Bad Theoretical Situations #1

You really can't hold it anymore. It's only half an hour 'til you get home, but you have to pee. Stat! So you pull into the motorway services and waddle into the men's restroom. Assuming you're a bloke, of course.

You pick a cubicle that meets the minimum specification: has a door, with a lock, has toilet roll, no shit on floor, seat or floating in the pan, is not located next to an occupied cubicle from which whinnying can be heard.

You dash in and lock the door. Too late you spy the glory hole hacked into the wall of the cubicle. Relax, you're only in for a pee; one minute and you're out of there. So you begin. The following happen in quick succession, yet in slow motion.

You hear the next cubicle door being locked.
You find yourself suddenly unable to pee.
You hear a zip being lowered from next door.
Staring straight ahead, your eyes alight upon the fateful words, giving the time of the next performance.
The sound of peeing from next door is conspicuously absent.
You glance at your watch - right on time.
A throat is cleared next door.
For some infathomable reason, you turn and check the glory hole....

[INTERMISSION]

....and you are arrested for running through the motorway services Burger King with your "co-pilot" waving in the breeze, shouting profanities at the top of your voice.

That would be pretty bad, no?

Culture of Fear: Entire UK on House Arrest

ATTENTION! This is HM Government. A state of national emergency has been declared across the entire United Kingdom. There is now a total curfew in effect. Do not leave your homes. The curfew will be enforced by government troops. Anyone breaking curfew and leaving their home at any time will be shot. All food will be delivered by the Army in your area. Education broadcasts will shown on TV. All phone and internet connections have been cut. This is for your safety. That is all...

It sounds like a disaster movie, but this is at the other end of the Road to Hell we have just joined. We are at Junction 1, the journey is just beginning, no-one needs to go the toilet yet and Little Jimmy has yet to get his seat covered in chocolate.
Society's short-sighted satnav has yet to determine where this road goes, but it's downhill all the way. Which, since it's the path of least resistance, means government can engage neutral and coast all the way to oblivion.

Sorry, got carried away with the bombast without introducing the subject of today's rant. Due to the recent holes uncovered in the registers of ne'er-do-well's in this country, it transpires that almost 10 million people will require some sort of vetting to determine if they can get a job that involves, as near as makes no difference, interacting with people. What the government are saying is that one in six people in this country is some sort of pervert. Think about that when you walk through the supermarket. How long has that man been smiling suggestively at that can of beans? Maybe he gets off on tins of beans. I'd better call the Police.

Ludicrous, right? That's where the government thinks we are. And this a mere week or two after Tony Blair kicked off his "Re-spect!" campaign, in which he said that he believed that the majority of people were good and respectful. Now, one in six is a minority, but it's not that minor a minority. So, Tony, which is it? Are we all good, honest folks, mindfull and respectful of other people, or are we all overcoat-wearing child-molesting psychopaths? I don't think it can be both.

Break the numbers down. One in Six people means One in Three men. Assuming two-thirds of men have children, does that mean that the government believe that half of fathers are unsuitable on the grounds that they may be kiddy-fiddlers? I'm not a big fan of swearing in blogs but, as a proud and protective father, I would quite happily grab Tony Blair by his lapels and tell him, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off. "So Tony, is it you that's the pervert, or is it your dad Leo, namesake of your youngest son?" When you put it like that, it sounds even more ludicrous.

Its getting a bit like the film Equilibrium. Society is being regulated to the point where, if you stray from the Little Red Path by so much as smiling at a child having fun, your fellow citizens shop you to The Man for being a sex offender.

Its also similar tactics to those used by the Bush Adminstration in the run up to The Gulf Round 2. Bush beat the American people with the threat of Saddam and his WMDs until the they were ready to pop a cap in the ass of anyone whose beard was a bit too bushy. As a senior, and probably ex-, official stated in Fahrenheit 9/11, "You can make people do almost anything if they're scared.". Which makes you wonder for what new evil they are prepping us.

Another thought occurs: Are rapists, murderers, paedophiles, perverts born or made? Homosexuality, although still regarded by the church to be an evil choice made by Man, seems to be something you are born with. If, as I think the received wisdom is, most criminals are made, a product of society, then surely it would better in the long run to address the things that create criminals, rather than react to the results of criminal behaviour?

