We are moving...
Dear imaginary readers,we are moving to a new blogger address at bastardised.blogspot.com. I have copied recent posts to that address. As you will see, there isn't much in the way of the design. But at least the benign little cyst that was once martha is no longer in our address! I look forward to reading your imaginary comments soon.Sincerely,Clyde
What simple Simon left behind...
And should anybody be in any doubt, no the Daily Mail didn't improve with Heffer's departure. The shocking and appalling story on today's
issue should reaffirm what a nasty little rag this is. Entitled "Spousal rape to be treated like gang rape", the writer, one Steve Doughty, is actually complaining about this. Obvioulsy for the Mail, rape isn't just rape, and if your husband sexually assaults you than that is a wholly different matter from rape by any old stranger. Meanwhile, in parts of the world like Lebanon the law doesn't even recognise rape by a husband. If he sexually assaults his wife he is simply having he way with her. Hell, she's got a ring on, that's like the keys to the car. She should do what he likes without answering back. This is not an attitude that elevates these nasty men above the animals who carry out rape in the street. The article informs us that until 1991 the same was true in Britain. No sexual assault in marriage. I'm not cynical enough to believe that the writer, in acknowledging this, is secretly yearing for the good old days. He should have just stayed away from the issue.
Of course, being strongly conservative, the Mail has long been a strong advocate of marraige, provided that it is not of the homosexual variety, which past editions claim would "devalue" the sacred bond. One hopes they would see a gay marriage as more 'valuable' than a lifetime of rape and abuse. One thing for the Mail to consider is that, although gang rape and rape by strangers is horrendous and lasts a lifetime, the victim will not have to wake up beside the abuser every morning for the course of their marriage. A wife who reports her abusive husband is just as brave as any other rape victim, and deserves the same peace of mind when justice is being delivered.
From one leech to another: Eff off Simon
Snotty ex Daily Mail and current Daily Telegraph darling, Simon Heffer has indulged in a seething and irrational rant about Ken Loach in his latest column [you need to naviagte past his erudite and well-researched opinions on John Prescott football and burgers to see it]. Heffer used to write short alarmist rants in the Daily Mail, generally critical of Marxist Britain, pesky gay people and the death of morality all around him, demonstrating how bigotted and out of touch he really was. Therefore, when he moved to the Daily Telegraph in 2005 some believed he had found his natural habitat, forgetting that, while The Telegraph is bad, it is hardly North Korea.
Heffer's main complaint about the Palme d'Or-winning film The Wind that Shakes the Barley [at least we have to asume that is what is raving about. The buffoon never mentions any film by name] is that Loach uses public money to make films that, instead of praising the British Fatherland and its history of perfect foreign policy, criticise the behaviour of the British government and its behaviour towards Ireland in the 1920s. Criticism? We shant be having any of that. If you want to make a film about Britain, do it properly; chuck in some Spitfires and if there are any foreigners involved make sure they're on the wrong side of a good hard machine-gunning.
Unfortunately, Simon gets off to a bad start by claiming that Loach's name looks a lot like "leech". Of course, I would view that as a compliment. Leeches can be used to draw out poison from a wound, an apt metaphor for what Loach has actually been doing over the years in his films, that often side with the oppressed in the face of imperial force. Simon also leaves himself exposed. To me, Heffer looks and sounds an awful lot like "heifer", Simon. Imagine, a mad cow from Great Britain. How absurd...
As George Monbiot points out, Heffer can hardly deny that the events portrayed actually happened. So it seems that Loach's crime is to force the British public to look at - what can't be called their own crimes [despite what Simon, and other right-wing loudmouths like Melanie Phillips might think, it's not anti-British, nor masochistic to critique the government] - but the crimes committed against the Irish at a particular point in history. If a German was to use public funds to make a film about the evil of the Holocaust would he complain? Having read his bitchy Daily Mail columns over the years I already know the answer, and the sad thing is that Simon doesn't think the Germans dwell enough on this point in their history [I say "their" history, but if you subtract the German people who were born after 1945, the German people who opposed Hitler and the German people that would have found the crimes of the Third Reich abhorrent had they seen past the propaganda, that part of German history doesn't belong to many people these days]. It's ok for other countries to flagellate themselves in Simon's world. But an admission of guilt from Great Britain is "repulsive". North Korea would be too good for our Simon.
