Skip introduction & navigation

Web Design | Views & Rants | Reviews | Contact | Links | About

Welcome to the Weblog, which gets updated whenever I have time. Here I talk about whatever takes my fancy: politics, the arts, life in general; I do like to have something amusing here at least once a week, but obviously sometimes that is easier than others…

Saturday 29th March
(Day 10 of the Invasion of Iraq)

I’m incredibly busy at the moment, so although there is some stuff I have wanted to post here, I don’t have the time. I have added the Iraq Body Count counter to the page today (if you are still using Netscape 4 I’m afraid you won’t see it, or you won’t see it properly). We are getting regular, detailed information about the numbers of American and British, we aren’t getting it about the people our forces are killing. Wired explains why:

While no issue is as contentious in the Iraq war as civilian fatalities, no organization — with the exception of Iraq Body Count — appears to be keeping score. No one in the media, the U.S. military, the Iraqi government or humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross is estimating the conflict's running cost in Iraqi civilian lives.

Or, in the words of General Tommy Franks, We don’t do body counts. Although most of the people at Iraq Body Count are anti-war, the actual data are neutral:

On one hand, the numbers illustrate the dreadful cost of war. On the other, they show how well smart weapons and careful planning can minimize casualties, especially when compared with the carpet-bombing campaigns of World War II or Vietnam.

Tuesday 25th March
(Day 6 of the Invasion of Iraq)

Belief that New York is in particular danger of terrorist attack during the Iraq war has led to the resumption of 24-hour aerial patrols:

The patrols, which are being conducted by Black Hawk helicopters and small, specially outfitted surveillance planes from the fleet of the Department of Homeland Security, began today without announcement, the officials said. The helicopters and surveillance jets are not armed but have radar and can call on fighter jets stationed nearby in an emergency, they said.

The 24-hour patrols will be the first over New York City since early last year, when the Defense Department suspended the continuous air patrols over New York and Washington that had begun in the hours after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

I found it surprising at the end of last week that one of the main news stories on some TV channels was the Oscars — would they go ahead? A question I didn’t hear asked was: did anyone outside Los Angeles care? I certainly didn’t, except in so far as at this particular time I would be even less inclined to watch the tawdry, sugary mess than usual. It is bad enough seeing actors and (usually worse) actresses performing “emotional sincerity”, to say nothing of “sincere humility”, without having to endure their deep thoughts on, say, the invasion of Iraq.

This year, though, there was a refreshing outburst of sincerity, the real thing, when Michael Moore condemned G.W. with no restraint:

“We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president,” Moore said. “We live in a time where we have a man who’s sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it’s the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts.”

Applause gave way to some boos, as the orchestra began playing to cue the filmmaker to leave the stage.

“We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you,” Moore shouted.

That Chicago Tribune report talks of some boos, which fits with what I saw on the TV reports; The New York Times insists that there was a chorus of loud boos from at least half of the audience, which doesn’t.

Asked backstage why he made the remarks, Moore answered: “I’m an American.”

“Is that all?” a reporter asked.

“Oh, that’s a lot,” Moore responded.

He dismissed the jeers he received, telling reporters: “Don’t report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed.”

The first comment there suggests that Moore at least has a clear concept of what America is actually supposed to be about, something which has escaped many there today: democracy, justice, and liberty; not the forging of a global empire. Many people apparently thought his comments were inappropriate in that forum, and so they were. Gods forbid that any iota of reality should intrude on such a temple of the plastic, the unreal, and the vain. But these days, those against illegal wars need to grab the mike in any forum (the hubris of using such a word for the Oscars!) they can.

There is, though, a problem with Michael Moore’s speech, and for that matter the interview he gave to a GMTV reporter on Friday. When he is presenting his television programmes, writing his books, making his films, he can use his humour and build his accusations in his own very personal style and it works well. In his speech and that brief interview, his remarks did not have the context which would enable the audience — and unlike his films, programmes and books, the audience in this case was not specifically his audience — to see where he is coming from and where he is going. This is particularly true with the Oscars, which for some reason get an international audience. I’d hate to see him water down his style at all in his own works, but maybe in general interviews or Oscar acceptance speeches a slightly more simple, direct and plain approach would be much more effective.

Having said that, it was good to hear a sincere voice of dissent.

