christmas Eve as a kid. The anticipation, the build-up, the sheer excitement of the big day to come. Arguably better than Christmas Day itself, in fact. It's not quite the same when you are 36, however, but it's still all good, even for a confirmed atheist like myself (as if Christmas is a 'religious' festival anymore). I'm convinced that there used to be better things on the TV than the rubbish they've put on today though. Really, what a load of old crap (hurray for the Peep Show night on Channel 4 otherwise we'd be doomed).

A slightly surreal day for me too in that it is my last day in my current job. I start a new role on Tuesday 4th January which, for the first time in nearly 14 years of working, will not be in the City. Interesting times. Ten days off ahead now..... Hmmmm, days off.

Anyway, if you're reading, enjoy Christmas Eve and, indeed, Christmas Day.

Mock The Weak

2010-12-23T21:42:00.003Z

Tsk, that Frankie Boyle eh? He's a card innee? Ha ha! LOL! ROFL! Oh, he's so controversial. Oh, he's so shocking.

You probably heard about the routine that got him into hot water a couple of weeks ago, where he fearlessly joked about the disabled son of Katie Price. Such bravery. At last a comedian unafraid to take on the really big subjects that matter. Did you hear the joke itself?

Jordan and Peter Andre are still fighting each other over custody of Harvey - eventually one of them will lose and have to keep him... I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter - she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her...

Wow. Incest jokes about a child with physical disabilities and extreme learning difficulties. He's just.... so out there. LOL!

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no interest in, or affection for, Katie Price. As far as I'm concerned she is a vapid tit-stick lacking any discernible talent. I despise the deification of third rate celebrities and the publishing industry that continues to suck blood from these non-entities, and she is the fairy at the top of their rotting Christmas tree. We shouldn't even know who she is, let alone her son. But Boyle's 'joke' was still repulsive.

I'm not going all Daily Mail, I don't think he should be banned. He's perfectly entitled to say whatever he likes on his shit television show (seriously - have you seen it?) and I'm perfectly entitled not to watch it. This is a right I continue to exercise. Not on the grounds of being 'outraged' - really, comedians who can only shock their audience into laughter without actually making them think are extremely tedious - but purely on the basis that it isn't funny. The man is a twat and if you think he's funny then you're most likely a twat too.

There's more, of course. Here he is on the conflict in Afghanistan:

During the programme, and referring to the war in Afghanistan, Boyle said: "Basically, we are murdering a load of shepherds. What gets me is our callousness as a society when we read out our dead on the news first, because our lives are more important. Other people's aren't worth as much."

He then adopted a newsreader's tone, saying: "A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis."

The comic said later: "The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was the Ministry of War. 'Hello Ministry of War, department of nigger bombing, how can I help?'"

I'm not going to get drawn into the whole "is he racist?" debate that these comments have triggered. It's very unlikely that he is; his choice of words is contextual to his material. Unfortunately - crucial point, this - his material is shit. He's trying to make a serious point, but it doesn't work because there is very little truth in his original observation. Therefore the joke fails.

Channel 4 have come out fighting in defence of their man. Let's face it, someone has to.

The Channel 4 head of comedy commissioning, Shane Allen, this morning said that he "strongly refutes" claims that the broadcaster is "endorsing or condoning racist language". He said Boyle's "cutting edge" comedy highlighted the "unacceptable nature" of this language.

(Somebody should explain to Mr Allen that if you 'refute' something you prove that the allegation is false. You cannot refute something without the demonstration of evidence for your case. I believe the word he is struggling for is 'denies'. But I digress.)

Boyle's material isn't 'cutting edge', it's just angry, hate-filled ranting of the lowest common denominator variety. Other subjects in his repertoire include: people with Down's Syndrome, rape, paedophilia, Elisabeth Fritzl and Madeline McCann. He's the belligerent drunk in the pub, shouting at the world. That's not comedy. He's not funny. Oh, and while we're on the subject: Mock The Week - the show where he came to prominence before being forced to leave - wasn't (and isn't) funny either. It's just a witless poor relation to Have I Got News For You.

Cable vs Satellite (Reprise)

2010-12-22T21:52:00.000Z

Not that I disagree with Vince Cable's sentiments about Rupert Murdoch, you understand. While I think that the left exaggerate the threat he represents, there is no doubting that he is a pernicious influence and we should welcome further concentration of media power in his hands like we would welcome a nest of live snakes in the middle of a birthday cake.

Murdoch's companies already own The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and The News Of The World in addition to their 39% stake in BSkyB and a 7.5% stake (reduced from 17.9% earlier this year) in ITV. I think that's more than enough. That's just in the UK of course, he also has numerous other media interests in the USA, Australia and elsewhere.

Because of Cable's flapping trap the ultimate decision will now fall to culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, who has made pro-Murdoch noises in the past. News International must be ecstatic with how this has turned out and, bizarrely, it's all thanks to the Daily Telegraph.

Ofcom delivers its verdict on December 31st. I hope they advise against it in the strongest possible language.

Cable vs Satellite

2010-12-21T23:11:00.000Z

I have long thought that, for all his down-with-the-people appeal, Vince Cable was something of an arse, a populist gadfly. I hadn't figured that he was this much of an arse.

The initial revelations in the Daily Telegraph were embarrassing enough. First he overstates his importance by claiming he could use the "nuclear option" and walk out on the government, bringing down the coalition, should he ever feel it necessary. More damaging still were the later comments (not even mentioned by the Telegraph and, it would seem, purposefully not reported) that he was "at war" with Rupert Murdoch. Pretty damning coming from the Business Secretary, someone who will have a quasi-judicial role in determining whether or not News International's proposed takeover of BSkyB should be permitted or not. Sounds like he's already made his mind up about it. In private conversations, at least.

Or not so private, given that he was talking to reporters from the Daily Telegraph and not members of his constituency as he thought. Terrible error of judgement from such an experienced politician. He's paid the price now, being partially stripped of responsibilities but still a member of the cabinet. It's been pointed out by several observers that Cameron would have come down a lot harder if one of his own had been so careless, which perhaps lends credence after all to Cable's bold claims to be pivotal to the coalition hanging together. To strip him of all ministerial responsibility would have caused deep divisions within the Lib Dems.

I commented earlier in the year (although perhaps not on this blog because I cannot find it anywhere) that there are things in my fridge with a longer shelf-life than this coalition. So far that hasn't shown to be correct, but it's certainly being tested at the moment. If Cable's comments about the conflicts that go on behind closed doors are true (and let's face it, they probably are) then I think it will be nothing short of a miracle if it manages to last for five years.

Looking back

2010-12-20T22:54:00.002Z

My son is a year old today. It's certainly true that time moves faster once you have children because the memories of the weekend he was born are still so fresh in my mind it just doesn't seem possible that it was that long ago.

Pretty much anyone who has had a child has their own war stories to tell about the birth. It's almost like a secret society: but you have to go through the initiation ceremony to gain access. Few people talk about the reality of giving birth to a baby for the simple reason that nobody wants to hear the truth about it and you only really understand once you've been through it yourself.

Our son was born at 7.31am on Sunday 20th December 2009, the culmination of a very long process that actually began on Thursday 17th. Along the way we (not that I personally had to endure this - how lucky we men are) took in a sweep, hormone gel, having the waters broken, a hormone drip, a botched epidural, an accelerated drip, another (successful) epidural, 12 hours of labour yielding nothing and then, finally, an emergency Caesarean. There were many other grisly details that I won't go into here but when our son was pulled out and I heard his first cries I was a blubbering, shaking wreck. Mrs Sane, on the other hand, was out of her head on drugs and sleep deprivation. It was the most traumatic, worrying, bizarre, memorable and amazing weekend I have ever had and that was only the beginning of the hard work to come.

Fools that we are, we will have to put ourselves through the birth process again in April when our daughter is due. This time we know in advance that it will be by Caesarean so it should hopefully be much less traumatic.

But I remain astounded that something as commonplace as childbirth can be so complicated, dangerous and brutal. Surely it shouldn't be this difficult?

All worth it of course.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't be ridiculous

2010-12-19T22:41:00.001Z

Good to see the repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell', the almost comical rule that tolerated gay personnel in the US military as long as they never openly admitted it. Common sense at last prevails, although not without a chorus of disapproval from the usual sort of voices. One of the most prominent opponents was Senator John McCain who said "I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage.... Today is a very sad day." The Family Research Council, some hideous carbuncle on the backside of the body politic, shaped its response in terms that can only be described as hysterical:

Today is a tragic day for our armed forces. The American military exists for only one purpose - to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda. This may advance the cause of reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality, but it will only do harm to the military's ability to fulfill its mission.

Yeah. Or, alternatively, it is merely legitimising the many thousands of gay people that must already be serving in the military who could, in theory, be ejected merely on the basis of what they choose to do with their genitals. Utterly preposterous that it should have taken so long (DADT was enacted in 1993) to ensure full equality for gays in the armed forces. Objection to it is based purely on homophobia and ignorance.

