I hope Benazir Bhutto enjoyed life. I hope that she had plenty of private vices, and overindulged whenever possible. I hope that her riches, gained through fair means or foul, were used for her own pleasure, with no regard for her future health.
I wish this for her as she was obviously never going to live until old age. Her determination to be a martyr was clear for all to see, an ambition she finally realised last Thursday at the hands of either al-Qaeda or a more sinister assassin.
She must have known that her frequent public appearances were inviting attempts on her life, and that the odds against her survival were diminishing with every rally. Brave or stupid, or both? Brave to face the gunmen and bombers maybe. But otherwise stupid. Really stupid.
Stupid to believe that her martyrdom would help the country and people that she constantly proclaimed to love. Stupid to believe that the democratic cause would be furthered by her death. To die for a cause may be noble, but in Bhutto's case it was a selfish act - an act from which no one will benefit.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Poslcrniroectsticeal - political correctness gone mad
The best Christmas record ever made has been censored by Radio 1. [NOTE: THIS DECISION WAS EVENTUALLY REVERSED] The Pogues and Kirsty McCall's 'Fairytale of New York' has had the lines "you scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot" and "Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last" censored by the station.
Apparently they are ".....playing an edited version because some members of the audience might find it offensive."
As anyone who has listened to Radio 1 recently will know, the record's content is mild compared with some of the offensive crap broadcast by this once fine station. Never mind editing the vernaculars, what about editing Vernon Kay? Forget the lack of Christmas spirit, can we have the lack of Chris Moyles? Endless drivel punctuated by the latest shite track from a bands who the presenters have met in a pub the previous night.
And if you really want to be offended, listen to the X Factor single sung by that talentless Scottish weed. Pure dirge.
Apparently they are ".....playing an edited version because some members of the audience might find it offensive."
As anyone who has listened to Radio 1 recently will know, the record's content is mild compared with some of the offensive crap broadcast by this once fine station. Never mind editing the vernaculars, what about editing Vernon Kay? Forget the lack of Christmas spirit, can we have the lack of Chris Moyles? Endless drivel punctuated by the latest shite track from a bands who the presenters have met in a pub the previous night.
And if you really want to be offended, listen to the X Factor single sung by that talentless Scottish weed. Pure dirge.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Drive faster - miss a cat
A letter appearing in the local village magazine hit out at motorists who sped through the village High Street and were 'no doubt' responsible for the death of their beloved pet.
As far as I could ascertain no-one knew how fast the vehicle was going when it hit the poor animal, so it could have been murderous Mrs Jeeves going to do her weekly shop at Spar in her Morris Minor, travelling at her usual 29.5 MPH. You could argue that if the vehicle was going faster, the cat may have run out after it had gone and not been hit at all.
Anyway, apart from the letters to the local press, the grieving owner erected signs by the scene of crime, one with the message 'Did you kill my cat?'. Reading the sign caused me to swerve and flatten Cuddles from number 29, irony in every sense.
'Domestic' cats are responsible for over 25 million bird deaths every year, and are the major contributor to the decline in species such as the Tree Sparrow. And they are not a naturally 'domestic' animal, so if killing birds is 'survival of the fittest', so is the result of the cat versus car fight.
Maybe we'll see a sparrow perched on top of a cat bowl with a placard reading 'Did you kill my family?'.
As far as I could ascertain no-one knew how fast the vehicle was going when it hit the poor animal, so it could have been murderous Mrs Jeeves going to do her weekly shop at Spar in her Morris Minor, travelling at her usual 29.5 MPH. You could argue that if the vehicle was going faster, the cat may have run out after it had gone and not been hit at all.
Anyway, apart from the letters to the local press, the grieving owner erected signs by the scene of crime, one with the message 'Did you kill my cat?'. Reading the sign caused me to swerve and flatten Cuddles from number 29, irony in every sense.
'Domestic' cats are responsible for over 25 million bird deaths every year, and are the major contributor to the decline in species such as the Tree Sparrow. And they are not a naturally 'domestic' animal, so if killing birds is 'survival of the fittest', so is the result of the cat versus car fight.
Maybe we'll see a sparrow perched on top of a cat bowl with a placard reading 'Did you kill my family?'.
Call me apathetic? Bovered?
The Lisbon Treaty is signed today which will 'bring Europe out of a rut' according to one French MP. Speak for yourself, monsieur. Apparently the UK has opt-outs over a few major issues including immigration, asylum and bendy bananas, so we're alright Jacques.
Anyway, the question of a referendum has sprung up again, with many opposition MPs saying that the signing should have been put to a national vote. I'm afraid they are wrong. In a country where less than 60% turnout for a general election, the chances of getting any representative views from the British public are slim (unlike the British public).
Tracey and Dave from Colchester would be far too apathetic and, let's face it, thick, to worry. Inclusion of a shell suit ban and the trebling of import taxes on burberry may raise some interest, but it's unlikely. No, let those democratically elected make this type of decision. Even if a vast majority of the country didn't actually vote for them.
Anyway, the question of a referendum has sprung up again, with many opposition MPs saying that the signing should have been put to a national vote. I'm afraid they are wrong. In a country where less than 60% turnout for a general election, the chances of getting any representative views from the British public are slim (unlike the British public).
Tracey and Dave from Colchester would be far too apathetic and, let's face it, thick, to worry. Inclusion of a shell suit ban and the trebling of import taxes on burberry may raise some interest, but it's unlikely. No, let those democratically elected make this type of decision. Even if a vast majority of the country didn't actually vote for them.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Black and White
I heard Trevor Phillips speak recently on the subject of diversity. Mr Phillips is the chairman of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission, and is of the opinion that discrimination is acceptable in the UK in 2007, indeed that it should be encouraged.
He was, of course, talking about positive discrimination, which isn't discrimination at all apparently. No, it's a justifiable method of ensuring diversity in some professions. So the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission wants organisations to recruit staff not just based on a candidate's ability, but on the basis of colour and race.
On a similar note, the much over-rated Oxford Union held a debate last week on the subject of free speech. To obtain much needed publicity they invited two 'controversial figures' - Nick Griffin from the British National Party, and 'Historian' David Irving, a man convicted of Holocaust denial.
Amazingly to my mind, there were violent protests against the event. The protesters ranged from Holocaust survivors, National Union of Students members, MPs, and members of Unite against Fascism. They didn't think that these two figures should be given a platform to spout their views.
Surely you are either in favour of free speech and democracy or you're not. Equally you are in favour of equal rights, or against.
Picking and choosing when to apply your ideals is the privilege of those who are arrogant enough to think that they have the moral high ground, and makes them just as open to criticism as those who obviously do not.
He was, of course, talking about positive discrimination, which isn't discrimination at all apparently. No, it's a justifiable method of ensuring diversity in some professions. So the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission wants organisations to recruit staff not just based on a candidate's ability, but on the basis of colour and race.
On a similar note, the much over-rated Oxford Union held a debate last week on the subject of free speech. To obtain much needed publicity they invited two 'controversial figures' - Nick Griffin from the British National Party, and 'Historian' David Irving, a man convicted of Holocaust denial.
Amazingly to my mind, there were violent protests against the event. The protesters ranged from Holocaust survivors, National Union of Students members, MPs, and members of Unite against Fascism. They didn't think that these two figures should be given a platform to spout their views.
Surely you are either in favour of free speech and democracy or you're not. Equally you are in favour of equal rights, or against.
Picking and choosing when to apply your ideals is the privilege of those who are arrogant enough to think that they have the moral high ground, and makes them just as open to criticism as those who obviously do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