One person who has no difficulty plainly saying what he means is Mark Thomas, whose site has a new design; I can’t decide if I like it or not. On balance I think I do; it’s the JavaScript menus which give me pause. In the New Statesman dated 10th March he reflected on the rebellion of 121 Labour MPs:

Times of international crisis are by their very nature weird, but nothing has prepared me for just how weird things are getting this time. Who amongst us ever thought that we might say the words “That Jaques Chirac…he’s alright isn’t he.” Who thought they would see 121 Labour M.P’s voting against the Prime Minister on a 3-line whip? Most Labour MP’s think they are James Dean if they leave their pager off for an hour. Frankly I am amazed that there are 121 spines in the Parliamentary Labour Party, maybe they had to share or hire them for the day.

He made one particular comment which crystallised a lot I have been feeling about the push to war with Iraq:

Out of all of this comes the one simple question to ask Blair and the pro war pack: if your cause is so just why so much deception and why so many lies?

Exactly.

I recalled this yesterday when Tony Blair was speaking in Parliament. He said that the “Coalition” forces had prevented the Iraqis from setting fire to the oilfields, that the oil fields had been mined. His statement was clear and hardly open to misunderstanding: The oil wealth was mined, and deep-mined at that. Had we not struck quickly, Iraq’s future wealth would even now be burning away.

Yet earlier (or possibly the previous day; there is so much news at the moment one day blends seamlessly with the next) I had heard the excellent Channel Four news reporter Alex Thomson relay information he had got directly from a military officer who been involved in taking the oilfields (and who had taken him to the oil fields): this information was that the fields were not mined or booby trapped, that there was no evidence the Iraqis there had any intention of firing the oil fields. Since this officer was from the unit whose job it was to ensure there were no booby traps there, he should know what he was talking about (and he hardly has any reason to lie). In any case, I’d be more inclined to believe a British soldier than a politician any day.

Of course, it is possible that Blair is being given bad information (which surely should not be the case for long, so there should be a correction) or that there was an error in communication (which may happen — but why not then issue a correction?). It isn’t necessarily the case that he is, in Tariq Ali’s words, a “Blair-faced liar”, but his problem is that his government has been so dependent on spin, so prone to resorting to truth only as the last possible resort, that he pretty much has no reserve of trust to fall back on. And Mark Thomas’s question remains: if the cause is just, why lie?

Another person making a statement in the House yesterday was Clare Short. Last week I was sure that there was a relevant quote about her I should remember, but I could not bring it to mind. On Broadcasting House on Sunday, Barry Norman recalled it: Whenever Clare Short wrestles with her conscience she always wins.

The Telegraph the other day reported that the pathetically diminished International Development Secretary now has a new nickname, bestowed on her by her colleagues: depleted Claranium.

Monday 24th March
(Day 5 of the Invasion of Iraq)

Ross’s personal Web portal, bileyirheid.com (if you are unfortunate enough not to know Glaswegian Scots, an explanation of what “bile yir heid” means is helpfully provided), has a blog. I should have mentioned this some time ago, I know, I know. It has, unfortunately, not been updated since the beginning of March (a little joke about an entry there from July).

In the most recent entry, Ross says he is not a fan of the Channel 4 series The Book Group. I don’t know about fan, but I do like it. It is a very quirky series, and certainly not lighthearted, but it is at times wildly funny. Ross is right about the attraction of its being set in Glasgow, and that quite a few of the characters are whiny — but I find the lack of insight of these self-obsessed and dysfunctional characters amusing rather than irritating. The first series is available on DVD, by the way, and I was very impressed at a little bit of marketing used by Borders in Glasgow: they set up a display with the DVD at the top and many of the books referred to in the series below it.

Private Eye’s “Funny Old World” column — I know I have said this before — features three stories from newspapers from around the world and is often rib-achingly funny. The current issue’s column contains a hilarious story (which will only be online until the next issue is released) from The Corona Times:

“I saw Tom Ridge on television,” Steven Bosell told reporters outside his home in Corona, California, “telling us that all citizens should go out and stock up on duct tape and plastic, in case of terrorist attack. I’m a patriot, so I went straight down to the local Costco and bought $100 worth of duct tape and some plastic sheeting, to protect my house from radiation.

“As soon as I got home, I taped up the doors and windows, but then I did some thinking. I realised that if survivors like myself are going to reproduce and repopulate the earth after a biological attack, then we have to protect our private parts as well. So I used my last roll of duct tape to wrap up my privates, leaving just a little hole at the end for toilet functions.