The Road to Hell has many off-ramps, many chances for redemption, to escape the descent of Man. But no-one wants to get off, admiting that they don't know where they are going, like Dad driving to EuroDisney. We would read the map, if there was one. However, like instructions for assembling Ikea furniture, it's unlikely we would use it.

ATTENTION! Your civil liberties and human rights have been revoked for the protection of you from yourselves. Anyone who catches themselves having seditious thoughts should handcuff themself to a radiator for the duration. Thank you for your continued cooperation...

Namibia's German Genocide: How far back are we going?

OK, we all accept that killing a race of people is a bad thing. You don't even have to kill them all. Even a few thousand will raise an eyebrow or two. To quote John Lithgow in Cliffhanger and Megadeth¹, "Kill a man, you're a murderer. Kill a million, you're a conqueror. Kill them all, you're God." Its a question of scale and context. Many atrocities were, and are, committed during wars.

Historically, you don't even have to declare war. If you had enough soldiers, and couldn't understand the natives, you could quite cheerfully kill them and nick their country, which, to quote Grandpa Simpson, "was the style at the time". That was how the Europeans built their Empires. Britain had one, Germany had one, France, Holland, everyone had an Empire. Britain had an Empress, Queen Victoria, Empress of India. She never even went there. Britain's Empire was the daddy; to quote Blackadder again, "The British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika".

Evidently this is somewhat wide of the mark, as the Herero people of Namibia are trying to get compensation for the "genocide" visited upon them during their failed uprising against the German colonialists in 1904. It is thought three quarters of the Herero people were killed. Now, firstly, I'm not sure this qualifies. Genocide is defined as "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group". Some of them survived. Strictly, then, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide either, not that I'm suggesting that it is somehow less heinous as a result. Secondly, they were fighting the colonialists. It was a war. It's not like the Germans smothered them in their beds.

My question is, is there a cutoff point after which you can't apply for compensation? Could Scotland apply for compensation from England for years of war and bloodshed? Could the Native Americans get compensation from the USA? Should the Jews get compensation for the Holocaust? Could England get compensation from Italy for the Romans? Could the whole Middle East get compensation from Macedonia for Alexander the Great? Could Eastern Europe get compensation from Mongolia for Genghis Khan? When does it become stupid?

Maybe we call a halt to any more retrospective compensation claims. What's done is done. If you want to invade somewhere in the future, you have to pay compensation up front. That would make them think twice about invading. That would make Africa in particular very scared. They've been getting aid for years, and latterly countries are pledging to cancel Third World debt. That would sort bullying as well. It'd be like a toll. If you want to beat me up, it'll cost you ten pounds.

¹ Now there is a juxtaposition that can't occur too often.

Witch Hunt chases Gays around The Globes

As soon as I see a name like "Concerned Women for America", I'm afraid I automatically switch off. I can tell that I'm not going to agree with you. My mental image is of middle class women from families that are still New Money, but are a mere generation or two away from Old Money, who, having nothing better to do, write letters of indignation about anything that deviates from their idea of the "straight and narrow"¹

Take the Golden Globes, for example. "Puritanical Harpies Against Everything" say that "Once again, the media elites are proving that their pet projects are more important than profit". Isn't that a good thing? The moving-going public is getting bored with the same old movies. Action movies these days are sustained two-hour explosions. Film makers should be encouraged and praised for making movies dear to their hearts.

After whinging about the gay films not making much money at the box office, they complain "If America isn’t watching these films, why are they winning the awards?".
I may have missed the point of awards, but surely awards are there to award good films, not profitable films? Each film in The Lord of The Rings trilogy made the best part of $1bn dollars at the box office, yet didn't get Oscars until after The Return of The King.

Media will always reflect the culture of the times, because that is what people of the times are interested in. Every film made will inevitably offend someone. I bet even It's a Wonderful Life pissed someone off. One of the films the "Intolerant Harridans Against Freedom of Expression" are whinging about is about a guy who died over 20 years ago. Of liver disease, of which the Stepford Wives must be all too aware. If someone has made a film about him, it's because it is felt he contributed to our culture. It's not down to any one group to decide whether that contribution was detrimental or not. To quote an awful business cliche, it's about "running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes". The fact that only a handful of people did, by paying to see the movie, is neither here nor there.