I suppose it can only get better for Simon after all these double standards and gunshots to the feet. But Simon is on a roll, ad in such a compact columan he manages to fit in one last coup de grace:
"And no, I haven't seen it, any more than I need to read Mein Kampf to know what a louse Hitler was."
He hasn't even seen the film! I don't use exclamation marks lightly, but I think a few more are in order here!!! And of course, we all know that Hitler is universally reviled because he wrote a nasty book. If the xenophobic Simon Heffer was a German he would be the first to sing Hitler's praises, and I should know. I've actually taken the time to read the louse's columns.
The Daily Show
Two of my latest political comedian faves, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert (or is it Ted Hitler). An old and grainy episode, but sound is fine.
- via Mr Brown
Why men are macho
An impartial scientific study? Or a scientist with a leftist bias... Seymour Yang of Fusion Magazine reports:
Scientists have shown that men who have had their masculinity threatened are more likely to overcompensate and act more "macho". This includes traits such as behaving in a homophobic manner, supporting the Iraq war and wishing to drive an SUV. In the research at Cornell University, 111 men and women were asked general personality questions. What the participants did not know was that the researcher would assign, at random, a gender rating determining how masculine or feminine they were, based on their supposed questionaire answers. When some men were told that their questionaire answers indicated a more feminine bias, they tended to overcompensate their maleness in subsequent surveys. They also reported more feelings of shame, guilt and hostility than those whose masculinity was not threatened. Women did not seem to be affected by the gender judgment. The idea of masculinity overcompensation is not a new one in psychology, but the study certainly adds weight to it.
Yes, of course. I can imagine Jorge Bush cuddling his little teddy bear every night before he goes to sleep...
He may not be in my good books, but he just earned himself one notch up.Update 4/5/06: Here's more footage from the White House Correspondents Dinner featuring Stephen Colbert. Via Pink Dome.
Canned Food for Thought
Florencia Prado also struggles to find value in the movie 'United 93':
"My opinion is not necessarily based on whether or not audiences are ready, but whether or not this movie should have been made in the first place. I believe that movies are either for entertainment or to learn something new about a subject. I have not seen the film, but I would not see it for its entertainment value as well as for its educational value. What more can we learn about the tragic events of 9/11? Unless there is some new information regarding the events, it seems a bit heartless to profit on it. Are we supposed to somehow relate more to the families, mourn more over those that passed away. This is not Titanic where the lives of those had long been drowned along with their stories. If some length of time- like 10-15 years had passed, perhaps it would serve the purpose of re-telling the series of events to our children, so they may learn and keep fighting against terrorism. At this moment in time; however, it seems like Hollywood will present any movie, about any topic just to make a buck."
Like I mentioned my doubts about this movie before, Florence would agree that no matter how accurate United 93 will depict the events, it serves neither purpose of entertaining nor educating. I wouldn't imagine a person eating popcorn or having a hotdog while re-living 9/11, nor would I predict any intellectual gain from this movie. If anything, it might serve as a really really expensive memorabilia to the families of 9/11 victims. It does not aim to provide answers nor questions. Merely a re-enactment in honour of those in the hijacked planes.
