The Name Game

I recently was forwarded a mail by a zealous pastor commenting on the US elections. Whilst I fully agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions I was disturbed by the playground politics angle, where he chose to associate the name McCain as "son of Cain" and place it into a biblical context to denigrate the Republican candidate. Now, I do not suport McCain even in he slightest, but it makes me angry when people in positions of influence (like the pastor) try to whip up a frenzy of fear over NOTHING!!! Good Lord, there is enough legitimate shit to bash McCain and the Republicans over, why be so pathetic as to choose his name? It just makes you look as damn stupid as those who point out Obama's middle name is "Hussein".

Anyway... you know me, I couldn't resist... here is my reply:

Dear Sir,

I was forwarded this mail by an ex-colleague and was intrigued. Whilst being from the UK I am not a registered US voter, and despite the fact that I personally would like to see Obama become President, I find your analysis of John McCain's name not only gob-smackingly ludicrous in it's assumption that a name from a non-English background would have a literal English meaning without tracing the translations, but also borderline superstitious in the assumption that the name we are born with will dictate who we are.

The commonly accepted history of the name McCain is that it is the Scots equivalent of the Irish McKean, which is itself an anglicisation of Mac Iain, or "son of Iain" - not "son of Cain"!. With Iain / Ian being a variation of John the surname McCain is essentially the same as the surname Johnson. Another less likely origin is that it is a contraction of "McCathan", meaning "son of a warrior" which, whilst perhaps ironic in this case, certainly does not make all McCains violent!

But if you are going to judge a man on his name have you considered where the name Obama comes from? The surname Obama appears when the Europeans colonised Africa and enforced family names on tribes who had, until then, only had first names. What most did was (as in our own cultures) take their fathers name as a surname (I believe the word "surname" derives from the idea that it was your "sire's name" anyway), which in this case was first bestowed on Barack Obama's grandfather. The name is taken from the Luo verb meaning "to be twisted" or "to be slightly bent", probably relating to a deformity that B.O.'s great-grandfather may have been born with. In any case "twisted" and "bent" are two connotations with which the Senator probably would rather not be associated!

Please, please... vote Obama. But do not be so childish as to take McCain to task over his name! It just makes the whole thing petty.

Cheers m'dears!

Shit-faced ramblings...

Blogging. It's all well and done when you've got fuck all else to do, as a friend recently put on long term sick leave has demonstrated so well. But when you're working 572-gazillion hours a week and then trying to have a social life (one that does not involve going on-line, I mean) you don't really have much time to blog. The worst thing about this? Well, the irony that during any lazy period when you have nothing to do bugger all worth blogging about actually happens and you end up making mountains out of molehills just to rant about something, yet when you're busy events shape up in such a way that you are constantly composing blogs in your mind whilst going about your every day business but never get around to actually typing them...

This week I was going to write about the tragic Virginia shootings, linking it in to the obsessions that so many of us have with guns (do not deny this, especially if you have used Monstee's shooting gallery at Blunt Cogs - I am not a violent man, but...). I also wanted to write about whether I actually give a fuck about Prince William splitting from his bit of rough (I don't, although it amuses me that Woolworths had already manufactured crockery commemorating their impending engagement) and I also fancied having a bit of a bitch about the PM of Singapore upping his salary to S$3 million (1m Sterling, incidentally).

Suffice to say, all of the above have been amply covered by bloggers with better time-management skills than me. Which may explain why, having finally found a few hours, I am devoting my full attention to trying to forget the shit of last week (both globally and personally).

...which might just explain the title...

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!

Sunni and Shi'ite United!

At long last the Sunni and Shi'ite peoples of Iraq have found common ground, something they fully agree on. It's all the Americans fault.

Okay, so perhaps that should read 'Americans and their allies', since several countries have taken part in (mis)handling the situation in Iraq, but the sheer weight of American numbers (not just the troops but the companies tasked with rebuilding the country) present and very visible presumably paints the whole mess in a very stars-and-stripes pattern to the general population.

A leading Shi'ite cleric from Najaf, Sheikh Ali Mirza Asada, states that "the roots of our problems lie in the mistakes of the Americans committed right from the beginning of their occupation", a position that his Sunni counterpart, Sheikh Harith Al-Dhari, seems to concur with. Despite the fact that he is currently a fugitive in Cairo having been accused by the predominantly Shi'ite government as a supporter of terrorism, he sings in harmony with his exilers - "Since the beginning the US occupation Iraq from bad to worse" [sic].