“A few days later, the Department of Homeland Security told us that the alert was over, and that we could remove the duct tape. But when I tried to peel the tape off my privates, skin and body hair began peeling off too. I injured myself badly, and there was blood everywhere. The pain was so bad that I called an ambulance, and was taken to hospital, where the tape was eventually removed, though not without further serious injuries to my privates.

“When I explained what I’d done, the doctors and nurses laughed at me, and went out of their way to make me feel like a fool. But the people I really blame are the government, because Mr Ridge made me do this. And President Bush is equally liable for injury to my reproductive future, because he hired Mr Ridge to run the Department of Homeland Security, which gave the nation bad advice. That’s why I have filed a lawsuit against Mr Ridge, the Department, and the President, claiming compensation for emotional distress, personal injury, and sexual dysfunction.”

The Bush Administration has so far refused to comment.

The story appears in a slightly different form elsewhere:

Corona, CA - Tom Ridge’s advice to Americans to stock up on duct tape and plastic has sparked a lawsuit which has been filed against him, the Department of Homeland Security and President George W. Bush.

Steven J. Bosell, the owner of B & B Construction in Corona, California, has filed a lawsuit claiming emotional distress, personal injury and sexual dysfunction after he wrapped his “privates” in duct tape to protect them from a biological attack.

“After watching Mr. Ridge on television advising us to stock up on duct tape and plastic, I went to the local Costco and bought $100 worth of duct tape to protect myself”, Bosell said. “When I got home, I taped up my windows and doors. After I did that I realized if survivors like myself are going to reproduce and populate the Earth after a biological attack, we have to protect our privates as well.”

Bosell claimed in his lawsuit he wrapped his “privates” in duct tape as test of “Homeland Security”. When he tried to remove the tape, Bosell injured himself when the tape began peeling off skin and body hair. After calling an ambulance, Bosell was taken to the hospital where the doctors and nurses laughed at him.

“I told the doctors and nurses at the hospital if they laughed, I would file a lawsuit against them and the hospital. They laughed anyways and I now have another lawsuit pending” Bosell said with tears streaming down his face. “They went out their way to make me look like a fool. Once I saw the doctors scalpel go toward my privates, I totally lost it and blacked out”.

Also named in the lawsuit is the President of the United States, George W. Bush. “President Bush is just as liable for injury to my reproductive future because he hired Mr. Ridge to run the Department of Homeland Security and Mr. Ridge gave the nation bad advice. They also make me look like a fool.” Bosell sobbed.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Bush Administration have no comment on Mr. Bosell’s lawsuit.

Sadly, it isn’t true and Steven Bosell (or Bozell) does not exist. He is an excessively litigious “comedic” character created by a US radio programme. To judge from the list of Bozell’s supposed lawsuits, this story has to be the one really amusing one concocted for a character who sounds monotonously moronic.

One site which carries the tale (and has picked up on the fact it is not true) is a gun collectors’ site which flaunts its American nationality — the first thing you see is one of those waving US flags which so many American sites have sprouted. I don’t think Americans grasp how weird that looks to a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic. There are two things worth looking at here. One is headed America’s Real Gun Problem: apparently this is accidental self-shootings. I suspect a lot of people in America would not agree that that is America’s real gun problem; it certainly doesn’t strike people elsewhere that way. However, these incidents do clearly demonstrate what happens when you give idiots the constitutional right to own deadly weapons:

• Jason Gins, 19, Baton Rouge, La., January, in the genitals (gun stuffed in waistband during getaway from robbery);
• Michael Bent, 30, New York City, September, hit an artery near the groin (fatal) (fooling with gun in car while talking to his girlfriend);
• Randal Lewis, 40, near St. Louis, September, in the head (fatal) (while demonstrating to 12-year-old son how to unload gun);
• Robert Slay Jr., 55, Gonzalez, La., October, leg (trying on pants at an outlet store);
• Steve Kyplesky, 57, Raceland, La., hand (fumbling with gun in his truck’s glove compartment);
• Dale Grimmett, 41, Ione, Wash., shoulder (pointed rifle at himself while cleaning it);
• 15-year-old high school student, Detroit, December, leg (bent over to pick up pencil in class).