Some may notice the suspicious timely release of the movie with Bush's latest popularity poll. And it does beg the question if a movie that already holds little or no value, holds potential to perpetuate again anti-muslim sentiments and false associations between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. The truth is that while the film may have been made all with good intentions, people by large are impressionable and misinformed. A movie powerful enough to move the families of the victims is equally powerful enough to rekindle anti-muslim sentiments amongst
Republicans those who cannot differentiate. For those who actually plan to watch it for whatever your reasons, then I suggest avoiding documentaries such as Loose Change or Confronting the Evidence, which I found a lot more intellectually 'nutritious'. A person who goes to see United 93 is likely to accept those events as accurate, and more disturbingly, wanting to accept that as the truth simply because it is the simplest to understand. Easy to digest. Canned food for the mind. While I don't make claim to any particular scenario being the accurate version, I do believe that if you go seeking for answers, you will only find more questions that disturb you way too much to think you're going to spend £5 on a movie ticket about something based on a few telephone calls.
I'm the Decider: The Soundtrack
I hear the voices, I'm the decider... and I decide what's best. And what's best is that you listen to this!
29/4/06 update: And now for 20 bucks you can afford to feel what it's like to be president of the United States. A great tshirt to walk around in mocking others with your low-level intellect and vocabulary but at the same time letting them know who's boss.
...by the nimble hands of FBI and CIA agents.
Looks like I could be getting 'Freedom sugar cubes' before I see my 23rd:
"History repeats itself, but always with new twists. We are back to the good old days when a Declaration of War preceded the start of a war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th, 2006. Reversing the old order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to take action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran." This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf] signed by the United States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353 policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council statement just approved will not be a trigger for military action after 30 days; true to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposed by the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity, i.e. before the end of April. The "justification" is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement."
Isn't it amazing that the trigger-happy war president has survived not one, but two elections and has not yet been dragged out of his Oval Office and burned at the stake? He has entrenched the American flag so deep in shit it is now nothing more than a shade of brown. People who support this man, and usually his war as well, seem propelled by their firm, inate beliefs in global threats, and I find it embarassing on their part to not be able to find a single leg to stand on when it comes to supporting the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Are you really expecting the world to believe the boy who cried wolf on Iraq? I'm reminded of this mentality of fear and pre-emptivity from that cartoon featured in Bowling for Columbine; the white man builds his own dangerous environment with gun-ownership out of an unrealistic fear for the black man. Aaron points this out in an updated context:
"Remember how right you got it on the WMD in Iraq? Try looking in the mirror and saying "Muslims are my fellow human beings". I knew you couldn't! Face it, you guys are the crazed bastards that want do destroy innocent life. Wake up! Eventually you'll have to explain your hatred to your maker."
Let us have peace, let us have life,
Let us escape the cruel night.
Let us have time, let the sun shine,
Let us beware the deadly sign.
An attack on Iran is essentially irony on the part of America's attempt to neutralise terrorist threats and propagate democracy and freedom going by their values (not interests) because:
a) Iran has the right to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes and is given the right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, the U.S. hipocritically has its own arsenal of nuclear weapons while aiding India in breaching this Treaty. Doesn't this just reek of "I AM the law!"...
b) viewing Iran as a threat based on its recent comments of Israel and the Holocaust does not make a man a terrorist. Leading a country into war on false pretenses, blowing up civilians and then calling it collateral damage is terrorism. In any case, I believe the President of Iran is entitled to his right to free speech. hmm...
c) the argument that Iran is an oppressive country under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and justifies war is absurd. There are plenty of other oppressive countries that are oppressive AND/or hold nuclear capabilities but are simply underserving of military attention due to 'national interests'. Care to drop some hate-mail and military threats on China's doorstep?
d) a second "Iraq" (third if you count Afghanistan) will create further instability in the Mid East region. The majority muslim region will see this as an increasing threat not only against their land, but their religion. It is clear insurgency in Iraq is uncontainable 3 years since American forces crossed into Iraqi borders. A second war and occupation would likely propagate more anti-american sentiments and thus generate more sporadic attacks by Jihadists. The death toll will rise, more american parents will mourn, and the country will be in further monetary debt than it already is.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program that gives Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology. The State Department says that "Iran is expanding its biotechnology and biomedical industries by building large, state-of-the-art research and pharmaceutical production facilities. These industries could easily hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment." Why isn't the US demanding that Iran stops its biotechnology research and development, and that it transfers all biotech related activities to Russia?"