It's impossible for me to talk about this issue without thinking about the following routine by Bill Hicks. I don't share his belief that the US military is nothing more than a thuggish agent of genocide but his key point is spot-on: the idea that personnel could be launching assaults, killing people (occasionally innocent people and bystanders) but would find gay people "offensive" and "bad for their morale" is nothing short of absurd.

In praise of... The Whisky Mac

2010-12-18T22:43:00.003Z

The weather outside is frightful, but the central heating is so delightful. Since we've no place to go, let it snow, let it snow, let it....

Actually no, I hate snow. It's a massive pain in the backside. It's cold white excrement. Me, I'm dreaming of a grey Christmas. It's particularly annoying as we are expecting approximately 40 people tomorrow to celebrate the first birthday of our son (although his birthday is actually Monday). As is stands the snow threatens to drastically and dramatically reduce those numbers. We will just have to see what happens.

After a day of frantically tidying the house to ready it for tomorrow, what better way to unwind than with a couple of Whisky Macs? A generous shot of whisky, topped up with an equal amount of Stone's ginger wine, mixed with lots of ice. That's the way I have it anyway. It's a fine drink and a perfect antidote to this weather.

Almost enough to make winter enjoyable.

Stranger in Assange land

2010-12-17T10:16:00.001Z

I am growing mightily weary of the Julian Assange show. I am tired of this self-important egotist and his deluded flag-wavers and look forward to him being dispatched to Sweden to face the charges against him. Is he innocent? Is he guilty? I don't care either way. Please just get this over with.

I am also tired of the conflation of charges against him by his fanbase: he's wanted for sexual offences in Sweden, he hasn't been charged with anything to do with the information leaks, stop making out this is some enormous underhand conspiracy. Yes, there is a chance that the US will try to have him extradited but this would be a lot easier to do if he is still in the UK, so stop implying that the plan is to get him shipped to Sweden so they can hand him over to America. That is illogical. The US would much rather he stay here where they can request extradition without the need to present supporting evidence. They would not have that luxury if he is returned to Sweden. In fact, it would seem that US lawyers are doubtful that they have a strong case in either location.

In another life I suspect Assange would have been a cult leader. He has the look and character, the messianic qualities. Equally he has also been embraced by all kinds of cranks and custard-brains as a 'hero'. He's not a hero or anything even close to it. As I have said before, his organisation leaks almost exclusively against Western governments who are the easiest targets of all. He leaks against the system that allows him to exist. If our political system were run along the same lines as China he would have been imprisoned a long time ago and would probably never be released. Russia? He'd probably be dead. Iran? Belarus? Burma? I think we can all guess.

He'd be closer to a hero if WikiLeaks went after targets like these, rather than pissing inside the tent. I look forward to him being acquitted of the sexual charges (there doesn't seem to be much in the way of evidence) and subsequently not being extradited. Perhaps then everyone will cease claiming he is the victim of a globally orchestrated conspiracy. I think if this happens both he and his supporters will actually be terribly disappointed.

2 Minutes To Midnight

2010-12-16T23:59:00.001Z

Eeek! Only two minutes to blog something today!

Phew!

Terrible Comment is Free articles, number 94

2010-12-15T22:34:00.000Z

Liu Xiaobo, winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, might not be considered such a suitable candidate for the award were people to know what opinions he has really expressed in the past. So says an article on Comment Is Free today by Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong. Upon reading the opening paragraph I was intrigued. Then I read further.

If Liu's politics were well-known, most people would not favour him for a prize, because he is a champion of war, not peace. He has endorsed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he applauded the Vietnam and Korean wars retrospectively in a 2001 essay. All these conflicts have entailed massive violations of human rights.

Well, goodness. Take the award back immediately then. Supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban clearly makes him a "champion of war". Case closed. He is obviously a wretched neo-con hellbent on waging war at every opportunity.

This is a typical act of reasoning on the part of many who did not support (or actively opposed) the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. The conclusion is drawn that nobody who argued the case for either could possibly be driven by anything other than a bloodthirsty desire to inflict destruction. Never mind the moral case for either war, never mind the many and varied arguments. No. There is no grey area here: only those who opposed have any moral authority. Xiaobo is therefore disqualified for contention for the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis and this basis alone. How dare he dissent from the 'anti-war' orthodoxy.

Alternatively, maybe his support for these conflicts is based on a desire to reduce the amount of totalitarian or theocratic fascist states on the planet. Strikes me as being a good stance to take as opposed to the lame acquiescence to vile regimes espoused by many in the 'anti-war' movement.

Further on it says:

Liu has also one-sidedly praised Israel's stance in the Middle East conflict. He places the blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict on Palestinians, who he regards as "often the provocateurs".

Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China. In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough: "If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are".

Good grief. So as well as not considering any military action by the US and the west to be doing the work of Satan he also sides with Israel. Call the thought police! How dare he suggest that Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East, isn't the de facto aggressor in every instance of any confrontation with the enemies on its borders. Enemies that refuse to even acknowledge its right to exist, enemies that have stated their intention to wipe them off the map given the opportunity. Not satisfied with that, he also argues that China - a repressive gerontocracy that forbids freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and most freedoms you could think of - would benefit from being 'westernised'.

Of course China would benefit from being 'westernised'. If, by 'westernised', you mean to accept the fundamental notions of individual liberty, to cease censorship, to operate as a liberal democracy. I would say that would be pretty beneficial to the people that lived there actually. One of those people, of course, is Liu Xiaobo himself, who is currently serving a 25 year prison sentence for being a co-author of Charter 08, a call for China to grant its citizens fundamental freedoms.

Xiaobo is clearly a perfectly legitimate recipient of such an award. The Cuddly Chinese Communist Party went to great lengths to dissuade the committee from awarding it to him. When he did win, of course, any mention of it was vigorously censored within its borders. A routine action in all non-westernised states.

Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong have authored one of the most wretched articles I have ever read on Comment is Free. As anyone familiar with the site will attest: this is up against some extraordinarily stiff competition.

This will just have to do for today

2010-12-14T22:23:00.001Z

Making a commitment to blog every day is all well and good. But what about days when you are really busy or feeling unwell? Or both, like today?

Through the miracle of a blogging app on my iPhone, I am able to write this from the comfort of my very warm bed. Sleep beckons, so I will be brief.

If I'd had the time or the energy tonight I would have liked to have commented on Assange, or maybe Berlusconi or perhaps that enormous cock Richard Littlejohn but forces conspire against me. Tomorrow is another day... For now, I sleep and hope that my son (currently suffering with conjunctivitis) does the same.

The top ten creationist 'arguments': a recap

2010-12-13T21:39:00.000Z

I enjoyed this, picked up from The Guardian today: a quick rebuttal from The Thinking Atheist to the top ten creationist 'arguments', encompassing: carbon dating, proving evolution, monkeys, the human eye, atheism = religion, scientists who believe, god and the USA, thermodynamics and Hitler.

Pastor la vista

2010-12-12T21:02:00.001Z

Do you remember the pastor Terry Jones? You know, the leader of a small church in Florida who became international news back in September when he threatened to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11? Remember him?

No, of course not. I'd forgotten all about him too. He's back in the news, however, as he has been invited to attend an English Defence League rally in February.

Now home secretary Teresa May is considering whether or not to use powers available to her to forbid him from entering the UK if it is considered that his visit is either not conducive to the public good or threatens national security. Well, it certainly ticks the first box - we need another ignorant demagogue like we need anthrax in the water supply. As for threatening national security, if the media had just ignored him in the first place he would never have even been heard of beyond his congregation of fifty - yes, fifty - people. He is not a threat of any kind, he is merely an idiot whose views have been given publicity.

Why was he ever elevated to international news in the first place? If I rang up the national news agencies and said I was going to perform such a stunt I would be rightly ignored. Yet some irrelevant hick calls himself a pastor, threatens to burn the Koran and he gets TV crews camping outside his house. Who was taking him seriously and why?

The same logic should be applied here. We cannot - unfortunately - deny people access to our country simply on the basis that they are stupid and ignorant. Nor can we deport people for this reason. Which is a pity because the English Defence League would be near the top of the list if we could. Teresa May should just be informed that an idiot from America wants to come to the UK and talk to a small crowd of other idiots. She should sigh, then get on with some real work. No further action necessary. Indeed, banning him from coming here will make the story global and be seized as a victory ("look - now a Christian cannot even go to the UK and talk").

Unfortunately we are now guaranteed that this will be a huge story in February granting Mr Jones and The English Defence league an enormous amount of entirely unwarranted publicity.

Other protest groups are already getting prepared to take action thus further ensuring that a small rally of idiots gets international coverage rather than universal indifference. Here's Weyman Bennett of Unite Against Fascism:

Terry Jones is coming here to whip up Islamophobia and racism. We intend on calling a mass demonstration where everyone can oppose the growth of racism and fascism in this country.

He won't be able to 'whip up' anything if we all just do the sensible thing and ignore him. Instead of calling a mass demonstration, why don't you and all your members do something useful like, oh I don't know, go to work? By the way, neither racism nor 'fascism' is on the rise in this country, even though it is in your interests to make people think it is. This kind of piffle doesn't help either.

