Tory bastards

Fucking. Tory. Bastards. Unbeloodlievable. Cameron's rich, selfish cronies showing more of their true colours.

Fog in Channel

Quite a while back I was asked by Tom and Simon Sykes if I'd like to contribute to a book they were putting together on British attitudes to Europe; its taken some time to get to print but its now finally been released (I just received my complimentary copy). It was quite nice to be asked (they had come across the Woolamaloo after the infamous 'Bastardstone's' incident and liked my writing style) and it was unusual for me to be asked to write on something other than my regular subjects of books, comics or films (much as I do enjoy writing and talking about those). I'm also rather chuffed to think I'm in there with company such as Bill Deedes, Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell and Tony Benn (my late uncle, a solid socialist to the day he died, would have been delighted to see his nephew in a book alongside Benn). The guys wanted to have a spread of people and so a variety of thoughts and opinion and not just the 'usual suspects', hence why I was also approached; I drew on my own experience of an earlier Union to describe my feeling towards European Union, looking at the notion of being Scottish and British against the idea of being British but also European. Fog in Channel (the title inspired by the old weather report on the radio) is published now by Shoehorn Publishing.

Guy Fawkes night

Remember, remember, the Fifth of November,
Expense claims, moats and cooked books,
I see no reason, why such high spenders,
Should ever be let off their hooks.







New research by leading academics at the University of Woolamaloo's Department of Historical Thinggies & Digging Old Stuff Up has revealed that Guido Fawkes, who lends his name to the traditions carried out in these islands on this day, was not as previously thought primarily motivated by religion as a dangerous Catholic fundamentalist terrorist, but was in fact driven chiefly by outrage caused by the seamy, selfish, profligate indulgences of the MPs of his era exploiting their overly generous expenses system. Thank goodness that in our civilised, modern era our politicians are too mature and noble and the system too accountable for them to behave in such a primitive manner.

Bare faced lies with a you betcha smile

The Daily Dish has an interesting compilation of the many bare-faced lies told by Sarah Palin during her political career. It never ceases to amaze me how brazenly some politicians will simply lie even over pretty easily checkable claims, from relatively small ones about meetings right up to fabricated justifications for wars. And I'm always depressed how many supporters continue to believe in these duplicitous toads even when they have been caught out time after time lying to the public, a sad indicator of the fact that many voters are indeed just as stupid as these lying politicians obviously think they are. (via Boing Boing)

"Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent "millions of dollars" on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.



Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party's very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years."

The Speaker election system explained

As the House of Shame prepares to elect a new Speaker many citizens are bemused and confused by the typically ancient and deliberately arcane methods used by Members of Parliament, which is not helpful when so much of the electorate are already put off from politics in the UK following recent scenes of mass greed and corruption allied to a rudderless government which appears to have no plans and a distinct track record of ignoring public opinion and concerns. Therefore your trust Woolamaloo Gazette's political department has created a clear-cut explanation as to how exactly this centuries-old process of electing a new Parliamentary Speaker takes place.

The entire unwieldy event lurches into being when candidates throw their hats into a ring to announce their intention to run for the office following the dismemberment of the previous Speaker (who is ceremonially stuffed, embalmed and mounted in the House of Lords). Today this is a figure of speech but back in the 1600s it was taken literally, where refined, corrupt gentlemen would actually throw their hats physically into a small ring, with the hats which landed closest to the centre of the ring dictating the running order of the election. Accidentally knocking out an opponent's hat from the ring (thus making their candidacy void before it really began) was seen as quite dishonourable and frowned upon. Doing so deliberately was perfectly acceptable, however. Today's politicians no longer throw actual hats, they simply have to walk around banging a large drum and yelling 'pay attention to me, pay attention to me, me me!'. The other Members of the House are, by tradition, supposed to ignore them during this part of the process for as long as possible until they simply can't take it anymore and agree to let that person stand for the post. This can last for several weeks and over the centuries of Parliamentery Democracy has caused the deaths by terminal boredom or asphyxiation due to excessive hot air inhalation of a number of politicians and members of the Fourth Estate and citizens.

