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!

A burning issue...

"The burning of luxury villas, sedan cars, mistresses and other messy sacrificial items... will be investigated and punished"

Quote from the Beijing News,

attributed to Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs Deputy Secretary Mr Dou Yupei.

Got your attention? Yes, you did read that right - including the idea of sacrificially burning your mistress. What this snippet fails to include, however, is context... he was, in fact, talking about paper models of such items.

For many moons the Chinese have honoured their ancestors by burning paper money as a graveside sacrifice but as certain members of the populace become increasingly affluent they are splashing out on more unusual offerings. Sacrificial paper offerings have included models of condoms, Viagra and karaoke hostesses (eh?) but as they are usually rather larger than a crisp note they tend to create a bit more mess, upsetting the tomb-sweepers.

Of course, it is not the feelings of the lowly tomb-sweeper that has caused Chinese authorities to take action against this sort of thing. No, although the new funeral and internment regulations to be issued this week will include fines they are aimed squarely at those who burn items considered not classy enough. As Mr Dou continued "...not only is it [the burning] an indulgence in feudal superstition, but it just appears low and vulgar."


On a lighter note, El B appeared in the comments of the post below to tell me "...you were right you smug cunt." For those wondering what the fuck he meant I am assuming he refers to my suggestion that yesterdays post by Twenty Major was aimed at him. And now it appears he's gone all huffy and erased all his old posts - the miserable twat!

Cheers m'dears!

Putting the Sin in Singapore.

Have you ever been to Singapore? If you do make sure you take a taxi and ask the driver what the country is like. Chances are that he will sing the praises of the City and its people, and if you tell him you are going anywhere else (ie. Malaysia or Indonesia) his response will almost certainly be "Ohhh... don't talk to anyone there. It's not safe there! Not like Singapore. Singapore is safe. There's no crime in Singapore."

7 months ago in Singapore the body of a maid who had been killed by another was found dismembered and in several sports bags behind a train station. Earlier this year a guy was being tried for killing his wife with an axe. A few weeks back a very young girl went missing for a few days until it eventually transpired that her Step-Father had killed her. And this week we learn that a man who had taken several wives had also forced some of the teenage daughters they had borne him to have sex - often with the mothers assistance.

Details are sketchy, depending on the press you read (local papers cite 5 of the daughters were raped, this report mentions 6), but the solid fact remains that this man perverted the texts of his religion (Islam) to his own devices and utterly convinced his wives that what he was doing, and roping them into, was right in the eyes of God. Shit like this is utterly depressing and heart-breaking, and the scale of it and manner in which it the rapist collaborated with his victims own mothers is, frankly, mind-boggling.

But it's not the first time is it. Remember the Branch Davidians at Waco? David Koresh, their leader, utilised Christian texts to support his 'right' to sleep with the daughters of his parishoners. And many more down the ages have done the same - and many more will undoubtedly try. The thing is, how the fuck do we protect the weak and gullible from this kind of thing?

Just as a last note - in his defence the accused suggested that by having sex with his own daughters to "satisfy them" they would be less likely to look elsewhere for sex, which he viewed as the "lesser of two evils". Less likely to look elsewhere? I would not be surprised if the girls never look toward another man for any kind of relationship after the hell he put them through.

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!

Dirty Habit...

Bizarre story of the month alert! No, not David Beckhams inability to do his 6 year old's homework (not really that surprising, let's be honest!) but the news that Paris Hilton has been approached to play the lead role in a new biographical film... about Mother Theresa!

Apparently South Indian film director T. Rajeevnath thinks she is perfect for the role and has already had his agents contact her people about playing the Albanian born "Angel of Calcutta". All because he was impressed with Hilton's moral fibre after she reportedly turned down the chance to pose nude for playboy...

...hasn't watched her most popular feature to date, "1 Night In Paris", then?

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.

Hypocrisy abounds!

Australia and South East Asia has been all a-buzz recently with the trial of Nguyen Tuong Van, the Aussie heroin smuggler, in Singapore. In recent editions of the Daily Propoganda and on countless news-based websites there have been letters from Australians, half of whom are stating that "all of Australia" condemns the fact that Singapore intends to follow the letter of it's laws and execute the guy, the other half likewise declaring that "all of Australia" stands behind Singapore's sovereign right to follow it's own rules without interference.

Now, aside from showing a problem with basic mathematics in Australia, this issue has raised some points of contention. But before I go into them I must be honest about my personal feelings.... I am against Capital Punishment and always have been. That, incidentally, does not make me wishy-washy or 'too-forgiving'. I believe that punishment should be appropriate to the crime, as hard as is necessary, but with it should come the opportunity for remorse and a chance to change. And I believe that no-one has the right to take a life, not even in the "eye for an eye" context (constantly quoted by the religious right, despite the fact that it's appearances in the Old Testament, Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:19-20, are superceded by Matthew 5:38-39 - look it up if you don't believe me). But this is not what I am intending to bang on about in this post.......

One point noted in pro-execution letters is the hypocrisy of many anti-execution Australians. Do they cry out at the injustice of it all when it isn't their countryman facing the noose? Of course fucking not! Very few people do. And of course there's the fact that Singapore is it's own nation and shouldn't dilute it's laws at the whim of it's neighbour. Y'know what? I actually agree with that one. Of course by that I partly mean that I think Singapore should come to it's senses of it's own accord, but that's not the only reason. If bigger nations bully smaller nations into accepting their values then all they do is cause resentment and eventual backlash... the US and it's allies are already experiencing that.

Of course this type of hypocrisy is not only visible in attitudes toward Singapore but also in those emanating from there. Recently it was reported that Singapore is looking at introducing laws to prosecute it's citizens for commiting offences against Singaporean law in other countries where the laws may be different. The case in particular refers to an island barely an hour away where the legal age limit for sex is as low as 14. Men from Singapore apparently travel over for the express purpose of screwing girls barely into puberty. I don't like the idea of it myself, but that is considered a suitable age in that state. It might perhaps be one thing if this was being done to protect the girls in question but the reason behind it seems to be more that these actions do not hold up to Singaporean 'moral standards and laws'. Hmmm... much like Capital Punishment appears not to hold up to current Australian laws and standards.

I cannot say how old someone should be before they have sex - I'm not even sure that 16 (UK limit) is old enough. I certainly wasn't fucking mature enough to handle it properly until way after then. But the point is how can Singapore prosecute someone for not breaking a law somewhere just because the Singaporean government thinks it 'should' be a law? How long before other countries try it? If I go to Amsterdam and smoke pot will I get arrested in the UK? If an American citizen crosses the road at a place where crossing isn't designated in the UK, will he get arrested for jay-walking on his return to the US? Will an Englishman who has returned from France get locked up because whilst there he drove on the right instead of the left? How fucked up do we want to make this......?

In defending it's own sovereignty whilst simultaneously challenging that of its neighbour Singapore proves that hypocrisy and double standards are alive and well... but then regimes in virtually all countries seem to have an air of 'Do as I say, not as I do"....

Cheer m'dears!