Whatever you may believe about the original intentions of 'liberating' Iraq the simple facts are that since the war 'ended' US troop deaths per day have increased, civilian deaths per day have increased even more, and neither statistic shows any sign of slowing down. We may not hear about bombs going off on the news any more, but that's simply because they have become so fucking commonplace that it's dull news.

What is the solution for Iraq? I'm buggered if I know. But one thing I'm certain of is that this isn't it. And when someting so consistently fails to yield results for such a long time surely the only ones who would refuse to change tack would be the imbeciles of the world. Isn't that right, Messers Bush and Cheney...?

Cheers m'dears!

Court jesting

I don't know about any of you but I am quite looking forward to the upcoming film The Last King of Scotland. No, not because it has the word 'Scotland' in the title - I am not even remotely that shallow - but because it stars Forest Whittaker and James McAvoy, two of (in my mind) the most interesting actors around. Add to that the story's factual basis on one of the most notorious figures in recent history, Idi Amin... like I said, I am looking forward to it.

And why, might you ask, do I bring this up. Well, I am sure most people are aware that the title of the film comes from Amin once claiming the Scottish throne for himself - and if you weren't you are now. This leaves me incredulous... I hate using the phrase "I'm not racist, but..." as most comments that start in this way are the most bigotted you will ever come across. But in what way did an African guy ever come to the notion that he might be the hereditary heir to the throne of a country that is very, very white? That is not to say that someone from a background other than 'North European' could never come to a future Scottish throne, presumably through marriage, but to be considered as an heir to it now? Maybe, just maybe, there was some rough and tumble between a former king and an ancestor of Mr Amin, but I'm sure that the queue for the throne would be filled with plenty of people who have greater claim.

Of course, Idi Amin was a posturer, a man who hyped himself, and believed the hype too. What is it that drives people to make such overtly outrageous claims? Yes, I know - the blog world is full of folk pretending to be other than they are, but that is a creation of a fictional persona rather than an over-inflation of the self. And of course such claims, in the political world, are laden with propoganda... Amin presumably felt that his claim to the Scottish throne would give him more kudos, if not in the international world then at least at home. And when you are lying for the home crowd it seems you can get away with more riduculous claims - remember Comical Ali insisting that the invasion of Iraq was failing even as US tanks crawled up the street behind him? Well, I know success or failure in Iraq seems to depend on your own personal standpoint (and that's a whole other post) but you get my drift!

Perhaps my favourite example of this kind of thing is a memory from my childhood when I found my Grandfather chortling at the newspaper one day. I asked him what was so funny... It turns out that a prominent figure in the Middle-East (possibly Arafat or Gaddafi) had whipped up a bit of a frenzy amongst his own supporters when he claimed that the west had wrongly claimed a famous playwright and poet as it's own, when in fact he had been an Arab living in 17th century England. The name of this disputed hero? Sheik Spear.

I shit you not!

Cheers m'dears!

Anon - the faceless facist.

[note - last chance to enter the music quiz! Still 12 points up for grabs, winners announced tomorrow!]

I recently had an anonymous visitor who left a comment on a previous entry, regarding the anniversary of race riots in Singapore and the perhaps heavy-handed methods of the Government there to ensure cultural harmony. He/she makes his point, and it is his/hers to make... even if they were too cowardly to identify themselves. But it was a point that I feel deserves a response, and if I simply responded in the comments of the same post the whole argument would be immediately consigned to my archives - whereas, naturally, I would prefer to get input from other readers.

His comment read as follows:

"This is why multi-cultural nations don't exist over the long term - lack of trust. This is why large scale immigration of people who don't like or appreciate the home culture is a bad idea. This is why the left's latest wheeze is to bring in large numbers of people utterly opposed to the west. Bring on the rioting and death, comrades, bring it fucking on."

Okay, aside from the fact that Singapore has been multi-cultural for a long time (longer than it's existence as an independent country) I would like to know what Anon considers to be it's 'home culture'? There are a large number of Chinese, Malays, and Indians here whose families have been here for a long time, as well as some Europeans, Eurasians, Indonesians... the list can go on and on. But even though there are distinct differences between the cultures here there are also differences between the Chinese-Singaporean way of life and the mainland-Chinese... likewise with the other cultures.