Again, this is about people being intolerant of other people's beliefs and politics. Movie makers are people too and, conciously or not, their beliefs and politics will shape to some extent the films they make. America as a culture is somewhat more polarised than other countries, in that staunchly religious people occupy the same country as rigid capitalists. They at least have the luxury of space; the zealots in the middle don't ever need to see the peverted pederasts on the coasts.

Which may be part of the problem. America is hardly a country populated by well-traveled people. Only a scarily small percentage have passports, and I believe there are people who go their entire lives without leaving their state. Britain itself could drive into Alaska, do a three-point-turn and drive out again. You can't go the shops in the UK without leaving the shire. Americans, on the other hand, don't have to mix with people with differing views, politics and religions, hence why these frictions exist.

I'm not asking for coiffeured kept wives in shaker-built houses in upstate New York to understand why someone in California would make a movie about a gay bloke. All I'm asking it that they admit that they don't understand, understand that it wasn't made for them, or to annoy them, and do something useful with themselves².

¹ I don't know the etymology of the phrase, but it could suggest that it's hard to remain straight, and the more people walking the "straight and narrow", the more people are likely to fall off into Gay.
² I wrote "like the hoovering" before removing it. If hubby makes squillions as a corporate bastard in the City, I can't imagine there is much to do but sit around complaining with the rest of them. Or screw the gardener. Damn you, Desparate Housewives!

Hajj Trajjedy: Come on, Brian! Lets go to stoning.

Almost 350 people have been killed at the Hajj, during the ritual stoning of the three pilars at the bridge of Jamarat where the Devil is said to have appeared to Abraham. This is supposedly the most dangerous part of the Hajj, where worshippers jostle for prime stone-throwing position so they can stone Satan and be sure to hit him.

It appears that a slew of Samsonite fallen from the thousands of buses caused many pilgrims to fall, who were then trampled by some of the estimated two million people performing their seven circuits of the Kabaa. The linked article does not state if you get more karmic points for hitting the middle pillar. It's like a big religious fun fair. Step right up, pilgrims! Who can hit the middle pillar? Everyone who can gets eternal salvation! How much? One eternal soul, please.

Levity aside, there are deaths at the Hajj every year. Steps have been taken since the previous years' deaths, but with several million people trying to occupy the same space, unfortunate accidents will happen. And since Muslims are required to make the pilgrimage at least once in their lives, they can't simply restrict numbers, as they did with the New Year celebrations in Edinburgh a few years ago. To that point, the population of the city would at least double for Hogmanay, and Princes Street would accomodate over 400 thousand people at midnight. These days, a more pedestrian 180 thousand is the limit.

You can actually move, which somehow takes the fun away. Part of the fun was being forced from one throng of drunken, fit, foreign chicks to the next, lips balmed and waiting. If Hogmanay had experienced even a handful of deaths, the whole thing would be cancelled. Which isn't an option for the Hajj. The element of risk is what makes things worth doing.

I do have rather more respect for Islam than most other organised religions. At least their religion does require some active participation. Christianity barely qualifies when you measure it against Islam, or Hinduism, or Judaism. Most other 'big hitters' do make followers put some effort in, whether its getting up early to pray, or getting bits of yourself chopped off, or taking a risk to make a pilgrimage.

If Christianity wants to take itself more seriously, it needs to be filling the Piazza San Marco every fortnight for all night vigils. Some element of discomfort needs to be introduced, some effort on the part of the faithful so they can show their Faith.

As an atheist, it seems to me that I would be more faithful if I thought there was some possibility that there would be some penalty for my unfaithfullness. Oh, yes, you might not get to Heaven, but considering the sort of people who must be filling the place by now, would you really want to go? Even St. Peter's patience must be wearing a bit thin by now. Even if there was some sort of cultural exchange with Hell, I can't imagine it as a "happening" place to spend eternity.

I'm a fan of tradition, which is the last thing at which I am confident Britain is best. It may be viewed as nostalgic mourning of the good old Empire days, when a man could go to India, make a fortune, shoot some tigers, and be home in time for Christmas. I'm glad, then, that Islam at least is not going soft and relaxing its ways for the Twenty First century.

We shouldn't really mourn those who lost their lives today. They made the effort for their beliefs and, as a believer, is there any better place for someone to meet their Maker than in their Maker's house?