This 'rally' should go ahead in the way it deserves - in a news vacuum. Idiot from USA talks to idiots in UK should not be a news story.

The normblog Q&A

2010-12-11T19:46:00.001Z

Below are the answers to the thirty questions put to me by the Normblog profile yesterday:

The normblog profile 376: Citizen Sane

Citizen Sane was born in Sidcup, Kent, in 1974. He graduated from the University of Manchester in 1996, where he studied Philosophy and Politics. Soon after, he accidentally fell into a career in the City, despite always being vehemently opposed to the idea. It pays the bills but it corrodes his soul. He lives with his wife and one-year-old son (with another baby due in April) in Bromley, Kent. Citizen Sane blogs at Mind Trumpet and can also be found lurking on Twitter: @citizen_sane.

Why do you blog? > Out of necessity. Sometimes I feel like I will combust if I don't get something - anything - written down. I don't do it enough, though.

What has been your best blogging experience? > I wrote something disparaging about George Galloway on my old blog, Liberal Elite, that got linked to by Andrew Sullivan. That was pretty good - suddenly got 3,000 visitors in one day. They didn't stick around though. But, actually, being asked to do a normblog profile has topped that.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Not having the time or inclination to write anything for months at a stretch.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > The obvious stuff: be original, be regular and engage with your readers should you be lucky enough to pick some up. Acquiring and keeping an audience is very difficult but it's a great thing.

What are your favourite blogs? > normblog. Andrew Sullivan. Oliver Kamm (though, alas, he's pretty sporadic since they put that paywall up).

Who are your intellectual heroes? > Christopher Hitchens. George Orwell. John Stuart Mill.

What are you reading at the moment? > Hitch-22 by the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens and Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch.

Who are your cultural heroes? > The Beatles. Radiohead. R.E.M. The Smiths. The creators of The Sopranos / The Wire / The Simpsons / Frasier. Monty Python. Larry David. Chris Morris. Bill Hicks. To name just a few of many.

What is the best novel you've ever read? > 1984 by George Orwell.

What is your favourite movie? > The Godfather.

Who is your favourite composer? > Lennon/McCartney.

Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you've ever changed your mind? > I no longer consider anyone who is 'conservative' to be, by definition, an 'enemy'. As you get older, more reflective, more tolerant of other viewpoints, it becomes easier to recognize shared values with people rather than being entrenched in ideological differences. I no longer consider myself to be ideological at all – there is good on both the left and the right, there is nonsense on both the left and the right. In fact, I try not to think at all in left/right terms. It's no longer relevant.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > Liberalism. Not the American definition, not the woolly nonsense of the Lib-Dems, pure unadulterated liberalism.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > Religious fundamentalism, particularly of the Islamic kind.

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > A written constitution and a Bill of Rights.

If you could choose anyone, from any walk of life, to be Prime Minister, who would you choose? > I think Oliver Kamm would do a good job.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > Climate change.

What do you consider the most important personal quality? > A good sense of humour.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Self-importance. I come up against a lot of that in my line of work.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > The well-being of my wife, child (soon to be children) and family.

Who would play you in the movie about your life? > Apparently I look like a young David Hemmings. So him.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > Would once have been New York but I think, all things considered, at the age I'm at now, it would have to be Brighton.

What do you like doing in your spare time? > I have a son who will be a year old on 20 December, so I don't have much spare time these days. I used to enjoy regular blogging, reading, going to the pub with friends, video games and watching DVD boxed sets with Mrs Sane.

What is your most treasured possession? > It would have to be the hard drive that holds all our photographs. Everything else can be replaced.

What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job? > Journalist / columnist.

Who is your favourite comedian or humorist? > Bill Hicks.

Which English Premiership football team do you support? > Arsenal.

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > I would like to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money.

How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money? > I would quit my job immediately, buy a family home in Brighton, make my family and loved ones financially comfortable and live happily ever after.

If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Hitch. Peter Cook. P.J. O'Rourke.

In profile

2010-12-10T12:07:00.002Z

Every Friday the venerable normblog puts up the normblog Profile, where each week a different blogger answers 30 questions to reveal a little bit about themselves.

I am proud to say that the blogger in profile this week is
none other than me. Please have a look and, if you don't already, make normblog one of your regular reads, it's one of the best blogs out there.

Conspiracy peddlers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but the argument.

2010-12-09T20:57:00.006Z

The strange case of Julian Assange has regrettably - but inevitably - brought out the deluded legions of conspiracy obsessed half-thinkers. They are everywhere, spreading their message, polluting the internet with illogical theories. Crudely put, there is a widely-held belief that the rape charges brought against Assange in Sweden are bogus. That the Swedish government have (through pressure from - you guessed it - the United States) manufactured a criminal charge as a flimsy pretext to "bring him in". The charges are politically motivated and "convenient". Nudge, nudge, etc.

Absurd, of course. There is a great column by David Aaronovitch in The Times today (subscription required, unfortunately) which shreds the conspiracy "arguments" like a fork through a crispy aromatic duck. David deploys some old fashioned techniques: reason and logic. Of course the message won't get across to those that need to hear it - they've already made up their minds. Don't trouble them any further with anything ridiculous like facts.

Choice quote:

I had the same conversation half a dozen times yesterday in different forms and on different media. Wasn’t there something strangely "convenient" about the legal process under way to investigate sexual allegations against Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks?

What this must mean, if anything, is this: is there some kind of plot whereby Mr Assange’s enemies have somehow procured these charges to silence him? In other words the Yanks have secretly (ha!) leant on the Swedes, the Swedes have silently manipulated two women, and there we are, halfway to the fourth Stieg Larsson novel, The Girl with the Badly Constructed Condom.

That clunk noise you hear is the sound of the head of a nail being firmly hit. The contradiction that lies at the epicentre of the conspiracist version of events is this: we are expected to believe that the United States government can pull levers to manufacture criminal allegations against the citizen of another sovereign government without encountering a single problem. Yet at the same time we already know that this all powerful and manipulative behemoth is unable to properly secure its own sensitive information. It is all powerful and controlling.... except for those times when it isn't.

This is what makes all conspiracy theories so ridiculous, be they concerned with the Kennedy assassination, the moon landings, 9/11, etc: they ask us to imagine a world where shady governments pull strings to deceive us poor deluded simpletons, that they are able to keep everyone complicit to remain forever silent, to leave no trail, no clues, no evidence. However, what the Cablegate leaks have demonstrated to us very clearly - as if we even needed reminding - is that governments are fallible, careless, clumsy and unorganised. Just like the people that run them, in fact.

Julian Assange is being celebrated by people who should know better as a hero, a warrior for truth. Yet his targets are nearly always the more open societies of the west. If WikiLeaks were serious about exposing the malevolent practices of governments they would be targeting China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea. I suspect that wouldn't appeal to someone like Assange, who seems to prefer soft targets. Leaking against truly sinister governments probably wouldn't interest him.

No more for you, you've had enough!

2010-12-08T22:55:00.001Z

I committed to a blog a day until the end of the year. I didn't account for work Christmas drinks scuppering my plans. But here I am, extraordinarily drunk, blogging on my iPhone.

This morning my wife and I went for the twenty week scan for our pregnancy: I am pleased to report that everything is just fine and that we are going to have a little girl. Wonderful news. The family is complete: we have one of each. As soon as our daughter is delivered I am off to get myself fixed. Thanks.

Is Mossad training killer sharks?

2010-12-07T20:12:00.000Z

This is the claim attributed to Mohamed Abdul Fadil Shousha, the governor of South Sinai, in response to the recent spate of shark attacks in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. He was quoted as saying:

What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark [in the sea] to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question, but it needs time to confirm.

Israeli officials dismissed the claims as "ludicrous".

Yeah, but they WOULD say that wouldn't they?

You just haven't earned it yet, David.

2010-12-06T22:16:00.001Z

Johnny Marr, erstwhile guitarist in The Smiths (and many other projects) received some generous coverage last week for a comment he made on Twitter directed at David Cameron:

Stop saying you like The Smiths, no you don't. I forbid you to like it.

Cameron has long been on the record as saying he is a fan of Manchester's finest musical export. In fact this caused some consternation on my own part, as mentioned here on a post from nearly five years ago. It's disconcerting to discover that there is some overlap between your music tastes and those of the prime minister (and a Conservative prime minister at that).

I don't think (as many do) that this is something he's been told to say by one of his image consultants. It's not like the time Gordon Brown tried to pass himself off as a fan of the Arctic Monkeys. He patently wasn't and it was an excruciating "down with the kids" moment. I think Cameron genuinely does like The Smiths. Of course, in the 1980s, he wouldn't exactly have been representative of the band's stereotypical demographic: the foppish student or the bedsit-dwelling romantic on the dole. Sure, he was most likely wearing a top hat and eating a swan when he first listened to The Queen Is Dead, but that's not to say he enjoyed it any less.