The other item that strikes the eye is yet another bit of dumb French-bashing:

The contemptible actions of the French government make us unwilling to do any business with French people. Last week we impolitely declined a rather large order from a French collector. The foolish French actions, posturing to puff up their increasing irrelevance to world events will cost American lives and we can only do this small bit to show our disgust.

I am pretty certain the French were not in any way trying to puff up their increasing irrelevance, but we can see what the guy is trying to say.

This site’s position is no more sensible than the boycott of a French cheese seller. I suspect the only people really being hurt are the ones who aren’t getting a substantial amount of money for the stuff a French collector couldn’t buy. If the message rejecting the order was as rude as the page suggests — this paragraph is headed frog warning — then I would expect the French collector and his friends not to give that site any business when this war is long over and the animosity in the US to France’s position has been forgotten (in the US at least).

Now, you can disagree with what the French did, but it is not immediately obvious that opposing a war waged by the most powerful nations on Earth against a Third World country when there are other possible routes to achieve the disarmament of Iraq was either foolish or contemptible — unless, that is, you believe that what the American president says is right and it is foolish and contemptible to have the temerity to disagree. It also does not make sense to say that the French position will cost American lives. How, exactly? (It is certain that the war will cost American, and British, lives — as is already obvious; but that has nothing to do with the French.)

There is a very vocal group in America who seem to think France is something close to evil — but as these seem to be the same people who think Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the 2001 attacks on America, we are not talking about the sharpest pencils in the box.

There are quite a few sites devoted to slagging off the French. Pave France seems to be a blog totally devoted to anti-French stories. There are sites which are obvious jokes, such as San Freedomfrisco (whom someone should tell that the franc is no longer France money — if it is anything, it is Swiss money now). Other sites which would normally be immediately classed as jokes these days provoke the worry that these nutters may be for real, such as Send Back the Statue of Liberty. I think it is a joke, but….

The problem with the anti-French rhetoric — such as referring to the anti-weasel movement when another restaurant is de-Frenchizing its menu, or the site which has amassed anti-French quotations and has a page entitled “Frenchmen Beware!” with a picture of a nuclear explosion in Paris (but this is an AOLer’s site so most of it is unreadable because of the terrible use of background images) — is that there are always those who are spurred to violence by it. Here is an example from The Los Angeles Times:

Pierre Frik feared that if the country went to war in Iraq, he might be targeted by zealots because of his Middle Eastern background.

He never imagined he’d be vulnerable because French Cleaners is the name of his small chain.

The Lebanese native said he picked the name on a whim, making the Eiffel Tower the logo. But as relations between the United States and France soured over a war with Iraq, Frik said, he was hit by the backlash.

Customers have spit on checks and passersby make obscene gestures, he said. On Wednesday, his Modesto shop was damaged in a fire. He said he later learned that his two other shops had been vandalized.

Now, the anti-French blog Pave France rightly says

[S]ome truly stupid anti-Frenchies set fire to the guy’s shop.

Um hello Modesto morons, let’s take a break on this one. You’ll agree that he left Lebanon for a better life, right? You’d agree that being from Lebanon means that you’re not French, right? OK, we got that straight….

However in all seriousness this is truly tragic that some goons … decided to play pyro on this guy’s blood, sweat and tears.

The thing is, the idiots who did this were idiots fired up by the anti-French rubbish being peddled by, among other sites, Pave France. Now, she does suggest it might be nice if money were donated to Mr. Frik — but surely an apology for any contribution the site may have made to encouraging the arsonists might also be good? Perhaps even a reconsideration of whether it is sensible to hurl imprecations at a country because of its leaders’ inability to agree that the USA’s policy on Iraq is correct.

I am reminded of Rebekah Wade’s campaign to name and print photographs of paedophiles in The News of the World which led to attacks on innnocent people — one man was attacked because he had a neck brace on, as did one of the paedophiles whose photograph was printed, and even paediatricians were attacked; only after there were actual riots was the campaign reluctantly shelved. As far as I can recall (I could be wrong here), she never apologised to the wholly blameless people who had been attacked as the result of the things she had had published.

Sometimes, you have to accept that words can be dangerous; I would like to think that Pierre Frik will be the last person attacked as a result of this widespread vilification of the French, I would like to think that what happened to him would make some of those indulging in such vilification in print, in speech or online abandon it; but I wouldn’t put money on it.