Fame: Who wants to live forever?

The lyrics from the "Fame" theme encompass the whole problem with the concept of being famous. "I want to live forever": does anyone really want to live forever, given what we are doing to the planet, and especially given what happens to those who do: you end up decapitated by Clancy Brown.

"I want to learn how to fly, high!": even those of us who aren't familiar with the story of Icarus will know that those who try to fly too high get burned: those who stick their heads above the parapet will eventually catch an arrow in the eye. And I don't need a great long bit of French needlework to tell me that's a bad thing.

The culture of celebrity has reached pandemic proportions and threatens society almost as much as bird flu. People are now famous for being famous. Trying to understand it only leads to the conclusion that there is a link missing. People who are well known because of what they can do; that I understand. But, like in UK Celebrity Big Brother, they are creating a celebrity who is famous for doing literally nothing.

Not only does "celebrity for its own sake" devalue those whose status as famous is deserved (Is Jordan more famous, and therefore more valuable, than Darwin, or Newton, or Einstein?), it highlights the "something for nothing" approach that western society has created for itself. People feel that they deserve to be famous, that somehow the world owes it to them to make them rich and famous.

Beyond the material benefits of being famous, I can't see the point. You won't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of your faux-fame in peace, pictures of you looking fat will infest the press, spurned teenage lovers will crawl from the woodwork and you'll end up on some celebrity reality TV show with all the other faux-celebs wondering where it all went wrong. I can tell you: your tits went South, never to return; you got old and mainstream; you were famous for no reason at all!

It may be a double edged sword, but the edge facing you is considerably longer and sharper then that facing the other way. And when, through old age or loss of profile, you fall on your blade, you're not getting up again. The exception to this that proves the rule¹ is Jordan. I can only assume the silicon airbags absorbed the fatal thrust.

We should take a feather from Icarus' father, Daedalus', wings and fly closer to the ground, under the radar. Radar is not your friend. Society is not your friend. Society looks at you and thinks "You're famous for having big tits, and will only be famous until someone else with bigger tits comes along and who'll be laughing then?".

Keep a low profile, keep to the shadows, don't make eye contact. Do Not Feed the Media. Warning: Obscurity May Be Closer Than It Appears.

¹ I never understood this. Surely any case that is in opposition to a theory renders the theory useless?

---

Fame 'tempts pupils from school'

One in ten people would drop out of school for a chance to be famous! I should be shocked but sadly am not. OK, even assuming these are the really stupid people, whose only qualificatons are good teeth, big tits and a well turned ankle, they should stay in school and grasp the most basic premise of economics: supply and demand.

If there is an oversupply of any particular product, the value of that product declines and the demand for that product wanes. So the more brainless morons there are out there, spouting inanities from the legion digital TV channels, the less likely we are to want to watch them.

If you are going to drop out of school, be an honest plumber. You'll be a millionaire quicker and more surely than getting on and winning "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?".

UK Celebrity Big Brother: George Galloway Loses RESPECT

The Official Channel 4 Big Brother website has yet to publish this, but last night we were treated to the sight of George Galloway and Rula Lenska involved in some kind of Buddhist role play exercise.

It started off with George reading some sort of script, at the end of which George started acting like a cat! Rula then, acting as owner, was egging him on with all the usual cat-owner nonsense.

Now, I missed whether this was a Big Brother task or something, but, as an MP and leader of the RESPECT party, to be seen on telly pretending to be a cat, takes the biscuit, the packet, the barrel, the feckin' biscuit factory!

He did try and inject some machismo into his performance by being all "ferocious jungle predator", staring eyes and all that, but as soon as Rula started stroking him, he started purring! Ye Gods! This was the only time, footage of beheadings and execution aside, where I have had to change channels.

I've kinda admired Gorgeous George for going against the grain as a politician, not being anyones puppet, but any RESPECT I had for him vanished when he threw away his by acting like a cat on a national TV program. His constituents must be holding their heads in their hands; we voted for this dickhead?

That a TV show can make a driven and opinionated politician abrogate all that he stands for says a lot about the times we live in. He will argue that he is doing the image of politicians a favour. I'm not sure his parliamentary colleagues would agree. Maybe there was some Polish poontang to be found at the end of this roleplay rainbow, who knows?