Morrissey himself chipped in today, backing his former songwriting partner in a bizarre post on a fan site. According to Dame Moz, Cameron should be precluded from enjoying any of the albums he co-wrote with Marr on the basis that:

It is true that music is a universal language – the ONLY universal language, and belongs to all, one way or another. However, with fitting grimness I must report that David Cameron hunts and shoots and kills stags – apparently for pleasure. It was not for such people that either "Meat is Murder" or "The Queen is Dead" were recorded; in fact, they were made as a reaction against such violence.

A bizarre outburst, even by his standards. Does Cameron hunt, shoot and kill stags? I don't know. I can't imagine he gets much time for it these days. Didn't he live in Notting Hill before becoming PM? Can't imagine he killed many stags around there either.

The missive goes on, encompassing the Queen, Prince William, Bryan Ferry, Kate Middleton, David and Victoria Beckham - all complicit in the torture of animals, apparently. Go ahead and read it for yourself if you can be bothered.

Anyway, it's a strange situation for an artist to start dictating the conditions upon which someone is allowed to enjoy their work isn't it? Cameron, of course, is really unwanted as a fan because he's a Tory. This is a party political rebuff based purely on class angst. Morrissey and Marr probably still cling to their 80s working class mindset and Cameron, as a child of Thatcher, is a natural enemy.

Of course the irony of all this is that Morrissey is a classic small-c conservative with a firm streak of little-Englandism running through him. This has often been evident in his lyrical themes. Moreover, a quick perusal of his outbursts in recent years - in particular I'm thinking of the time when he practically said that England no longer exists because of all the foreigners - would mark him down as a UKIP supporter. Scratch the surface and you will soon see there is very little that is even remotely left wing about him.

So let Cameron be a Smiths fan if he wants. He appears to have better music taste than you might expect for a Tory. Ten years ago any senior Conservative would have been listening to Phil Collins or Chris de Burgh or something. At least this is progress.

Laying Cable - high farce in the coalition

2010-12-05T22:09:00.001Z

I'm going to quickly summarise the issue of Vince Cable and tuition fees. Are you ready?

Vince Cable backs the increase in tuition fees - but possibly only in an official capacity as a co-designer of the policy. In a personal capacity he would seem to be less keen because until recently he was considering abstaining in solidarity with Liberal Democrat MPs who cannot stomach the policy. Which is fair enough, considering that every single one of them campaigned on a manifesto pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. Even though they knew that probably wasn't going to be feasible. But that wasn't an issue for them as they never expected to find themselves in (sort of) government in an unholy alliance with the Tories. In any case, Vince would only have considered abstaining in the name of party unity. In actual fact, he thinks this is the right policy to pursue.

Is that clear? No? Oh.

Look. Vince Cable will back the increase in tuition fees because he helped formulate the policy. Even though he doesn't like it, he does think this is the right thing to do. So although he wants to abstain to extend an olive branch to his backbenchers, he won't. He can't. But either way he thinks the policy is the best solution.

This could not be clearer.

In praise of... getting older

2010-12-04T22:33:00.003Z

I was reflecting this evening on how much my life has changed in recent years. It's Saturday night. Ten years ago I would have been out with a group of friends in Clapham or maybe Angel or maybe even Brixton. We would have consumed vast quantities of alcohol, smoked many, many cigarettes, then gone back to someone's flat to carry on doing the same until the early hours. I would have spent the next day recovering - horizontally - on the sofa, vowing to never do it again. Until the next weekend that is.

But today, a week away from my 36th birthday, life is very different indeed. At about 6.45pm, after In The Night Garden on CBeebies, we gave our son (who will be a year old on 20th December) a bath and put him to bed. I then cooked a dinner of meatballs and spaghetti with a warmed baguette. Thereafter we watched Strictly Come Dancing (Mrs Sane has long been a fan of the show, while I had zero interest for six years. This time round I have - bafflingly - become something of a fan). Throughout I was drinking a very fine Cabernet Sauvignon, purchased from Waitrose this afternoon.

Comfort food, mainstream television and wine. The spirit of rock 'n roll debauchery is very much alive in this house as you can see. I'm like Keith Richards to the power of John Bonham with a light dusting of Jimi Hendrix.

I realise I have become very suburban and middle class. Let me tell you, I don't mind that one bit.

More shocking revelations from Cablegate

2010-12-03T21:51:00.002Z

WikiLeaks continue to provide us with jaw-dropping revelations on a daily basis. The latest shocking tidbits from Cablegate:

Gordon Brown was an "abysmal" prime minister, who lurched from "political disaster to disaster", presiding over a "post-Blair rudderlessness".
Russia is little more than a kleptocracy and its government is in the pocket of gangsters.
The US fears that Mexico is losing its fight against drug cartels.
Silvio Berlusconi is "feckless, vain and ineffective" with a "penchant for partying hard".

Thank goodness for this data leak. Explosive secrets such as this should be in the public domain.

Hi-yo, Silver, away! Hitherto unknown depths of idiocy.

2010-12-02T22:43:00.002Z

Finding stupid opinion pieces on Comment Is Free is like finding hay in a haystack or a needle in a massive pile of needles. Take this one, for example, by Max Keiser. Max is former options trader turned fillm-maker and broadcaster who has appeared on a number of different media outlets but is best known for presenting shows on Press TV (the news channel owned by Iran. Yes, that's right: Iran), RT (formerly known as Russia Today, another news channel of dubious editorial policy) and Al Jazeera English (no introduction necessary).

Max has a dream, you see. Max wants the whole world to buy as much silver as possible. Not in the form of futures or options, but the actual physical commodity. Max buys into the (non-confirmed) theory that the investment bank J.P. Morgan is trying to manipulate the value of silver by running a huge short position (i.e. they have sold something that they do not own in the hope that prices will drop, allowing them to cover their short position at a huge profit) which they hope will drive the cost down. Consequently, Max's idea is for the rest of the world to buy enough silver to push the price up, up, up resulting in J.P. Morgan being unable to cover its position and to go bankrupt.

So far, so hare-brained. The frightening thing is the amount of comments that follow the article expressing their support for this ludicrous scheme. I've been in there myself trying to argue with some of them but it's like a zombie movie: just as you beat off one brain-sucking denizen of the walking dead, another fifty wild eyed monsters turn up looking for a feast. Such is life in The Guardian's comment section.

I do understand why so many people are angry with the banks but I do think some restraint is needed. Given all that we have been through in the last couple of years I cannot understand why anyone would think that bankrupting an enormous financial institution would be anything other than catastrophic. Look what happened when Lehman Brothers went under. A bank like J.P. Morgan going under would be disastrous and, in any case, they would only be bailed out by the government anyway (it really is too big to fail), thus adding to the debt that is already the burden of the US taxpayer. The whole idea is preposterous, the hoped for outcome neither likely nor desirable and Kesier is clearly a crank.

Similar idiocy was proposed a couple of weeks ago by no less an intellectual giant than Eric Cantona who suggested that revolution should be instigated by everyone taking their money out of the banks. Somehow a new and fairer system would emerge from this - by magic, of course: he doesn't bore us with any details about what happens next. Sounds like a great idea. We can look forward to the disappearance of money, followed by the immediate disintegration of infrastructure and society. As long as we "punished" those banks.

As I said in the comments thread: Withdrawing all money to "punish" the banks would be like sticking a red hot poker up your bottom to punish your haemorrhoids.

I'm off now to head-butt myself into unconsciousness.

Simply dreadful

2010-12-02T21:43:00.000Z

Mick Hucknall has issued an apology to approximately one thousand women that he estimates he "slept with" in the 1980s, attributing his behaviour to an addiction. All very well, Mick, and I'm glad you've atoned for some of your sins, but don't think you can stop there my ginger friend. You still need to apologise to the rest of the planet for infecting us with your godawful plastic soul-pop for oh so many years. For the hideous bland hybrid of easy listening/jazz/funk/lounge/muzak that was played endlessly on the radio from the late-80s to the mid-90s, polluting the airwaves, making dogs howl, babies cry and generally raising my blood pressure. I'm over it now, I've had time to recover, but I still want an apology.

Fifty million albums this fucker sold. FIFTY MILLION.

Further to yesterday's blog, add that to the the list of reasons that prove there is no god.

Home of the heroes and villains

2010-12-01T21:46:00.000Z

It's December 1st. How we are back in December again so soon I have no idea, but here we are. To mark the occasion The Guardian is producing an interactive "Heroes and Villians" advent calendar where every day a different writer or personality presents the case for their hero and villain of the year. First up today is Richard Dawkins who nominates The Hitch:

Eloquent, witty, literate, intelligent, knowledgeable, brave, erudite, hard-working, honest (who could forget his clean-through skewering of Mother Teresa's hypocrisy?), arguably the most formidable debater alive today yet at the same time the most gentlemanly, Christopher Hitchens is a giant of the mind and a model of courage. A lesser man would have seized the excuse of a mortal illness to duck responsibility and take it easy. Not this soldier. He will not go gentle into that good night; but instead of a futile raging against the dying of the light he rages, with redoubled energy (and concentrated power in his vibrant, Richard Burton tones) against the same obscurantist, vicious or just plain silly targets as have long engaged him. But he never rants. His is a controlled, disciplined rage, and don't get on the wrong side of it.