The second phase is to take the remaining candidates into what is known as the Cromwellian stage of the election. All of the prospective Speakers must dress up as Oliver Cromwell (warts and all); a pack of King Charles Spaniels is loosed into the Chamber of the House of Commons and the Cromwellian garbed candidates must chase the floppy eared royal hounds around to the strains of the Benny Hill theme music and catch as many as possible, stuffing them into a burlap sack. The winner of this stage is the candidate who captures the most spaniels then rushes to Banqueting House and leans out the window where King Charles was lead to his execution and lean out displaying the canines and yelling "behold the pets of a traitor". Those with the fewest sacks of pups are removed from the candidacy. In 1822 there was a great scandal when a leading candidate was found to have cheated by indulging in 'puppy sack stuffing'. Deemed a dishonourable and untrustworthy scoundrel he was dismissed from Parliament and appointed as ambassador to France.

The next stage of the election sees the remaining candidates move out onto the riverside terrace of the House of Commons. Upstream a group of school children release a large number of rubber ducks with hooks attached to the top of them; underneath each is taped a sealed, waterproof packet detailing the expense abuses of various members of the House. As the squadron of rubber ducks pass down the Thames the candidates lean out over the side with large poles trying to hook out as many ducks as they can, the idea being to use the expense account information attached to each to blackmail other Members of the House into voting for them; obviously the more a candidate has the more Members he or she can press into their camp.

Since the press has effectively revealed most of this information publicly this year (and rather more efficiently and transparently than the official government attempt at openess) this stage will be abandoned this time and replaced by Duck-a-Speaker, where each candidate is arrayed on a hinged wooden platform suspended over the Thames with a number of targets in the shape of fat pigs above their heads. Members throw stones and if they hit the pigs, the pig's head drops into a small trough below them. Once all of the pigs have their heads in the troughs the hinge opens below the candidate and they drop into the Thames. This stage now has no actual effect on the voting process and is carried out simply for fun and to ensure the prospective speakers are well used to the rituals of public humiliation.

The final stage sees the actual election segment of the whole process; this has been made into a secret ballot so that Members can freely vote for the candidate their party bosses and whips have told them to vote for. Each goes into a curtained booth wearing only one brown, left shoe on their feet. A Masonic emblem is drawn by the candidate of their choice as the voting Member then turns three times widdershins reciting "God save the Queen" or in the case of Republicans or Atheists "By the Power of Grayskull". The secret ballots are then collected by the Parliamentary Hunchback who takes them in a silk sack to the Parliamentary grinder, who shreds the ballots before mixing them with barley and oats. The resulting combination is then spread outside to bring down gulls and crows to feast upon it. The birds have previously been had daubs of coloured paint (a shade for each candidate) applied to their wing tips and the winner will be the candidate whose birds eat the most first. To ensure outsider birds do not join in and skew results Prince Phillip stands ready with a shotgun and blasts any errant pigeons who stray into the venerated ancient gaurantee of British democracy.

The winning candidate, now Speaker, is then picked up on the shoulders of Members and carried to the nearest Clark's shoe shop to be fitted with the special buckled shoes of office. This is our ancient birthright of clear, transparent and fully accountable Parliamentary democracy which makes us better than everyone else fully protected for the people of this great land.

some pigs are more equal than others

The new artwork on the side of Saint John's church in Edinburgh makes a nice comment on the greedy pigs-in-the-trough mentality of so many of the right dishonourable Members of Parliament who've been caught with their sticky trotters in the cookie jar, grabbing every bit of tax payer's money they could rip off.

Obama disappoints again

Sadly it hasn't taken too long for Obama and his second coming to start disappointing me - his stance a few weeks ago that state-sanctioned torture was immoral and illegal seemed good except for the fact he followed it up by saying that those who carried out such illegal torture (and by extension those in power who sanctioned it) shouldn't be prosecuted. Because you know, it was awful, illegal and immoral, but hey, no point in making a fuss over it, eh? And anyway, they were only following orders (I believe that's the standard excuse of such bastards in any regime who happily carry out illegal orders). So much for Obama and his moral compass. Now, after lambasting Bush's dreadful trampling all over the very principles Western democractic free societies are built on by adjusting laws that should never be adjusted or altered or removed Arsehole Obama's setting up to do exactly the bloody same. Change you can believe in? What change? Change of face, same immoral, illegal shit from the sounds of it. What a surprise. (link via Boing Boing)