The day is coming, armageddon's near,
Inferno's coming, can we survive the blitzkrieg.
The final point is perhaps the most crucial and potentially dangerous aspect of using nuclear weapons in Iran. Bush so skillfully avoided the media questions and utterly failed to diffuse concerns over his Administration's plans as an option to use nuclear weapons against Iran. It may only be one of several options on the table, but is still an important one that he failed to address. I sincerely hope his PR guy simply isn't being paid enough. Newswise reflects on physicist Jorge Hirsch's report:
"It notes that there are no sharp lines between small and large nuclear weapons, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those targeting armies or cities, and that the use by the United States of nuclear weapons after 60 years of non-use will make the use of nuclear weapons by others more likely.
“Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the probability that others will too,” the physicists write. “In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a ‘taboo’ against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization.”
The letter echoes the main objection of last fall’s physicists’ petition, stressing that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be irreversibly damaged by the use or even the threat of use of nuclear weapons by a nuclear nation against a non-nuclear one, with disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.
“It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the widespread destruction of life on the planet. We urge the administration to announce publicly that it is taking the nuclear option off the table in the case of all non-nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter.”"
Hirsch also makes his predictions of an eminent war and the disturbing mathematical logic supporting it:
"It is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the impending attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition. Allies do not want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who will be officially notified that an attack is about to take place? Most likely, Iran itself.
Prepare for the blitzkrieg...
Save us from fate, save us from hate,
Save ourselves before it's too late.
Come to our need, hear our plea,
Save ourselves before the earth bleeds.
The day is dawning, the time is near,
Aliens calling, can we survive the blitzkrieg.
Anarchist's Dictator's Handbook
- From the TimesOnline.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just really being a very, very bad boy playing with nuclear weapons in his backyard. And now the little shit is asking to be ass-invaded by proclaiming his new "fancy" missiles and then saying.... 'Israel will soon be history'. Has he been reading the Idiot's Guide to Getting Ass-Invaded by America?I was in an asian food store the other day and noticed a bag of unusual looking sugar cubes from Iran. And I actually found myself pausing a few seconds to consider buying it. I have a sneaky feeling they will be re-named American cubes pretty soon...
Guess who's back...?
The Prophet Mohammed! With the boundary-pushing animated series South Park:
- From CNN
"NEW YORK (AP) -- Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet ohammed, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode. The comedy -- in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians -- instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag. In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of Mohammed. Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.
[...]"Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing." The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Mohammed is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network."It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag. A frequent "South Park" critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.
"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central -- that's their decision not to show the image of Mohammed or not -- it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade.""
It just wouldn't be South Park if they hadn't made something out of the Jan/Feb Danish cartoons. Rather than attack whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, they challenge the principles of the people who have banned the illustrations of the sacred Prophet Mohammed. If one episode gets pulled or censored, then technically the public and the rest of the world have in their capacity the ability to pull the entire show. The show challenges the hipocrisy of the network equally as it does boundaries of free speech. Isaac Hayes took a hit after his own departure from South Park, which was frankly predictable of Matt and Trey. But again, they highlight the hipocrisy of his actions; leaving after 9 seasons of South Park only when his own religion finally became its target.
I've only seen the first episode in this 2-parter. In the first part, Mohammed is featured on 'The Family Guy' for a brief moment, albeit with a big black censor-strip covering every inch of his body, and is shown having a cup of tea....with Mr T. Meanwhile the rest of the nation have their heads buried in the sand...literally.
Cartoon Wars part 1: Will there be enough sand for everybody?