Because these races have been here for a long time they have become Singaporean, not simply whichever ethnic backround. Home culture in Singapore is a mix of the three main cultures, with a dash of westernism thrown in, and whilst there are some who naturally gravitate toward their own heritage that is still a part of the Singaporean home culture - that they like and appreciate! If there are other parts they don't like so much...? Well, does every Englisman like Morris Dancing? Every Scotsman do the Highland Fling? It doesn't mean they don't like any of their home culture, they're just selective about which bits they do like!

People from different backgrounds can and do mix with ease. A case in point for me was a recent night out for a meal with my closest friends - I was the only white guy, there were 2 Singaporean-Chinese, one Malaysian-Chinese, one Indian, one Sri-Lankan, one Malay, and one... well, I don't know where he is from, but then it didn't matter anyway. Much later we went clubbing and were joined by a Singaporean-Indian girl and eventually I hooked up with another white guy that I know with his Malay girlfriend who were with his sister and her Chinese boyfriend. My argument in the original post was not that the cultures cannot mix but that by forcing the issue the Government runs the risk of actually creating more resentment as opposed to promoting peaceful co-existence.

But then again, by the tone of the rest of the comment it is clear that Anon was just looking for any excuse to get on his xenophobic high-horse. The left's latest wheeze? If you're going to suggest that kind of thing let's see some evidence to back it up. Most immigrants I have met in the UK are by no means opposed to the west. Rather, they are grateful for the chance to get their lives back on track after going through shit that most of us in the west will never have to face. As for the rioting and death? It is attitudes like yours that bring that kind of shit on, that spur on the "us v them" mentality. You'd actually probably love a bit of violence to 'prove' your point, but I'll tell you this - you can leave me the fuck out of it.

Cheers m'dears!

Oops, they did it again!

In my Churchill Statue post from a couple of weeks ago I asked for suggestions of what other unusual statues we might see... the last thing I expected was to find this sculpture so soon afterwards. With thanks to Clairwil for drawing my attention thither.

Cheers m'dears!

The Patronising Saint

All over the world stories are told, tales are passed along. And none of them are true. Or at least, not a single story in this world is 100% true. Because truth, even at it's purest, is still a subjective thing... All over the world stories are told. This is but one of them...

A young boy from the part of the world we now call Wales is snatched by pirates and taken away for slave labour. On mainland Europe he is bought and sold until he ends up in the care of a Roman priest. Such is the kindness of this priest that the young boy himself adopts the religious life and also goes on to priesthood. This young boy, now a man, is given the Roman name Patricus Succatus.

Patricus never forgets his homeland and vows to return, spreading the good word throughout his land. He spends time in Cornwall, as well as Wales, before eventually being drawn to the heathen land across the water, the land where druids continue in their pagan practices, spiritual traditions and teachings based on peace and harmony with nature - the land we would know today as Ireland.

Ireland at this time is ruled by 4 kings (or Righ) who each control a quarter of the island and who are in turn ruled over by the High-King (Ard-Righ). But this monarchy was based on no simple line of succession, son inheriting the Kingdom regardless of suitability. Instead some ancient form of democratic process is in place - a limited democracy, yes, but not as arbitrary as other countries at the time. This process involves a new Ard-Righ being elected by the Righ and other nobles to ensure that Ireland always has a strong and benevolent ruler.

Patricus was a clever man. He was not unkind but he knew what he had to do 'in the name of God' and he used his cunning to bear influence on the Ard-Righ. At the same time the Ard-Righ was wise enough to realise that Patricus was no more than the first trickle of the Holy Roman Empire and denying him would only delay an inevitable tidal wave - one based on bloodshed. To avoid a war and possible conquest Patricus was welcomed and encouraged, although the Ard-Righ and the chief Druids sought ways of keeping their historic faiths intact. This they did by incorporating pagan rituals and symbols into the new Christian ones. The most obvious examples are that of the Celtic Crosses, the crucifix interwoven with a circle (an important symbol of life) and the image itself hewn out of stone instead of wood, resembling the monolithic standing stones that had been the focal points of religious ceremonies since long before any could remember.

Over time Patricus built his relations with the Ard-Righ whilst simultaneously building his congregations and implementing the Vatican's Holy law. As the years turned to decades and then to centuries the Druidical ways slowly died out, their devotees eventually becoming persecuted. Patricus was, in time, elevated to Sainthood and his name is now synonymous with the Ireland that he brought out of the 'dark' ages of communing with mother nature and into the enlightenment of Christendom. And we all know how good Christianity has been for the Emerald Isle...