Mr Speaker - problem solved

After much consideration of the problems created by the Speaker of the House of Commons (is he being scapegoated? Yes, a bit. Was he a useless numpty who blocked Freedom of Information requests and ignoring public outrage instead of sorting the problem? Yes. So he should go) being forced out in this almost unprecedented manner I believe I have come up with a solution. Working with professors from the University of Woolamaloo's Faculty of Political Cobblers we've come up with a new system: we have weekly rotating guest speakers. Its based on the fairly successful and usually entertaining system of guest presenters on Have I Got News For You.

Since I floated it on FaceBook and Twitter a little earlier I've had five suggestions for who should be the first guest Speaker, ranging from Eddie Izzard to Gordon Ramsay. Can you imagine Ramsay in the post? When those noisy, nose in the troughs pigs of MPs star their usual extremely rude shouting and noise making during a debate (the sort of behaviour that would get you kicked out of a real debating society but which appears acceptable in the House of Shame) would he shout 'order, order' feebly in a whiny voice like the outgoing Speaker? Or would he more like bellow 'would the right honourable member shut the f**k up, shut your f**king mouth you f**king windbag'. And Izzard would doubtless make fun of them. You know, I think it's a workable system and as an added benefit it would make watching proceedings from the House more interesting and so encourage an active interest in politics.

Meantime let's hope that some of the fat pigs of MPs are also dragged squealing from the trough and forced to resign at the very least, or preferably be charged with fraud at most (amazing how many made 'accounting error' like oops, claiming thousands on a mortgage they had paid off months before, gosh how simple and common a mistake that is that we could all make). And for those who are feeling sorry for Michael Martin being forced from his post as Speaker in such a humiliating manner (the first such case in three centuries), remember this is a man who has been happy to spend thousands of pounds of public money doing up his already posh Speaker's chambers and has been a road block to Freedom of Information requests, hardly acts of great democracy or of the working man of the people. And his performance in the House yesterday was, frankly, embarassing and left him with no authority.

New variant of Swine Flu

Medical researchers at the University of Woolamaloo have identified a serious new mutated variation of Swine Flu, which has been dubbed Pigs in the Trough Flu. Symptoms include milking public funds for huge personal gain then complaining vociferously if said moral abuses are aired in the media whose job it is to hold public figures to account. So far it is largely restricted to politicians, although doctors think that it is closely related to the not dissimilar Fat Feline Flu, which many senior bankers and investors contracted with such disastrous results.

Palin crank call

With only days to go Sarah 'pitbull with lipstick (very expensive lipstick) Palin has been fooled by Canadian comedian Marc Antoine Audette into thinking she was on a phone call with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, which went out on a Montreal radio station. The whole Palin thing - utter lack of a grasp of geopolitics, foreign relations, her dubious record (the library interference when she was a humble mayor, possible misuse of family connections in jobs, trying to avoid freedom of information requests on her work by using personal email accounts rather than official government ones), her hideously intolerant right wing stance, her love of shooting animals for leisure, the pretence at being an ordinary working mom while spending more on clothes and hairstyling than many families bring home in a year, her apparent lack of knowledge of what the duties of the VP actually are - would be funny, except even after all this there are still a lot of Americans who not only would vote for her, they are talking about how she should run for president in 4 or 8 years...

was declaring to the reporter he wouldn't vote for Obama not on political grounds but because 'he was a Muslim'.I can't help but wonder at the sheer stupidity of some people, but then again a lot of those numpties are the ones who voted for a retarded chimp to let in Dubyah (well, second time, first time his brother and dad's friends in the Supreme Court handed the election to him) and before that voted a dreadful B movie elderly actor who delighted on ratting out his fellows during the McCarthy era into the top job. Watching one news programme some ignorant redneck woman When the reporter pointed out he had been a regular church-goer for many years she said that didn't count. No, she wasn't a bigoted, racist cow at all... Although being someone who dislikes organised religions of all types I always find it quite disturbing how much relgion plays into American politics to begin with anyway, especially in a country which likes to boast how state and church are seperated by the Constitution.