I couldn't agree more. I am nearing the end of his memoirs, Hitch-22 , and it's a fabulous read. On every page there is some brilliant anecdote or witticism or insight. The odds of Hitch beating his cancer are very low - about 5% - so the sad fact is we may soon be living in a world without him being around to comment on it. It's a depressing thought, the prospect that we will be robbed of Hitchens, yet the likes of Richard Littlejohn or Glen Beck or Sean Hannity or any other number of buffoons will continue to be paid handsome sums for their pig ignorant views.

If ever you wanted a sound argument against the existence of a loving god, there's a good one.

WikiLeaks and Cablegate

2010-11-30T22:27:00.001Z

I've been a bit underwhelmed by Cablegate. I thought there were going to be revelations that would shake the US government to its core. Are people genuinely surprised that:

Iran is considered a menace to the region and the world?
Prince Andrew is an utter arse ?
There are fears about Pakistan's nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands?
China considers North Korea to be an embarrassing burden rather than a valued strategic partner?

There's more to come but so far I haven't read anything that has particularly amazed me. Of course these are the sort of conversations that take place in the diplomatic world - I'd be more amazed if they didn't. The really startling thing about the leak, the truly embarrassing aspect, is the leak itself. The leak itself is the story - how could such vast quantities of sensitive information be so easily exported and distributed?

I'm not convinced that WikiLeaks's motives are always so pure, either. There seems to be a persistent anti-American strain. First the Afghanistan war logs, then the Iraq files, now Cablegate. Their next big dump of data, due in early 2011, will apparently unleash "devastating" revelations against a "major American bank" (Goldman Sachs? It must be). There only ever seems to be one geographical target. As David Aaronovitch said on Twitter on Sunday:

Imagine that, for once, the #wikileaks treasure trove contained hundreds of thousands of Iranian, Chinese or even French documents.

Or Russian. Or Saudi Arabian. That would be very interesting. Then, I suspect, we really would see some murky information. But, like David, I'm not holding my breath.

Fisking Galloway

2010-11-29T22:15:00.000Z

And what better reason for coming out of the blogging cave than to froth and rant at an old foe: Mr George Galloway.

I was most surprised to read this piece by him in the Daily Record. Not for the content of the article you understand; I was just staggered that there is still a publication happy to publish his work and, presumably, pay him for it.

Galloway was writing about the debate that took place in Toronto last week between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair on the subject of faith. The motion was "Religion is a force for good in the world" and, by all accounts, Hitch (arguing against the motion, naturally) won. I would have loved to have seen it but will have to settle for the YouTube installments or, alternatively, catch it on BBC News on New Year's Day.

It's difficult to know where to begin with Galloway's comments so it'll have to be a good, old-fashioned Fisking of some of the most pertinent sections.

"I have no faith in this hellish twosome of Blair and Hitchens" roars the headline. Such erudition. Now, I know that this would have most likely have been written by a sub-editor rather than the author but you can easily picture Galloway's snarling face saying this with his customary bellicosity, self-important wind-bag that he is.

Tony was debating in Canada at the same time as me last week, with my old adversary Christopher Hitchens on the subject of God.

Might I suggest you replace "adversary" with intellectual superior?

Blair backs God, even though if there is a hell he's surely bound for the Blair inferno and Hitchens ridicules the very idea of God, despite the fact he is now stricken with cancer of the oesophagus with an extremely poor prognosis.

Despite the fact he is now stricken with cancer of the oesophagus with an extremely poor prognosis. This is amazing. The implication being that, despite a lifetime of principled, reasoned and intellectually vigorous anti-theism, because Hitch is now battling stage four cancer he should forget all about that and embrace "god". The very god that allows cancers to exist, or, to pursue this perverted logic, the very god that inflicted him with the illness in the first place. Galloway would not be the first "believer" to have speculated such a contemptible hypothesis, that this is somehow "god's revenge" for Hitch's "blasphemy".

And though I once denounced Hitchens as a bloated, drinksoaked former Trotskyist popinjay, I am religiously precluded from wishing him a premature death.

Again, a very telling choice of words. I am religiously precluded from wishing him a premature death. So it is only because your faith instructs you otherwise that you hold back from wishing him dead? If it wasn't for the fact that your religion forbids such a sentiment you would openly say it? Whereas, instead, you secretly wish it? This unwittingly demonstrates one of Hitch's most common examples in his arguments against faith: the idea that religious code makes people behave in a certain manner not from an inherent understanding of what is right or wrong but out of blind adherence to a mystical rule book.

My own debate with Hitchens - available on YouTube - five years ago in the Big Apple drew a considerably larger crowd than this latest double-apostasy. And a considerably more clear-cut result.

Indeed, it was a big event at the time and I enjoyed it. And you're right, George, it DID produce a considerably more clear-cut result: Hitch won in whichever way you choose to measure it. What you lacked in cogent argument you made up with characteristically bombastic chest-beating rhetoric. Don't mistake being the loudest with being the winner.

I hope Hitchens sticks around for a rematch. Which means I hope he pulls through. In fact, I shall pray for it.

Well, I can't disagree with you on that point. I, along with many others, hope he makes a full recovery. But as for the prayers... well, earlier in the article you did rather clearly hint that you wish him a premature death. So I hope for your sake that, when you are saying your prayers, god excuses your blatant hypocrisy. I wouldn't hold out much hope for a rematch though. In the event Hitch does recover I very much doubt he's going to want to spend valuable hours of his life in your company.

The challenge: a blog a day every day

2010-11-29T20:54:00.000Z

So. A blog a day every day until the end of the year. This is quite an undertaking for someone who currently averages one post every couple of months at best but this is the challenge I have decided to set myself.

As for honouring the commitment, that's something else entirely. But damn it I'm going to try. It's not like there's any shortage of things to write about.

Who would be a student now?

2010-08-22T10:17:00.001+01:00

Who would want to be a student in this day and age? Seems like you can get five A* grades and still not get into your place at Bogmouth University. Even if you do, you'll come out the other side with thousands of pounds of debt, competing for jobs with hundreds of thousands of other graduates because getting a degree is now about as special as wearing a T-shirt.

OK, that's probably an unfair assessment. I was lucky enough to go to university in mid-90s - before the introduction of tuition fees (which I don't necessarily disagree with, by the way) - when it was still possible to pretty much get into the university of your choice as long as you got the requisite grades. My university of choice - Manchester - wanted three Bs or equivalent to get onto the Philosophy & Politics course. Thankfully, I met this requirement and I was in. Great times. Not sure about now though. You probably need eight A* grades, an enormous bag of cash and an endorsement letter from the Pope to get through the door. Even then, over-subscription means there's a chance you still won't get a place this year.

That said, if you can live with the expense and actually get on a course, it's without doubt one of the best times of your life. While I don't envy the students who, on top of annual accusations of A Levels getting easier, have to contend with incredible competition for places and then for a job afterwards, already up to their eyes in debt, I do envy the amazing three years they can have in the meantime. I graduated in 1996 and have pretty much been in full-time employment ever since. I know which I prefer.

Thoughts on the "Ground Zero mosque"

2010-08-21T11:35:00.001+01:00

The most frightening thing about this ridiculous "Ground Zero mosque" furore is how the opponents of it are so casually disregarding the very features of their country that - apparently - make them so proud to be American. The USA is a melting pot of cultures, nationalities and religions with a constitution that ensures the government cannot favour any one group over another. This is one of the undoubted strengths of the union and one of many reasons for its continued success at incorporating all peoples (not perfectly, by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly better than most nations manage).

Newt Gingrich, the Republican former presidential candidate and speaker of the House of Representatives, drew a crass analogy: "We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Centre". It's difficult to imagine what sort of "site" he could be thinking the Japanese could put there but, presumably, there are no indicators of Japan or Japanese culture allowed in Hawaii out of respect for the attacks of December 1941? No sushi restaurants, no Playstations, no Sony televisions allowed on or near the islands as an act of never-ending reverence.

Even worse comes from Elliott Maynard, Republican candidate for Congress in West Virginia: "Ground Zero is hallowed ground to Americans. Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or a Christian church to be built in Mecca?" he asks, missing the point completely. No, Elliott, they wouldn't. But then - and this is the crucial bit that you should really be focusing on, instead of ignorantly perpetuating your numb-skulled ignorance - that is what makes the USA a vastly superior country to a hideous theocracy like Saudi Arabia. Do you understand? The USA is a sophisticated democracy and Saudi Arabia is a theocratic authoritarian state. By even drawing a parallel between the two you are besmirching the very country that you profess to love.

It's not just Republicans whipping up this nonsense (although, of course, they do dominate the numbers - none more so than Fuckwit-in-Chief Sarah Palin who continues to chip in on the subject much like a parrot picks up pieces of dialogue and spits them out randomly). Democrat Harry Reid's office released a statement saying that he respects freedom of religion, but "thinks the mosque should be built someplace else". Right. Well, as long as you're consistent in your philosophy.