Of course it would be far too naive and simplistic to lay the blame for modern religious strife at the door of one person from several hundred years in the past, especially as other political and racial forces have worked so hard to incite and maintain sectarianism within that beautiful country. But I always find it odd that on the 17th of March each year everyone likes to get pissed up to celebrate a Welshman who was, in some respects, Irelands first Jehovah's Witness...

Oh, and I hate the fact that it's hard to get a nicely poured pint of Guinness because of all the twats who are having their annual day off from lager... Anyway, if you're celebrating, or even just utilising the excuse for a piss-up, I hope yours is a good one!

Slàinte m'dears!

Winnie the Loon

Tory MP and all-round pompous twat Nicholas Soames has been moaning about a new statue of his grandfather, Winston Churchill. "Absurd and pathetic" is how he describes the piece, which was commissioned by the mental health charity Rethink and depicts the wartime leader in a straitjacket. Churchill suffered from depression, an affliction that not so many years before his time may have consigned him to an asylum, and Rethink designed the statue to "portray a more positive image of mental illness".

Don't know about you but I think it's a bloody great idea! And I don't think we should stop there... what other icons can we use to similar effect, proving that a disability does not mean a complete lack of ability? Suggestions are welcome...

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!

Mobile Wrongtone...

You may recall my post of a couple of days ago mentioning the political scrapes of Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra. No? Okay then, in a nutshell it goes like this (deep breath) - scandal followed swiftly by resignation calls prompting the dissolving of Parliament and announcement of a snap election which is being boycotted by the two main opposition parties who know that despite his unpopularity Thaksin would probably still win. *phew*

I bring all this back to your attention because a related incident caused some embarrasment for a TV interviewer in Thailand this week... Imagine the scene - you are interviewing the deputy leader of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party, Sudarat Keyuraphan, when your phone goes off...

What? Well, yes, that is a little embarrassing, but not exactly mortifying is it. Unless your mobile ringtone happens to consist of a soundbite where media boss Sondhi Limthongkul is shouting "THAKSIN GET OUT!". Oops.

Apparently the deputy leader responded by icily offering to assist the owner in finding another ringtone.

In other news I note that Britain's own PM, Citizen Blair, fancies himself as a Trotsky-ite. Apparently it was a book on Trotsky that inspired him to enter politics and he feels that it left a deep impression on him. So deep, in fact, that it was completely hidden from view when he took over the Labour Party in 1994 and set about turning it into New Conservative. Erm, I mean New Labour. Maybe...

Cheers m'dears!

Video nasty

Imagine the scenario... you are the leader of a nation and have been told an ecological disaster is about to take place on your land. What would you do?

Okay, stop shouting. I know that isn't much to go on and you probably want to ask a dozen questions before making up your minds. That's as long as your name isn't George W. Bush, that is...

Newly released video footage shows the fuckwit himself in his final briefing on the incoming Hurricane Katrina during which he did not ask a single question. Not one. When faced with the hard reality that the storm could cause massive fatalities did he once utter, "How can we get them out?". No. Or even just "How can we prepare and warn these people enough to lessen the damage?". Did he fuck! I know that in a situation like this it must be hard, but come on... not even asking "What can we do?". Cunt.

Of course he then told State Officials that they were "fully prepared" for the event... Is that "Fully prepared and ready to mobilize in an instant in order to get down there and save peoples lives". Or was it more like "Fully prepared to lose a bunch of largely poor, mostly black folk who wouldn't vote for us if they bothered voting anyway". Well, lets face it - option two may be stretching it slightly but at least it is not as much of a fantasy as option one.

In the damning video Bush is warned by Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, that the levees that hold back Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans are unlikely to stand. On September the 1st Bush is quoted saying "I do not think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees". Cunting cunt!

Bush's popularity is apparently at an all-time low. Not that that's really much comfort to the many who lost their lives while he sat on his hands....

I'll say it one last time. Utter cunt.

Cheers m'dears!

Semi-Elect...

Further to yesterday I am going to expand on one of the three South East Asian political situations, in this case that of the looming Singapore General Election and the recent giveaway budget, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is adamant is not intended to bribe voters.

The budget, PM Lee says, is not "merely for the purpose of distributing hong baos to get votes" (hong baos are those little red envelopes stuffed with cash and given out at Lunar New Year and other events). Instead the public windfall is in the hope "that the Government wins not just the next election, but also the mandate to govern over successive terms". Like they have done since, ohh... 1965.