Thankfully, despite idiots like Cardinal Winning constantly sticking his oar into Scottish politics (you have your own opinion, but stop trying to tell groups how they should be thinking and voting) its not the same here; in fact when Tony Blair started talking about his mate God we all got rather uncomfortable because its a private matter. And because we think a politician is meant to be answerable to the citizen, not some mythic deity.

American dreaming

BBC Radio 4 has been running a fascinating series entitled "America, Empire of Liberty", presented by historian David Reynolds, which I've been listening to over the last weeks. The actual history, leading up to, through and just after the War of Independence and the actual establishment of a country out of a disparate groups of revolutionaries and often competing and arguing states is interesting enough, but the series has also done what any good history should do - present the links between the Then and the Now. History is not a static, dry study but something dynamic, events from decades and centuries before constantly bleeding into the present the the future yet to be born, which makes it a shame so many people tend to ignore it (and that escalates to tragedy when we see what our so called leaders do in ignorance of historical precedent).

Take for example on of last week's episodes - some parts of the series have touched on US history I was familiar with, but this part I didn't know: the Aliens and Seditions Act, passed by Alexaner Hamilton's Federalist Party in the 1790s as debate raged over the newly independent US's stance on the growing global conflict between France and the British Empire. This largely forgotten act delivered unheard of powers to central government (and at a time when US central government was very weak, by design, most power designed by Jefferson et al to be held more locally at state and county levels, not like today where the executive has steadily accumulated powers to itself). Basically a 1790s War on Terror (WOT?) it allowed the president to deport aliens without right of appeal and to silence criticism in the interests of the country. The parallels between the 18th century and the draconian changes to civil liberties in the laws of the US, UK and other countries in the post 9-11 world are disturbingly familiar.

Likewise debates over a newly minted land of so-called liberty happily ignoring the rights of women (even when President Adams wife implored him to remember that a land of democratic liberty which ignored one entire gender was pure hypocricy. She was, of course, ignored by the male leaders, many of whom, truth be told, for all their fine rhetoric, were not overly mad on giving all men the vote, let alone women, unless they were the right kind of men (well bred, well off, basically the New World's aristocracy), thus again repeating old mistakes even back then. And then there was the odious issue of slavery, not to mention the way the native American Indians would be treated...

Meanwhile on the TV the BBC has just started a new series by Simon Schama, "The American Future: a History". The first episode also linked the Then and Now, exploring the seemingly insatiable consumerism of the US and its almost unshakable belief that it can endlessly exploit natural resources throughout its history, noting how this belief is slowly (and perhaps a little too late) being shaken as drought in the West means constantly shriking water for more and more people, to say nothing of the over-dependence on oil driven not only by car culture but an over-sized (and extremely inefficent) car culture.

Schama brings us right up to date with both Obama and McCain's campaign comments on climate change and resource management and comparing to a century or so before with one man telling the good and great of Westward Expansion that there simply was not enough water in the land for all the cities and the farms they planned (he was booed of stage, but he was right) and in more recent history replaying what Jimmy Carter told America during his presidency (but more Americans preferred to listen to a B movie actor at that election than a man who had been a farmer and actually knew what he was talking about in terms of managing the land).

"Wir gegen, nach Vienna..."

The recent Austrian elections have seen a jump in support for far right political parties. Oh dear, oh deary, deary me. Its not the first time a large number of Austrians seem to favour right wing nutters most civilised people would find hideously offensive in recent years, previous such support earned the land of mountains and schnapps sanctions from the EU. And then there was the unfortunate Kurt Waldheim affair and the disputes over certain parts of his war record before that. And then going back several decades there is, of course, a rather more extreme example of Austrian support for mad right wing lunatics. Its nice to see that Austria doesn't feel it has to tiptoe around its rather unfortunate mid-20th century history. While right wing nutters are everywhere (disgustingly some people even voted for them in some local English councils; those self same people pretend they aren't supporting racism and bigotry but they ain't foolin' anyone) in a country with the still fairly recent history Austria has you would think they'd be keen not to be seen as the sort of people who love a good, strong, right wing orator. Listen to that sound? Is that the sound of many brushes polishing jackboots?