So the arguments just frothed and frothed and frothed until President Obama himself had to get involved in what should be, really, a planning dispute particular to residents of lower Manhattan. Obama, rightly, defended their right on constitutional terms. This has been taken as "endorsement" in many quarters, but it is no such thing - he is merely upholding their right and reiterating the facts. But then, nearly 1 in 5 Americans apparently believe that Barack Obama himself is a Muslim.

Now I'm no friend of Islam and have no interest in granting them any special privileges. Like any religion, it does not command my interest, admiration or respect. But US citizens who are Muslim clearly have the same rights and entitlements as those of any other faith (or those of no faith). Muslims died in the attacks of 9/11 too. By isolating this issue, taking it out of context and blowing it out of all proportion the message is being given that all Muslims are terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Which is exactly what Osama Bin Laden and company seek: they want all Muslims worldwide to believe that there is a religious war being waged against them all. The rage of opponents of the "Ground Zero mosque" (neither a mosque, nor located at Ground Zero by my understanding) is only serving to help this aim.

Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and all the rest of you, take a bow. You are doing the work of Bin Laden. Well done.

Plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines

2010-08-21T09:36:00.000+01:00

Don't you just hate it when three months piss by and you can't even account for them? I must have been doing something in that time. In fact I know that I was. But blogging wasn't one of them.

How quickly things change in politics...

2010-05-12T21:27:00.001+01:00

I just happened to stumble across Chris Huhne's website. Huhne, of course, is the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in this new, perverse, coalition government. As if to reinforce the duplicity, double standards and u-turns that were required to forge this unholy alliance, check this out from his (not edited since before the election) homepage:

A vote for Labour in Eastleigh could help David Cameron into government.

Indeed. And the Liberal Democrats really wouldn't want that, would they? Would they? Oh.

So the Tories are back. Some initial thoughts.

2010-05-11T22:52:00.001+01:00

So the Tory beast returns to power. Although this beast will be hamstrung, tethered and muzzled. I am indifferent to this particular turn of events given that I cannot see it as being anything other than short-lived. I'm prepared to be proved very wrong on this, but I think a coalition with the Lib Dems is destined to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Personally, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the theatre. It's certainly going to be very interesting to see how things turn out, especially when Cameron picks his Cabinet. Early indications point to Nick Clegg being made Deputy PM. Which sounds grander than it is, of course, given that it isn't even a real position. John Prescott did it for ten years for Christ's sake. You could draw a smiley face on an orange and give it that title.

Whoever came to power in this election was going to have to confront some rather harsh economic realities: a huge deficit and record levels of national debt. Any new government is going to have to take an axe to public spending - I'm happy for the Tories to play the role of pantomime villain, providing fresh impetus to regard them once more as the "nasty party". This was a general election worth losing.

Gordon left with dignity and - I suspect - enormous relief. Good luck to him. He wasn't cut out for the centre stage anyway. I expect we'll see David Miliband taking on Cameron at Prime Minister's Question Time in a few months, thus giving us the scenario where the Conservative's answer to Tony Blair goes head to head with Blair's true successor. (Here's a question: if Clegg does become Deputy PM, will he stand in at PMQs when Cameron is away?)

This is going to be the most fractured and ineffectual Conservative government since the last one. It's going to be very interesting....

Everything's alright. Everything's alright. It's OK. It's fine.

2010-05-09T19:33:00.002+01:00

Made in 1994 but still eerily prescient, The Day Today is one of the finest comedies ever made. This particular segment seems more appropriate right now than ever.

Don't worry. Everything's fine.

ConDemNation

2010-05-09T12:16:00.000+01:00

On the face of it, the prospect of a working coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats seems about as likely as Stephen Hawking representing Britain in the 400m hurdles at the 2012 Olympics. But exceptional circumstances make for unusual bed partners. This was pre-ordained a couple of weeks ago when Nick Clegg stated that he would not be able to enter talks with a party that did not win the biggest share of the vote. He tried to backtrack on that in subsequent interviews but on pure point of principle he could not go straight into talks with a party and a Prime Minister who effectively lost their position of power.

So now he and his party are locked away, reading each other's manifestos and using highlighter pens to identify what, if anything, they can both agree on. So far I expect it's a very short list indeed.

If this unholy marriage is to go ahead then it has my blessing on the condition that Clegg stays true to his principles - he should settle for nothing less than an agreed referendum on electoral reform within the next year. First past the post creates strong governments in a two party system. It's pretty plain that we do not have a true two party system anymore - we need an electoral process that better reflects the views of the electorate at large. The chaos of the last few days again underlines the need for a more formal written constitution - another subject that is close to the Lib Dem's heart and not something they should compromise on.

Whatever settlement is reached, the union is probably doomed to fail and I would expect to see another election within a year. Conservatives and Liberals working together - it's like cats and dogs getting married. My ideal scenario is another election within the year, producing a progressive pact between Labour (minus Gordon of course) and the Lib Dems.

Anarchy for the UK?

2010-05-09T10:48:00.000+01:00

Well, this isn't quite what I was hoping would happen, but it's very interesting all the same. A hung parliament always looked inevitable but the collapse of Liberal Democrat support was a surprise, pulling in even less seats than they did in 2005. I was expecting/hoping that they would win at least 70 but I expect that, as often happens, people had a late change of heart alone in the booth and reverted back to the main two parties. I know I was tempted. In my own constituency, the Tory candidate won by a mile (and actually with a majority of the votes) with the Lib Dems coming (a very far) second. So, like millions of other people, my vote did not count at all.

Now we have the Conservatives and the Lib Dems in frantic power talks hoping to put together some kind of coalition before the weekend is out. Good luck with that. I predicted a Con-Lib pact about six months ago (should have put some money on it). It seemed clear that the Conservatives were never going to get the swing needed to form a working majority and that Gordon Brown had about the same prospects of winning as Champion The Wonder Horse.

So now here we are, living in an anarchic state. Although observe how life simply carries on unabated for pretty much all of us. The markets are doing their whole "wooah, woooh, what's going ON?" thing, but with the Greek (and general European) debt crisis, they'd probably be doing that anyway. Who's in control now? The Civil Service I guess. So little change there then.

Some news about an old friend...

2010-05-07T22:46:00.001+01:00

I'd like to take a moment to pause, reflect and remember an old friend and - alas - casualty of the 2010 election. It was with great sadness that I learnt that the hardest working politician in Westminster - Mr George Galloway - failed to win the seat of Poplar and Limehouse. Not only that but, it chokes me to say, his 'Respect' Party lost their only seat in Bethnal Green and Bow. Yes indeed, ladies and gentlemen, the 'Respect' Party now has no representation in the House of Commons.

It's a damn shame and no mistake. Why do bad things happen to good people?

I am further saddened to report that George's radio show "The Mother Of All Talkshows" on the inspirational TalkSport Radio station was also recently killed off. Such a shame that I never listened and now never will. But there is hope! Because George plans to start his own internet radio station - "Rebel Radio". I can't wait for that one.

Nick Clegg: some doubts

2010-05-03T14:22:00.000+01:00

Mind you, it's not like I'll be voting Liberal Democrat without some reservations. Nick Clegg did well on the televised debates and made the most of the opportunity to sell himself to the general populace and muscle in on the usual two party domination. He's a good speaker and a convincing leader who comes across as far more "normal" than the other two. Not difficult to look normal next to Gordon of course. Cameron, meanwhile, has always carried a whiff of implausibility about him: like he was built to order by Conservative Party HQ under the instructions "give us a Blair". The best description I have ever read of David Cameron was by Caitlin Moran of The Times who declared him to be "like a C-3PO made of ham", a "slightly camp gammon robot". Absolutely spot on.

So Clegg has had a good campaign, but I still have issues with him and his party. I'm voting for them really for two reasons: 1) his party probably have the best opportunity of winning my constituency from the Tories and 2) I would like to see electoral reform and a hung Parliament with Clegg holding the balance of power is the best opportunity we have ever had to see this happen.

Serious doubts were raised in my mind about Clegg in the third and final debate when he touched upon the subject of the banking industry. Attacking the banks is such an obvious thing these days and I understand why politicians do it: it's an easy, populist target. But when he's banging on about how it's necessary to separate high street banking from investment "casino" banking to avoid another crisis like the one we have just witnessed you realise he can't understand what he is talking about. The consolidation of investment banks and retail banks had nothing to do with it, Nick. Lloyds TSB, HBOS and Northern Rock were all, exclusively, traditional lending banks. Meanwhile the major investment banks that went under, or nearly went under (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch) were all exclusively investment banks. Really the only bank (and, admittedly, a major player in the crisis) that combines both elements is RBS and there isn't really any convincing argument that breaking it up into smaller parts would be of any particular benefit to anyone.

Some thoughts on the general election

2010-05-03T11:34:00.001+01:00

Hard to believe that it's been five years since the last general election. So much has happened in this time, much of which could not have even been imagined in 2005. I was just re-reading a couple of posts I wrote on my old blog Liberal Elite: one was a (lukewarm) endorsement of Labour, the other just some general observations. It makes for fascinating reading (for me, unlikely for anybody else).

