You say potato, I say cauliflower...

I know Katrina was a long time ago, but I just got sent this as a teaching aid and thought it was worth sharing.

It appears that black folk 'loot', but us whiteys merely 'find'.

Cheers m'dears!

Marital strife

Tubthumper just sent me this article from http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html


OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much."

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

The group's Web site gives another reason: "And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

Even the Legislature's most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

"I don't think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

Murray, one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, is sponsoring a measure that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and another to allow same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership measure has passed out of committee and a vote on the Senate floor could come within weeks.

The sponsor of the same-sex marriage measure in the House, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, said he supported the effort "to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some of those who oppose marriage equality" but opposed the initiative.

"For the same reason I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage, I don't think heterosexual married couples should be forced to procreate," said Pedersen, D-Seattle.

Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The measure's backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Gadow said his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.


In his e-mail Tubbie refers to the idea as completely insane, a sentiment which I am slightly inclined to echo, although at the same time I find it utterly ingenious. Will it work? Will it force the issue of same-sex marriage and weaken the Defense of Marriage Act? I'd like to hope so.

I am, however, slightly surprised by the negative reactions of Senator Murray and others who are pro-gay marriage. One would hope that they could understand that no-one actually really wants Initiative 957 to succeed, that it is just a way of exposing hypocrisy and bigotry. But then I suppose that as an openly gay Senator he has enough people opposing him and any perceived attack on the institution of marriage could seriously damage him...

Whatever happens I personally think that this is an excellent way of making a point and I urge any of you who can to contribute to the list of signatures so that this issue gets the attention it deserves.

Cheers m'dears!

Sense or Censor-ability!

Anyone who has watched the excellent Thank You for Smoking may remember the end-credit sequence where William H. Macy's character, Senator Orton Finistirre, is spearheading a campaign to digitally remove all scenes of cigarette smoking from old films. According to the Senator he prefers not to think of it as changing history but as "improving" it. Oh, how we all chuckled at how ludicrous such an idea is...

Ludicrous? Stop chuckling and read this article - in a nutshell, some (although to be fair, not all) smoking scenes are to be edited out of Tom 'n' Jerry cartoons. Now, whilst I understand the sentiment and the fact that these cartoons are, naturally, aimed at a younger audience I have to ask - where will it stop? Will we end up with classic films butchered to appease our modern sensibilities? Will Sandie choke on a stick of gum in the pjama party scene of the "improved" version of Grease? Will Bogey puff away on one of those white plastic Nicorette things? And why stop at the smoking? Let's get rid of all scenes of gratuitous violence from the T 'n' J cartoons... oh, wait. That would only leave the scenes of the black maid standing on a chair afraid of the mouse, which would of course also need to be removed on the grounds of overt racism and sexism.

Television and film are the cave paintings, scrolls, works of art, first folios of the 20th Century. They depict who we were at a particular moment of time, in all our glory and in all our disgusting, violent, bigoted filth. If these cartoons are no longer suitable for kids then don't show them any more, create new works which better reflect our modern times, but have the decency to allow our history to stand. But having said all that how about we step back for a moment, stop viewing the situation through adult eyes, and give kids a little benefit of the doubt... do we really believe that a cartoon will make a 5 year old smoke? Kids may be (mostly) innocent but generally speaking they are not fucking stupid!

Now, I know an 8-year old nicotine addict who smoked since he was 5, but was it cartoons that got him started? Of course not! It was a combination of family situation, pressure from older kids he hung out with, and a variety of other social issues. To be honest even at 5 he would probably have described Tom 'n' Jerry as "wanky kids stuff", preferring to watch Schwarzenegger films and the Nightmare on Elm Street series. Parenting issues, yes. A cause for censoring - sorry, 'improving' - televisual history? I don't fucking think so!

This is not the first time retrospective censoring has been considered in the UK. A couple of years back the BBC were looking at editing classic sit-com Only Fools and Horses to remove a handful of references to "Paki's" or "Poof's". Yes, these terms are offensive. Yes, they grate with me when I hear them used in these programmes. But that's the point - let me be reminded of what life was like for the non-white and gay communities in the UK only 20 years ago, and let me see that despite my own personal attitudes differing there are still many who would happily still act in these ways. It's one of the ways in which we learn and move forward.