Palin's great grasp of geopolitics

When first announced as the Reptile Party's Vice Presidential candidate one of the first criticisms about Palin - apart from most everyone outside Alaska (which is most everyone, not the most populous state) - was who the hell is she? The second was that she had bugger all foreign policy experience and has only been out of the country once and that was to a meet-the-troops special. Her spin doctors replied, unbelievably, by saying she was governor of Alaska, with Canada on one side and Russia across the sea on the other, so obviously she did know a lot about foreign relations. Understandably anyone with a brain found this hilarious and it did no end of harm to the perception of Americans abroad where most of the rest of the world assumes most Yanks no nothing about anything outside their own borders and are culturally ignorant. Which I know from personal experience isn't the case, but it is a general stereotype which she just confirmed to many.

Even more unbelievably she is still spouting this crap line (and bear in mind the Reptiles have been sniping at Obama for his supposed lack of foreign policy experience, compared to McCain, who has experience dating back to a diplomatic mission during the Boer War). This was her on US TV last night - nice to see the Reptiles following up the Chimp's presidency by continuing to draw on candidates who are sharp, intelligent, well informed and erudite...


Watch CBS Videos Online

Situations Vacant

Due to recent personnel changes and a retirement we are looking to recruit a new chief executive. Must posses exceedingly fine leadership qualities, charisma, vision and the ability to communicate in ten hour public speeches; experience of communist ideology and smoking large cigars preferable but not essential. Salary negotiable, relocation may be required but location is in beautiful part of the world which enjoys high levels of sunshine; full medical benefits included. Apply the Cuban government, Havana.

"Cities are like volcanoes, they always have to move. If they don't they're dead."

This rather peculiar and somewhat nonsensical comment comes from Allan Murray, one of the architects behind the highly controversial 'Caltongate' scheme proposed for Edinburgh, which would see a major redevelopment of the Old Town leading to the Royal Mile, including demolishing some listed buildings (which also happen to be home to people as well as listed). Strangely enough the company behind this attempt to dump a pile of bland, featureless architecture in a historic World Heritage site has attacked the people opposing this ill-conceived plan as 'thoughtless', while commenting that it is right for democracy to have a say while then dismissing some 2, 000 complaints against them, from private individuals and from important heritage groups. Democracy obviously suits the developers only when it agrees with them, otherwise you are just being 'thoughtless' and emotional (gee, some folks will lose their homes, imagine being emotional over that?!?! Eejits).

The architect who came up with this strange 'argument' in favour of his development (which he obviously has a huge vested interest in) above is also responsible for incredibly dull, featureless modern creations in the city already, which have nothing in common with the city environment or any distinguishing features that would make them stand out from a hundred other developments anywhere else in the modern world, exactly the sort of boring design that makes our cities look so dull and repetitive, and which in a historic city like Edinburgh is worse than dull, it is cultural vandalism. We've had, huge, ill-advised developments dumped on us before and they still blight the city, it is completely right that people are wary of them, especially in an area like the Old Town. That caution doesn't mean the city can't continue to evolve and develop, just that we should be very, very careful how and where we do it and I get the impression the developers are more interested in money than protecting the community in that area and our historical nature. I'm not Prince Charles and have no wish to see only more Neo-Classical architecture, but in World Heritage sites like the Old Town and New Town it is always advisable to err on the side of caution. If a developer wishes to work in that area they should expect that, it shouldn't be a surprise to them.

Oh and Mr Murray, volcanoes don't so much move as erupt and explode. The ground around them may move as a result of their eruptions but the volcanoes themselves not so much (other than the ground moving by floating over the hot liquid rock below, but all ground does that). And I don't think you want to include cities and active volcanoes in the same sentence because that's a scenario which doesn't raise connotations of flourishing life, rather images of destruction, so I'm not sure what point you were making there. Unless it was a Freudian slip acknowledging your oversized development in a sensitive area will be destructive and leave scars on the city for years, just like a volcanic eruption would. Quite why the council approved this in the face of mass rejection by affected citizens and heritage groups I have no idea; if I was a cynic I'd be checking for brown envelopes slipped under doors...