The biggest contrast between 2005 and 2010, as far as I am concerned, is how little enthusiasm I am able to muster for the entire thing. I don't know if this is because the party leaders are so uninspiring or because I have become so old, jaded, cynical and tired that I can barely bring myself to care. It's probably both. At least in 2005 we still had a (just about) credible government led by a credible Prime Minister. Meanwhile the alternative was a spiteful Conservative Party obsessed with immigrants and Europhobia and led by Michael Howard who still makes me involuntarily scratch myself whenever I hear his name. The Liberal Democrats weren't fit for office. (I actually just had to check who was leading them back then as I honestly couldn't remember: was it Kennedy The Drunk or Ming The Elderly? It was the former.)

But in 2010? The current Labour Party is a shambles, led by a blundering, injured bear who has something of the Midas touch in reverse, given that everything he does or says turns to excrement. Gordon Brown has been an appalling Prime Minister. Admittedly he has had to oversee the most dire domestic and international economic situation since the 1930s - and to his credit, some of his actions were correct: e.g. the highly unpopular (but highly necessary) bail out of the British banking system, something that the Conservatives and Lib Dems actually opposed - but overall his leadership and people skills leave much to be desired. Those that doubted Brown's ability to take on the big job were spot on - he doesn't have the requisite skill set. His stiff demeanour resolutely fails to hit a nerve with the general public and, oh my, when he smiles for the camera! It's so forced, so unnatural. He looks like a ventriloquist's dummy having a prostate examination. His coffin was finally pinned closed this week with the disastrous events of Bigotgate - he is officially a dead man walking.

So who to vote for? 1997 was the first general election I was able to participate in. I voted Labour and have done in every general election since. But I will not be doing so in 2010. I tentatively nibbled at the Conservative offering and wracked my soul thinking about it. There is no question that the Tories are a very different party under David Cameron. He has shed a lot of their social conservatism, which is what I have always found most repellent about his party. I could never align myself with the Telegraph reading, flag waving, Proms attending, Queen respecting, Euro bashing, protect-the-pound-at-all-costs brigade. Cameron has alienated a lot of this contingent, forcing them to sit and fume quietly in the corner (or join the feeble, impotent and raging UKIP) while his leadership drags the party towards the liberal centre. Which is all well and good and Dave has gone some way to ticking some of the boxes on the wish list I wrote in October 2005 where I wondered out loud what could make me vote for the Tories. But then I see stories like this about how up-and-coming Tory MP Philippa Stroud helped to found a church that believed it could "cure" homosexuals by the power of prayer. You see, I read something like this and I just think "Oh, fuck off". This ridiculous woman apparently played a significant part in formulating Conservative social policy. Sorry Dave, while your party still gives shelter to deluded arsewits such as this, you will never get my vote.

So after much tribulation I have decided to vote Liberal Democrat in this election. Not without reservations: I have issues with many of their policies. Principally, this is a tactical vote. The constituency I live in is usually as blue as Papa Smurf's arse but the 2006 by-election saw the Lib Dems reduce the Conservative majority to only 633. The general uptick in Lib Dem support nationally may, just may, see them nick it this time round. Here's hoping.

Ideally I want to see a hung Parliament. National sentiment towards the main parties is so divided, not one of them deserves to form a government on its own. Ordinarily I would have liked to have seen a Lib-Lab pact but, as Nick Clegg pointed out, if Labour come third in terms of number of votes actually received, it would raise serious question marks over its legitimacy. I predicted a Con-Lib pact about six months ago. It seemed ridiculous but now it doesn't look entirely unlikely. It would certainly be... interesting. Whichever way it goes, the Lib Dems will make electoral reform a pre-requisite policy, something which is long overdue - this ridiculous system that distorts public opinion to perverse effect in the House of Commons needs to be addressed. Some form of proportional representation is required to give credibility to our electoral system and, depending on the outcome on Thursday, its time may - finally - have arrived.

The outcome of this election is going to be very interesting, even if the candidates we are voting for are not.

The great subscription firewall of Rupert Murdoch

2010-03-28T09:15:00.002+01:00

Meanwhile, pursuing a very different business model, News International are pressing ahead with their stated intention of making the websites of The Times and The Sunday Times subscription only. While one can see the logic (apparently The Times alone makes a loss of £240,000 per day) I don't see how this is going to work out for them. The pricing is reasonable enough - £1 per day or £2 for a weekly subscription is very competitive considering the cost of the physical format itself - but it will fail for practical reasons, not financial. Quite frankly, I don't value the journalism of their papers so highly that, in the event that I want quick access to information via the internet, I'd be prepared to reach for my debit card and go through the PayPal process (or whatever method they opt for) to read their coverage. Breaking news? I'll go to the BBC, or The Guardian, thanks. Or Google News.

News International have admitted that, yes, obviously, they are going to lose millions of visitors to their sites, but are banking on a small, committed readership happy to pay for the online content. Good luck to them, but this is doomed to fail. Increasingly, our attention is drawn to news and features by the proliferation of hyperlinking: blogs, Twitter, Facebook and even old-fashioned email enable the easy embedding of links to share with other people. By building a subscription firewall, The Times and The Sunday Times are effectively removing themselves from the global conversation.

There is an argument (and a very strong one) that the future of quality journalism depends on newspapers being able to defend their revenue streams. Clearly the losses posted by The Times (and pretty much all papers) are not sustainable in the long term. We live in an age where people (particularly younger people) are so used to free, unrestrained access to news that the idea of paying for it is anathema to them. The future survival of our print media depends on finding a solution to this conundrum - but subscription firewalls aren't the answer I'm afraid.

Murdoch will soon be back to the drawing board on this one.

The death knell of the British newspaper industry?

2010-03-27T10:06:00.000Z

I remember the launch of The Independent in 1986 - the same year that Eddy Shah launched his revolutionary (and now defunct) Today newspaper (Colour! Ooh! Print that doesn't come off on your hands! What witchcraft is this?). This was a tumultuous year for Fleet Street. In addition to the aforementioned new launches, it also saw Rupert Murdoch relocate his entire stable of papers to the notorious Wapping Fortress in a controversial move designed to destroy the power of the print unions.

The Independent was founded by a consortium of (mainly) ex-Daily Telegraph journalists who wanted to establish a new quality broadsheet untainted by party political affiliation intrusive proprietors. Launched with the slogan "It is. Are you?" it very quickly poached a lot of curious readers from The Guardian (whose centre-left stomping ground the Indy was trying to muscle in on), The Times and The Telegraph, reaching a peak of 400,000 copies sold daily. It's been in terminal decline ever since.

This week, after months of protracted negotiations, Independent News and Media sold both the daily and the Sunday Independent titles to Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev - the man who last year bought the London Evening Standard and immediately turned it into a freesheet, directly challenging the business model of daily newspapers head on.

The question now is: what's he going to do to the Indy? Slash the cover price to zero and give it out at train stations? Once that would have sounded utterly implausible but it could very well happen. What will this mean for the other broadsheets (and the tabloids for that matter), given that they are - almost without exception - losing readers and money in a downward spiral? Will they be forced to do the same in order to compete? What will this mean for quality journalism, which is already seen as an expensive luxury in the low-margin digital age? I can't help but worry that this is going to be very bad for British newspapers indeed. Anyone who picked up the free papers produced in London until last year (London Lite and The London Paper) could tell you how utterly awful they were. Ditto the staggeringly popular Metro given out all over the country every morning. It's a pitiful rag full of copy-and-paste reporting, feeble reviews and recycled celebrity photographs. Yet given the choice between that and actually paying for a newspaper, a very large number of commuters opt for the former. As a newspaper lover, I find it very sad that people are content to make do with this characterless, editorial-free, exercise in blandness. If The Independent takes the same route there's a danger it will be run along similar principles, taking all the other papers down with it in a race to the bottom. Sad times.

In praise of... Technology

2010-03-22T22:58:00.001Z

Technology is a wonderful thing. I mean, sure, at some point in the not too distant future we are going to be enslaved by robots that turn against us and humanity will do battle with them forever more in a post-apocalyptic nightmare world. This is a given. Until then, we can enjoy the small pleasures that gadgets bring us.

My iPhone, for example, has long been an indispensable part of my life. A phone, an iPod, email, Twitter, Facebook, backgammon. I wouldn't be able to make it through the working day without it. I might do a lot more 'work', but where's the fun in that?

Anyway, this is all just a flimsy pretext to try out the new blogging application I've just downloaded (BlogPress). So here I am, in bed, writing this. Such a thing would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Marvellous.

Of course every small advancement in technology takes us ever closer to the scenario outlined above, but in the meantime let us not concern ourselves with such matters. For life is short and art is long... or something.