So listen up, Ofcom, and put your fucking scissors away. Let's be frank for a moment - if you follow through with this plan you are just one step away from Nineteen Eighty-Four's Ministry of Truth.

Cheers m'dears!

Remembering the Race Riots

Today is Racial Harmony day in Singapore. This was established to commemorate the first day of an intense period of racial rioting, 42 years ago, and aims to foster inter-racial links to ensure that violence of that nature does not flare up again.

Some background - After the British pulled out of Singapore its Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, believed the island state would be unable to stand alone with its limited resources and sought to be integrated into its neighbouring country, Malaya. The Malays were concerned, as the large Chinese population in Singapore meant that the ethnic demographics of Malaya would be significantly altered. However, various political reasons persuaded the government in Kuala Lumpar that it was safer to absorb Singapore than allow it to controlled by any rival state.

The inclusion of Singapore in 1963 added the "SI" to Malaya to give us the current name, Malaysia, and PM Lee essentially found his role diminished to that of a regional governor. Unfortunately Lee's dreams of a harmonious union never really worked and tensions between the Chinese (a majority in Singapore but a minority now in Malaysia) and the Malays eventually erupted into rioting a year later.

The following is an extract from an article published yesterday and written by Charles Tan, a Singaporean who lived through the rioting (I am unsure of the original source as I have received this fourth hand through e-mail). The title of the piece is A Race To Survive:-

...I nearly became an innocent casualty in an infamous and shameful chapter of Singapore's history — the Prophet Muhammad Birthday riots, which broke out with clashes between a Malay procession and Chinese spectators and passers-by near Geylang Serai.
.
Returning home from work that evening on July 21, 1964, I had to cross Geylang Road from the car park where I had alighted from the bus. As I crossed, I noticed a group of youths overturning cars, dousing them with kerosene and setting them alight. There were groups of Chinese and Malays fighting with parangs [a type of Malayan machete] and choppers. Debris was strewn around and I saw mutilated bodies lying on the road.
.
I was frightened and the more scared I became, the more difficult I found it was to try to run across the road to look for refuge in someone's house. I could see flashes of parangs coming towards me. My heart beat furiously. As I got to the other side, a group of parang-wielding youths began to chase me, shouting: "Orang cina, orang cina" (Malay for Chinese person). My survival instincts took over. I ran more than fifty yards in less than 10 seconds flat, and charged into a house along Lorong 3 hoping for refuge.
.
Perhaps fearing reprisals from the house's occupants, the attackers retreated. But far from being sympathetic to my plight, the occupants were furious at me for bringing the "rioting" to their doorstep. As soon as my attackers were gone from sight, I was cursed and chased away.
.
As historical sources would have it, four people were killed that first day of rioting and 178 injured. For the next 11 days, a curfew was imposed and Geylang, which had a heavy concentration of Malay inhabitants, was where it was most strictly enforced. Geylang Road was covered with Black Marias (police vans) and there were road-blocks at regular intervals, manned by Gurkhas — those fearsome Nepalese mercenaries — armed with sub-machine guns and knives. It is no exaggeration to compare Geylang Road to a scene straight out of Black Hawk Down — burning cars, charred bodies and heavily-armed soldiers patrolling the street strewn with concertina wires.
.
When the curfew was finally lifted on Aug 2 and I returned to work, 23 people had lost their lives, 450 had been hurt, and 2,500 arrested. Afterwards, "goodwill committees" of community leaders were set up to help restore harmony between the Malays and the Chinese, by addressing their concerns. Dare I say that we have since learned from the destructive nature of racial disharmony, and that Singaporeans today can say we are among the world's most tolerant and harmonious people?

A year later Singapore was 'kicked out' of Malaysia - more trouble than it was worth, it seems...

Tan's article is an interesting insight for me, as someone who barely knew that a place called Singapore even existed a few years back - and as someone who sometimes struggles to differentiate between lighter skinned Malays and darker skinned Chinese anyway! But I am perturbed slightly by the final statement - Dare you say it, indeed, Mr Tan?

Has any culture truly learned from destructive racial disharmony? I was working in Bradford a few years back during the riots - thankfully I was not living there so I only saw the 'before' and 'after'. Over the last 12 months we have also had racial rioting in France and Australia. And as anyone who trawls the blog-universe will know there is a lot of racial bigotry out there.