Yes, that's right. After the Brits pulled out there was a short and ill-tempered dalliance as a state of Malaya (which is where modern Malaysia gets the SI in its name from) before the rogue island was booted out and forced to find its own feet through, err, a democratic process.

To understand a little more about Singapore elections you may want to wade through this document. But I don't blame you if you steer clear... it is not the easiest to understand. To summarise, the bottom line, the one apparent aim of the election, is to make sure that the Peoples Action Party (PAP) get re-elected. Which, it seems, is never a problem. "Why?" I hear you cry...

Maybe it's the blatant bias of the mainstream press who do not question the government. But then the same could be said in the US for Fox News. Maybe its the bizarre ruling that means that the district boundaries are reset before each election - effectively gerrymandering like the Brits did in Ireland years ago. Maybe its the fact that in 2 of the last 3 elections Parliament was dissolved, the boundaries set and the election held all within 20 days, giving the relatively small and poorly funded opposition party no time whatsoever to prepare.

Or maybe its the fact that Singaporeans don't really give a flying fuck. In the classic "I'm alright, Jack" mode that saw Thatcher get re-elected year after year by folk only concerned about their own pockets and not the country at large Singaporeans tend to stick with more of the same. Okay, so the previously mentioned press influence helps here - never has the term 'sheeple' seemed more appropriate - but by and large the average Joe just isn't interested in politics.

Let's try to be fair - in a lot of ways the PAP are beneficial to their country, a nation that has had a huge economic turnaround in its 40 independent years and has pushed headlong into the 'first world'. But why the pretence of being democratic? The aforementioned article describes Singapore as 'soft authoritarianism'. People I know who have lived there awhile describe it as a 'benevolent dictatorship'. But however you put it you can't tell me that the people, as apathetic as they are, actually have a choice. So maybe PM Lee is telling the truth after all... I mean, let's face it - you don't need to use the budget to bribe people to vote for you in an election you can't lose anyway, do you!

Oh, and one final note... the guy who guided Singapore from British rule through the Malayan debacle and into a prosperous independent, ahem, 'democracy' was the first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew... pictured at the top with his son, current PM Lee Hsien Loong. Nepotism, the game the whole family can enjoy...

Cheers m'dears!

Tempus fugit an' all that!

I wanted to post today about Prime Minister Thaksin in Thailand and how protests against alleged dodgy dealings have forced him to dissolve parliament and call an election. Which his opponents are boycotting, probably because they know that despite his unpopularity he is still likely to win again!

I also wanted to post about President Arroyo in the Phillipines who has had to deal with an attempted coup this week, albeit a minor and easily diffused one. You see, she declared a state of National Emergency, which most of her populace felt was extreme for what was, in effect, a relatively low-key affair with no real basis! And her response to students who were going to strike a couple of days later in protest at her actions? She closed all education establishments... you can't strike from what isn't even open, can you!

And then I wanted to post about the upcoming Singapore General Election, or rather on PM Lee Hsien Loong's recent pre-election budget which has basically amounted to the current (and apparently eternal) government giving everyone in Singapore a share of a $2.6 billion windfall. Hmmm...

I wanted to... but I can't because I'm too fucking busy. You can probably all guess what I was going to rant about each of them anyway. So instead let me leave you with this 'tasteful' article. It's a week old but I only just came across it...

Cheers m'dears!

Situation Vacant - The UN-dercurrents

At the end of this year Kofi Annan will step down as United Nations Secretary-General and as such speculation about who his succesor will be is already rife. Traditionally the role is partially determined by a process of "geographical rotation", whereby each continent takes a turn at producing a leader. This should ensure that the UN is not perpetually led by North America and Europe and that it can be a truly global organisation. But whilst this is the tradition it is not written into any constitution and cannot be taken as a given... which is causing a small amount of consternation in my neck of the woods at the moment as it should be Asia's turn, yet signs indicate that there may be opposition to this from the more, ahem, "democratic" and "developed" countries.

Of course, so far 2006 has brought Asia into the Western news cycle for completely negative reasons: the continuing conflict in Iraq and the debacle that is Saddam Hussein's trial; Nuclear weapons for Iran and North Korea; the killing of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia; Hamas winning the Palestinian election and removing peace talks with Israel from the agenda; riots in several countries over 'those' cartoons... I could probably continue, but you get the point.