Reasons to hate the Catholic Church, part 4,678

2010-03-21T21:27:00.003Z

It would be fair to say I have no time for religion. Actually, that's a massive understatement. It would be correct to say that I despise religion. For the lazy and child-like explanation of the world and the universe. For the slavish devotion to 'holy' texts written by people who could not possibly have had first hand experience of the events they are describing (events that almost certainly didn't happen in the first place). For the claims to have exclusive access to revealed truth. For the frequent rejection of scientific evidence and analysis. The list goes on and on. Mostly though, I hate religion (and I don't differentiate or discriminate here, they are all generally as irrelevant to me as one another, so I will continue to bundle them all up into a single word) for their claims to special status, their entitlement to 'respect' for their frequently absurd belief systems, for the reverence we should bestow upon their 'holy' leaders, no matter how undeserving of our respect they might be.

Take the pope, for example. The recent scandal surrounding the Catholic church and the covering up of the 'abuse' (a generic euphemism for what is, in fact, sexual assault and rape) of children by priests in Ireland has driven the Catholic church and the pope even further down in my estimations. Which is astonishing as I didn't know such depths even existed. The hand-wringing letter written by Pope Benedict is an execrable attempt to make amends for decades of systematic abuse and subsequent cover-up. Any claims to be 'shocked' and 'dismayed' by the revelations are empty rhetoric given that he personally oversaw the suppression of such information in a previous role. He knew about it then and he knew about it now - which makes him complicit in all of the crimes committed. God's representative on Earth aided and abetted serial abusers of children. And yet he has the temerity to state in his letter:

I can only share in the dismay and sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts.

The Catholic church was already discredited. These revelations (with more to come for sure, this is not just restricted to Ireland) detail an institution that is not just ethically bankrupt but pathologically addicted to covering up its own moral decay.

Leave the BBC alone

2010-02-28T10:40:00.000Z

According to The Times, the BBC is to undertake a process of cutbacks in a move to re-size and surrender ground to commercial competitors. Apparently there will be a renewed focus on "quality over quantity", yet the axe will fall most notably on BBC 6 Music (a minority-interest digital radio station run on a shoestring) while Radio 1 will remain largely untouched. Talk about inconsistent. Also due for the chop is Asian Network (again a digital radio station servicing a niche audience) and the website will see substantial cutbacks in content and staff. This is no doubt the first step in a series of reforms that we can expect in the coming years (although possibly subject to who wins the election) to change the shape, scope and size of our national broadcaster.

It goes without saying that the BBC is a national treasure and we would be immensely poorer without it. Meanwhile, the voices that clamour the most for the scrapping or restructuring of the licence fee are the very same voices that would benefit most from doing so: the Murdoch press and media empire, the Daily Mail, commercial television and radio stations. The enemies of all that is good, in other words.

Do not listen to a word they say. The TV licence fee represents extraordinary value for money. For £142.50 a year (or 39p a day. 39p!!!) we get a uniquely comprehensive suite of television, radio and internet coverage. I would pay double this amount for Radio 4, Radio 5 and the website alone. In no other aspect of our lives do we get so much for such little expenditure. Yet there are those who would have us believe that this cost is extortionate. Lies! We get the best news service in the world (this is beyond argument and don't start yammering on about BBC 'bias' either - if anything the BBC is too impartial), innovative and intelligent radio, ground-breaking natural history programmes, first class comedy, drama and the amazing BBC website for less than the cost of a pint of milk. To be sure, the BBC also produces an awful lot of dross: EastEnders, Casualty, Top Gear, Radio 1, dreadful period dramas, etc, but they're catering for a lot of different tastes. Personally I'd rather eat my own teeth than watch or listen to any of the aforementioned, but that's just me.

You want to imagine life without the BBC? You’ll have an extra 39p a day at your disposal. What would you do with yours? Perhaps you could buy 39% of an issue of The Daily Telegraph? Television shows would be almost exclusively cheap, tawdry and aimed at the lowest common denominator (in other words, ITV). And the radio? Music will be provided by Absolute, Heart and Capital and if you want something more hard hitting and topical, well, there's always LBC.

George Orwell couldn't have come up with a more dystopian vision of the future for this country.

The BBC is one of the very few things that this country can still be very proud of, one that is internationally known for its quality of broadcasting. We tamper with this formula at our peril. It's not perfect, but it's the best there is. Now leave it alone.

Love in the time of the Cole era*

2010-02-27T18:26:00.000Z

Mindless celebrity tittle-tattle is ultimately propelling our culture towards oblivion. The Roman Empire was destroyed from within by a prevailing decadence and complacency that ate through society like a cancer. A similar fate awaits us unless we can shake our addiction to the cult of "celebrity". The "news" that sub-standard pop tartlet Cheryl Cole and her idiot footballer husband Ashley are to end their marriage took up an awful lot of media space this week: television, the tabloids, even the so-called quality press devoted huge amounts of coverage to this non-event through reportage, comment and speculation. Tiresome beyond belief. (Also witness the farrago of opinion about meat head John Terry and the woman he has been putting his genitals into. Does it make him fit to be England captain? Blah blah blah.)

It's really very simple to summarise. Cheryl is a convicted thug who has contributed nothing at all of any worth or value to the world. From Girls Aloud to the X Factor to her risible solo career, she is responsible merely for her complicity in lowering standards in music. Ashley, meanwhile, is thicker than a mattress lasagne and as charming as an ulcer. Were it not for his ability to play football, he would be a sales assistant at Phones4U in Walthamstow. There is nothing to talk about here. Now let's move on.

* with apologies to Gabriel Garcia Marquez

In praise of... Sundays

2010-02-21T22:11:00.002Z

I never used to appreciate Sundays. Rather than considering them to be the second half of the weekend, I could think of them only as the precursor to Monday morning. The origins of my Sunday phobia stem from childhood. Sundays in the 80s were awful - instead of the Saturday morning fizz of children's television there was religious programming or something about farming and then Police 5 with Shaw Taylor. If you were lucky there'd be an episode of The Smurfs after that. Later on there was Bullseye, Antique's Roadshow or Last Of The Fucking Summer Wine to look forward to. Meanwhile the miners were on strike, nobody had any money, it was probably raining outside and the last thing you'd get to watch before being sent to bed would be That's Life with Esther Rantzen. Grim times.

Then for many years in my drinking and pub-frequenting days, Sunday became "Hangover Day". Lie in, cooked breakfast, coffee and a day on the sofa with the newspapers, roast dinner then lie in a vegetative state until going to bed, dreading work the next day.

These days Sundays are very different. Today started at 7am morning with my son (9 weeks old) announcing the fact that he was awake and wanted attention with his customary morning greeting. My new Sunday routine is typically to take him downstairs so Mrs Sane can catch up on some much needed sleep and Baby Sane and I get to spend some time together. I make a large cup of coffee (for me, not him), then we watch the Andrew Marr Show. It's a great way to start the day. Later on comes breakfast, radio on in the background, the papers (speaking of which, I got the relaunched Observer today... it's not that much different to the pre-launch Observer if you ask me - still dull as hell, even with the all the excitement about Gordon Brown the bruiser). The three of us spent the whole day at home and it was great. This is what Sundays should be about.

Sundays - no longer part of the axis of evil, but the second best day of the week.

Let's hear it for Sunday - words I never thought I would say.

Just like starting over

2010-02-21T11:31:00.000Z

Just under five years ago I started a blog called Liberal Elite. Initially a co-venture with a friend of mine, it was intended to be an outlet for our opinions on (generally) current affairs and news, with a liberal slant. Liberal in the classical sense - not the corrupted definition that's prevalent in the US nor the limp and weedy, self-flagellating form of modern British "liberalism". I wrote a trenchant and over-confident "mission statement" for the blog setting out our, erm, vision. It was hugely tongue-in-cheek, arrogant even, but that was the point. The blog was intended to be irreverent, confrontational and dismissive of alternative view points. The original tag line summed this up: "Because you're wrong". What larks. What arrogance. I was a crazy young man with a dream.

Five years on I'm older, married, I've recently become a father. World weary and jaded, far less certain of my opinions (well, some of them), I don't think I could ever set out my stall with such gusto again. Saying that, perhaps I've lost focus because I'm not writing enough. Blogging is a great way to crystallise your opinions - often I wouldn't know exactly what I was going to say until the words came tumbling out. I'd then read it back and think "Ah, so that's my opinion then. I presume." Often those words were powered by strong coffee when I should have been working instead, mind. Ah, the heady days of 2005 and 2006.

So what's Mind Trumpet all about then? Well, I need an outlet to talk about whatever takes my fancy. The previous blogs - Liberal Elite especially - were too focussed on politics and world events and furious rants about religion, which was all great fun and no doubt there will be more of that to come on this site, but there's so many other things I feel I should also write about: being a dad, music, film, TV, my nascent interest in photography, books... whatever I'm experiencing basically.

So it's going to be a clean break with everything else I've ever written and I've come back to Blogger too. WordPress was pretty good, but I prefer the Blogger interface (although some new templates in the last five years wouldn't be asking too much would it?). Besides, the steady global takeover by Google continues apace - I might as well be part of it. Be on the winning side and all that.

So here we go, blog number four.