Singapore tries to avoid this by having rigid policies in place to enforce racial harmony, including setting quotas in government housing blocks to ensure that no one area becomes solidly Chinese, Malay or Indian. Yet is this not the wrong way to approach the situation? Rather than enforcing a physical closeness should we not be trying to break down the barriers that exist on a more intellectual, emotional and spiritual level?

Charles Tan, you are correct that people live in some kind of harmony in Singapore - but attitudes have still not completely changed. There are some companies who advertise vacancies as "must be fluent in Mandarin" when there is no real need, knowing this will result in a Chinese employee. And it is not just the older generation that harbours grudges, as evidenced by the youths that were recently taken to court for their racist blogging. Inter-racial relationships are also still heavily frowned upon, even to the extent that walking down the street with someone of the opposite sex who is not of your ethnic background - be they partner, friend or simply work colleague - can elicit glares.

Remember July 21st in Singapore. Remember all the racial violence that happens the world over. But never make the mistake of thinking that the attitudes that caused the violence have been consigned to history's dustbin - that would be a fatal error.

Cheers m'dears!

(No) Brains (and) Faggots

Less than a month ago the Italian PM Berlusconi welcomed Alessandra Mussolini (grand-daughter of THAT Mussolini) and her far-right party into his political coalition, a move which may have backfired after she set about proving that she inherited more than her grandfathers, ahem, good looks (see picture). Appearing on an Italian TV talk-show alongside fellow politician Vladimir Luxuria (who is, incidentally, also a drag-queen - you gotta love Italian politics!) Alessandra was asked about her fascist background to which she declared she was "proud of it". Luxuria (also aiming to become the first transgender MP in Europe) asked if that meant she wanted to lock up gays. Her reply...?

"Better to be a fascist than a faggot."

For the life of me I cannot think of a witty one-line response to that. It's just too fucking sad and pathetic for words. I don't know if Alessandra has spawned any offspring yet but if not I pray fervently that the Mussonlini line dies out with her.... stupid cow!

Cheers m'dears!

A drawn-out affair....

The saga of the cartoons.... more than enough has been said about it, but don't think for one second that that's going to stop me. Did you know, for example, that they were actually published last September - and we're only just getting the fall-out now!

I've said before that I'm not a fan of censorship, but lets face it - the Danish Press have behaved in a crass and insensitive manner. I'm not talking about all that 'not showing images of Mohammad or Allah' stuff. Most Muslims would be content just to know that anyone doing that is a sinner and will be punished when the time comes - only a handful of extremists might cry revenge. No, in this case it is not simply the image but the way in which that image is portrayed... I'm sure most of you have, like I, seen the offending articles but for those who haven't - imagine a picture of Mohammad with a bomb planted in his headgear. So, in a sweeping generalisation the Danish press suggests that Mohammad (and by default, all Muslims) are suicide bombers. That is not cutting edge satire, I'm afraid - it's nothing more than ignorance laced with bigotry.

So, this has been on the boil since September... it'll die away soon enough, right? Not if the way things are going is any indication. You see, by offending not just the fanatics but pretty much the entire religion, what could have been a flash-in-the-pan rant has become a full-on nation-spanning mass protest - with moderates just as vocal as hardliners. The backlash has already had reprocussions on Danish exports, and one Swiss company has had to take out an advert in Egyptian papers to let the populace know that they are not, in fact, Danish (there's a nice role reversal - "You whiteys all look the same to us"). And other news organisations around the world have inflamed matters by reprinting the cartoons (although the usually rabid British Press seems to be acting remarkably low-key), most notably the French.

Ah, yes... the French. See that picture at the top? That shows a sign in the aisle of a Carrefour supermarket (a French company) in Egypt. "Dear Clients", it reads. "We express solidarity with the Islamic & Egyptian community". Well, it's either very noble or, more likely, transparently self-preservationist. Except that even that has had a backlash..... back in France! That's right, consumers in France are now apparently boycotting Carrefour in response!

How far is this likely to escalate? God (or an inappropriate image of him) only knows! Whilst boycotts and flag-burning can be made light of on pages like this reports have already come in of linked deaths - and, much like the cartoons themselves, that just ain't funny!

Cheers m'dears!

ps - and I thought Blunt Cogs had potential to offend!!!

Acknowledgement - todays post was spurred on by reading SingaporeInk and its link to this article.