Of course, it is not just the press-induced perception of Asia as a backward and violent continent that raises doubts but also the Western Bigshots realisation that an Asian Secretary-General might - shock, horror - look upon his own continent with a bit of kindness and care, rather than spanking them every time they got too raucous.

Okay, let's get a small amount of perspective here. The UN is a global organisation. Asia has 60% of the worlds population. Two Asian nations (China and India) have become truly global powers in recent years. Japan (despite being disliked within Asia) is one of the worlds largest economic powers. And don't forget that Russia, still one of the most influential countries in the world, is not just a European country - it is, in fact, largely in Asia! But in the history of the UN there has only been one Asian S-G, U Thant from Myanmar... 45 years ago.

The position is widely regarded as the most difficult job in the world and frequently places the occupier at loggerheads with national premiers... the most notable case of the new century probably being the Bush / Blair decision to ignore UN rulings regarding Iraq. And as such it seems highly unlikely that the UK or the US, two of the all important five permanent members, will support an Asian S-G. Of the other three both China and Russia are on record as saying they will only support an Asian candidate leaving France as the all-important vote... a country who could easily swing either way, especially after criticism of their recent racially-linked riots.

But wouldn't an Asian UN leader send a positive signal to the world at large? And how about - whisper it - a Muslim UN leader? A positive role-model for the religion, rather than the hate-figures who monopolise the press. Someone who can be taken seriously by all leaders when dealing with the problems currently faced in our modern faith-fractured world. It's a world where the West is scared of fundamentalism and terrorism and the east is pissed off with the US and its allies trying to force feed them their values and way of life... each side fuelling the other in some demented vicious circle. Wouldn't we benefit from a leader who can understand both sides a bit better?

.... hell, there's so much more I am trying to say here, but the words just don't come out right. I'm all for an Asian UN Secretary General, and won't have the slightest problem if he / she is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Atheist... whatever. Just as long as they do a good job - that's all I ask!

Cheers m'dears!

I eat my own words!

It appears that I may well have jumped the gun a tad.

Today's Daily Propoganda (which has had nothing against a good bit of Aussie-bashing in recent months) has reported that most Australians are not interested in their firing-squad bound compatriots. The Sydney Daily Telegraph ran with a front page article headlined "No Sympathy" which made it clear that whilst they did not support the Death Penalty they did "support the notion of personal responsibility", and PM John Howard has washed his hands saying "there is a limit" and acknowledging Indonesia's right to exercise its own laws.

Whilst this makes a refreshing change after the Nguyen Tuong Van debacle I shall hold back any apology for yesterdays post until I see what happens as the execution date draws closer. After all, unlike Singapore the Indonesian Government has been less consistent in applying the letter of the law and this may be an opportunity that protesters in Australia won't want to miss.

Cheers m'dears!

Deja vu?

So... another day, another Aussie gets sentenced to death for smuggling drugs. Capital punishment - what a deterrent, eh?

Woah... back up, Binty! Been down this road before, methinks! Let's not do another anti-death-penalty rant, everyone is well aware of how you feel.

Okay - let's look at Australians instead then. Now, I have some mates who are fair dinkum and all that, so I don't want to paint an entire country in the colours of a few stupid cunts. But, for fucks sake!

Exhibit A: the rioting against immigrants (hmmm - forgetting ones own lineage, it seems).
Exhibit B: the double-standard of uproar at Nguyens hanging in Singapore whilst ignoring other Capital Punishments the world over.
Exhibit C: both Nguyen and the Bali 9 thinking for even one second that smuggling heroin through or into a country where the death penalty is in force might be a sensible idea.

"I even beg them not to take the terrible risks that these young people have done... How on earth any young Australian can be so stupid as to take the risk is completely beyond me." (John Howard, Aussie PM)..... don't know about you but I always knew that Neighbours and Home and Away rotted your brain!

So what now for the dead-men-walking? I wonder how long it will be before the people who didn't give a shit about them back home (they are, after all, not 'white') start crying foul over the neanderthal laws of a backward country? Indonesia's foreign minister Hasan Wirayuda is steeling himself for such a response by using offence as his defence, shedding an obvious light on the reason that he received no protests from Australia over the death of Bali bomber Amrozi. "...Australians were victims of the Bali bombings. But in the case of drug-trafficking, the victims... were Singaporeans or Indonesians."