"If you look closely at the writing in 'Family Guy', you will see that the jokes never derive from the plot. And I think that's totally gay." - Osama bin Laden
You are a non-commital, closed-off anti-socialite
...with possible career prospects in nowhere. Or so says the free personal pyschometric test, which is basically just a premium version of the occassional personality tests you get in email forwards. On a serious note, if you are looking for a graduate job, you may find the Graduate Recruitment Bureau useful. Due to large numbers of employers preferring pyschometric profiles for candidates, they are now on a free trial period that offers a professional online pyschometric test (worth £70 apparently) for registered users over the next few months. The test comprises of two parts; a personality test and a test of logical reasoning, verbal, mathematical and spatial skills. If you have at least half an hour to spare, you are rewarded with a fairly comprehensive analyis. An interesting summary from my personality test produced this:Well, don't blame me for checking the sentence 'I don't feel upset when I see an animal killed on the road'...
Faces up to issues without delay
Persevering and tenacious
Proactive in sorting out problems
Firm and decisive
Possible development needs:
Might be insensitive to the emotional impact on others of some of his decisions
The New Ann Coulter
Do you really need a synopsis for this book??
"If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with Tom DeLay, we might have two patriotic parties in this country."
- From anncoulter.com
Her latest entry on her website fires off with a remark against liberals so typical of the Right; a reference to something that is completely unrelated to the issue. What is with their obsession with associating Liberal disdain for the opposition with sympathy for terrorists may I ask? It is evidently derivative of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
Looking through her reading list, I was slightly bemused at the affirmation of my guess that right-wingers consisting of people such as herself either don't have a clue about Islam, or have a construed concept about it. Well done, Ann. You've read one book on Islam and that makes you an Islam expert, or to have the self-confidence anyway to judge it. Secondly, on further inspection of Ann's Bible to Islam, Unveiling Islam, you will find that the author Ergun Mehmet Caner is not exactly the most credible of authors, who is a muslim-turned-christian. What better person to shine bad light on a religion than to ask a person who has shuned away from it. Sure you may learn something about Islam from the book. But you would be doing yourself a disfavour by limiting it to one book... There is one method of learning the religion that will exceed any book, and that is to ask none other than a muslim (I can already hear the Republicans whipping out their guns). Any guesses as to how many muslim friends the average right-winger has? If there has been one thing that I have learnt from my own muslim friends from across the world, it's that Islam is not only geographically diverse, but practiced and interpreted differently in different societies.
Of course, the Coulter-types will happily read and promote anything that does not stray from their firm belief of Islam. It becomes a them-versus-us, in a gross generalisation of muslims. And they will attack anything from Burkas to your Sharia Laws, to the Halal meat that you eat.
If Ann Coulter's rants and verbal attacks on Liberals sound more like nails on a chalkboard to you, then how bout' a more relevant tongue-in-cheek poke at Tom DeLay at Pink Dome? How ironic as well that they are from Red State Texas...
"How fitting it is! Its called "Godless" The Church of Liberalism. And its fitting that it comes out on 6/6/06 ! Isnt it amazing how she can get liberals to have screaming fits, even before they know what the book is about!"
The devil's in between the lines
There are also hints he may be Bush's speech coach...
(Not so) BREAKING NEWS: WMDs were in America all along!
Clyde [stares steadily into camera and holds index finger to ear]: That's right leech. I'm stood outside the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory right now where inside lies lots and lots of weapon-grade plutonium. The Bush administration recently revealed plans to dismantle their nuclear weapons dating back from the Cold War era, but replace them with newer, bigger and better ones! In fact, by the year 2022, America aims to produce 125 new and updated nuclear bombs per year! In addition to the humiliating hipocrisy, the Administration's recent proposal to India effectively allows it to bypass the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Do you hear that...? It's the sound of America's policy on Iran disappearing up its own asshole.
"THE Bush Administration has revealed a blueprint for rebuilding America's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.
The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernisation of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.
Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining ageing bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The Administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs a year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe."
America should hold talks with itself. Then it should impose sanctions on itself. Then it should bomb the shit out of itself. The only difference this time is that I guarantee you will find your WMDs.