Hypocritical bastard

George Bush asked in a BBC interview if America still held the moral high ground after scandals of violated civil liberties, civilian deaths, tortures and Abu Ghraib: "Absolutely. We believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe in the human condition. We believe in freedom." This from a man who is trying to veto a bill from the US Senate (how very democratic of him) which makes the use of water boarding illegal for the purposes of interrogation. In other words he is trying to make the use of torture legal. How this fits in with his previous statement is beyond me. How this retarded monkey can say things like this then apparently believe he is on the side of Good is beyond me. And just how so many fucking idiots can go along with it, vote for it and support it is utterly beyond me.

The fact that the Senate had to even pass a law declaring this process illegal to begin with speaks volumes - most civilised countries would consider such torture utterly illegal to begin with and not need to pass extra laws. This is how the self proclaimed good guys fight the good fight. No wonder the world is such a bloody mess. Neitzche's cautionary passages on fighting monsters and becoming a monster in the process was obviously not on the reading curriculum for Bush or his supporters. Although since the brain-dead numpty seems to have difficulties with the fairly simple task of putting words together for coherent speech it shouldn't be a surprise that he isn't well educated or well read.

British Olympic Association climbs down on censorship claim

There had been worries recently that the contract British athletes being included in the national team for the Bejing Olympics had been reworded to censor what those athletes may say publicly about the dire state of human rights or politics in the host nation China. The BOA has now apparently clarified this position saying that while it is normal Olympic practise to inform competing athletes that they cannot use the Games as a political platform neither is the BOA in the business of trying to censor what its athletes speak about - they can talk to journalists, answer questions and so on, just not decide to use their position at the Games to stage a protest or demonstration, something which comes from the International Olympic rules. The British Athletes Commission seems to accept this adding that it is the sport which is paramount and that they are going to compete, not to demonstrate.

Which is fair enough, as far as it goes, since that is indeed what they are supposed to do. But I can't help but wonder if the Games weren't being held in a nation with an appalling record in human rights abuses, lack of civil liberties, environmental pillaging and few freedoms then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Part of the argument for having the Games there though is that somehow it will magically make the Chinese government more accountable, allowing more freedoms and liberties - the same argument is used by giant corporations like Google and Microsoft for working with the Chinese government, then self-censoring to suit that totalitarian regime and even, allegedly, giving access to web records to track down and silence those bloggers who post opinions considered 'dissident'. Yay for the spread of freedom by example!!!

Its an old refrain of capitalism that it promotes freedom because those are the circumstances it flourishes best in and where political argument fails to persuade those in power money and successful business might. But that's an experiment we're still waiting to see a definitive result on - there may be some more freedoms in China today but equally there are a lot of repressive measures, so the jury is well out on how successfully the market and giving them the Games has worked - it may have helped a bit, but it certainly hasn't transformed the country to a land of freedom. On the Olympians front though, if an athlete does feel very strongly that an international coming together of nations shouldn't be staged in a country where the regime denies basic freedoms, liberties and human rights then perhaps they should consider if they should take part in the Games being held there?

Because I doubt the Games will magically make things better - we're talking about a regime, after all, who when visiting London criticised their UK government hosts for 'allowing' people to protest their visit, that's the attitude they have - they think democratic countries should muzzle free speech critical of them. So I am left wondering if athletics organisations saying that the staging of the Games in China will somehow help improve that country's lamentable record is less wishful thinking than a fig leaf to their own conscience to justify going there - honest I am not just going because I want to take part in the Olympics regardless, I really believe being there will help the people of China. Honest. Okay, perhaps that is pretty cynical, but I find it is hard not to be cynical about the whole thing. (source: the BBC)

Sharia - don't like it
Rock the Casbah
Rock the Casbah
Sharia - don't like it
Rock the Casbah
Rock the Casbah

(with apologies to the mighty Clash)

The Twatbishop of Arsebury seems to have come out with his stupidest bit of pseudo-theological/political mish mash yet - he thinks we should incorporate some aspects of Sharia law into the legal systems in the UK. I'm not even going to get into the following the commandments of your faith debate here because frankly it is totally bloody irrelevant: in a civilised country the Law is the Law for everyone and all citizens are meant to be treated equally before it, enjoy the exact same priviliges it affords and follow the same rules or suffer the same consequences for violating it. The idea that different parts of society should be allowed to run to different legal standards when it suits them is utterly foolish, divisive and a recipe for disaster - where would you draw the line once you allow such a stupid idea into practise? And won't every eejit with any belief system be out demanding special rules for them? Should we have special laws for Scientologists so Tom Cruise feels comfortable here? For Quakers? For those who follow the messiah Brian? Sorry, I don't have to go with your legal code, I'm a follower of the Great Prophet Zarquon...