So, once again - another potential addition for Exhibit B. Australia, I know you don't give a fuck what one poxy blogger thinks, but do us all a favour - drop the hypocrisy and either accept their punishment or start lobbying everywhere, including the US, to end the death penalty.

Oh...... and bloody well stop smuggling through South East Asia, you dumb cunts!

Cheers m'dears!

...even more drawn-out...

Points were raised after yesterdays post that made me feel the need to clarify my position a little.

I believe strongly in freedom of expression, to the extent that I previously wrote condemning the incarceration of a Nazi-sympathiser. I despised his opinions but he had a right to air them. I just feel that the press in the so-called 'free' world should exercise a little more discretion... just because some Arab papers are being bigotted against Judaism (or whoever else) that's not a justification for the same behaviour the other way around. Call it moral-high-ground, turning-the-other-cheek, whatever-the-fuck-you-want. It's simply a case of two wrongs never making a right.

If this was just a case of depicting a religious icon I would be ranting here about protesters being petty. It is, after all, a rule which has been only loosely observed over the centuries - note the ancient Persian paintings of Muhammad, for example. More to the point, I would be stating that their religious laws are for them to keep, not to hold us by. And most Muslims would not only understand that viewpoint but would agree with it. But that is not the scenario. Simply put, the cartoon strongly insinuates that all Muslims are suicide bombers. And this is not simply an untruth, it is deeply offensive. More than that, the cartoon plays a part in embedding the idea that Muslims are dangerous terrorists, full stop.

If this was, like the Nazi guy before, something that had cropped up in a fringe publication with a target audience that probably already holds such views we'd call them cunts and move on. And so would Muslims, in general. But it was a mainstream newspaper... they would never have written an article stating "all Muslims are suicide bombers" any more than they would write saying "the holocaust never happened". They might report that someone else said these things - that's their job. But the cartoon...what do you think the reaction would be to a cartoon strongly suggesting that the holocaust is a myth if it appeared in a mainstream publication?

Acts like this can start a chain of events, as we have seen. I deplore - condemn even - the violent reactions that have occured throughout the world, and I mourn the stupid and casual loss of life. And, yes - blame for those deaths must be aimed at those who went far too far in their response to what was, after all, just a cartoon. But that does not make publishing them any less wrong.

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.

Grip my election....

Reading the Daily Propoganda today I discovered that election fever is currently 'gripping' Taiwan (apparently). This turn of phrase has always interested me when used in regard to politics, gripping having the potentially negative connotations of 'seizing', 'grasping', and (further down the line) 'choking'. Because whilst I myself have never been 'gripped' by an election the results usually end up in the country in question being gripped in another fashion.

Let me ask you this one question. In your country (wherever you are) what does the outcome of an election actually mean? My experience of voting is restricted to the UK, a country where the dividing line between the two main political parties is so blurred they may as well be one and the same. The same shit dumped on us 10 years ago is still being dumped on us despite a regime change. I'm also inclined to wonder how Al Gore would have responded to the Twin Towers had he been in the hot seat that fateful day. To many outside the US the military response authorised by Dubya did not seem like a right-wing Republican reaction but a hell-bent-on-vengeance-because-we're-GOD's-nation American reaction. Sorry if that offends, but it is a large truth. How would Gore have responded to the public outcry to September 11th? And to the call for justice (read: revenge)? Because, let's face it, public opinion can swing decisions like that.

Okay, in some countries where the political situation is more volatile who you vote for can have a huge impact, but in the so-called 'civilised' nations it really doesn't seem to mean crap. 21st century politicians are more interested in papering over small cracks (which they have already blamed on the previous ruling party) than implementing any kind of fundamental social change. Why is this? Because small changes illicit small grumbles from a lot of people, whom they can placate with little incentives here and there. Giant change often means huge outcries from a smaller group of people who cannot be so easily placated. Any idealist who tries to make a change for the common good will find their hands tied by those who really control western civilisation - the businessmen, the corporate giants. Compromises are made and the core ideals are gradually chipped away until eventually any reforms lose their bite and their ability to matter.

I am saying nothing new, offering no solutions. I am tired of being gripped, but can one man really make a difference? No matter who I vote for in my constituency it's a safe seat anyway. And no matter which party rules the same 'important' people and organisations are pandered to. All this talk about bringing democracy to Afganistan and Iraq? We don't even really have it at home.

Cheers m'dears!


People shouldn't be afraid of their Governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.

Poster tagline for the forthcoming 'V For Vendetta'