What's even stupider about the Arsebishop's ill-thought out comments is that they will more than likely make already strained relations in our multi-cultural society worse because many Britons will see this and think, here we go, our way of life under threat from a foreign culture, if they don't like it why don't they go live somewhere else. Sadly that bigoted view is heard all too often already and when a subject like this is brought up it seems to me more than likely all the stupid old fool has done is hand the bigots another weapon so they can turn to alarmed citizens and say, see, we told you these people aren't like us... What the hell was he thinking? Then again what can we expect from a man who can't even control his own crazy eyebrows??

Super Tuesday!

Its that magical time in America they call Super Tuesday. For those who are utterly bewildered by the arcane and frankly crazy workings of the US electoral system (which is almost everyone, including most Americans) the term Super Tuesday is a hangover from the 1940s when Superman used to volunteer to fly the ballot papers from all the states to the counting centres faster than a speeding bullet (which is handy when flying over the southern states where drunken rednecks take potshots at anything flying overhead). In these modern, digital days when Republican party operatives can fiddle an electoral result by computer (a process called doing the Florida Harris waltz) the Man of Steel no longer flies the ballots about the country, but the name has stuck.

Meanwhile in Britain we have Pancake Tuesday, where we all make nice, fresh pancakes and smother them in yummy toppings (sod the healthy living, let's have full cream on there today!). I think I prefer our Tuesday. But whether you are tossing pancakes or voting for a bunch of tossers, we wish you a happy Tuesday!

The sentence for reading is death

Well, it is in bloody Afghanistan at any rate. Journalism student Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has been sentenced to death for reading. His crime? He downloaded a text which - gasp of horror - said that Muslim fundamentalists (those whacky, zany guys, what will they think of next!) who beat people around the head with their own fucked up interpretation of the holy Koran and use it to legitimate their severe repression and control of women were completely wrong and were acting contrary to the teachings of the Prophet. Gee, I can see where they might get a little annoyed at a document saying they might be wrong - after all these are the same shagwits who respond to a simple cartoon by killing people and demanding some beheadings. They aren't just misrepresenting the teachings of their own religion, they are just fucking stupid, violent fools clearly terrified of women and carrying AK47s as a substitute for their very small willies.Take their guns off them and lock them in a room for a week With Anne Widdecombe, that'll teach the buggers.

Oh but it gets better - this death sentence was pronounced by a religious court in Afghanistan (and surely that is contrary to the central Islamic tenant of learning for them to stop people reading??). Now it is bad enough that any country is stupid enough to still consider it civilised to allow religious leaders to hold people to trial (no, don't give me excuses about respecting other cultures, this is just bloody wrong and utterly fucking stupid, its something moronic from the medieval period and they need to learn this. I respect other cultures as long as they aren't bloody stupid). But then the case was referred to the Afghan secular government. The nice ones we put in power and are holding in power with the blood of our troops (the same troops their president recently said were failing, the same troops that are all that is keeping his arse from being filled full of Taliban bullets because his own troops are incompetent twats) - and they upheld the sentence. Yes, that's right, the person we put in power to replace those muderous fundamentalist fuckwits, the Taliban, said yes, kill this student for daring to read something we don't like.

Er, remind me again just why the hell we have our troops being put through the dusty meatgrinder in this godforsaken cesspit of a country? The Independent has an online petition up to give to the Foreign Office to demand they take some action - please consider signing it. (link via Yvonne)

"Look, I'd had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was that bit of halibut was good enough for Jehovah... I don't think it ought to be blasphemy just saying 'Jehovah'." Monty Python's Life of Brian.