Originally written 19/10/10.
I'm sat in the library, and there is some child crying next to me. Not really crying, per se, I suppose, but more screeching. Not screaming. Screeching. Like a howler monkey or a banshee or something. It has a fantastic lung capacity, by the way, as it has not stopped making noise for even a second within the last ten minutes. The mother of this audio abomination seems blissfully content to let it howl down the walls regardless of the fact that, sooner or later, someone is going to curb stomp her young cub into eternal silence. For now, we're all just about content - and I use that term loosely - to let the thing rage until it explodes. The downside is that if I get showered by steaming child-offal, I will be even less pleased.
I'll bite. The article has nothing to do with screaming children. It has a lot more to do with the difficult topic of squirrel genocide, allow me to explain.
Not-so-recently-but-a-bit-recently, Raymond Elliot was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined £1500 for drowning a grey squirrel that was stealing from his bird table. Obviously, stealing bird food is a very serious offence, but I can't help but be slightly terrified by anyone who would drown a small fluffy animal in a paroxysm of unconcealed rage. But this post is not really about Elliot - whose views on the rehabilitation of criminals would be distressing to say the least - but more on the people who stand up for him. Cue drumroll for Norris Atthey, a wildlife campaigner who drowned a squirrel for publicity, maybe, or because he couldn't see a good reason not to. Anyway, it was allegedly some kind of bizarre protest at the treatment of Elliot, but anyone who manages to reconcile "wildlife campaigner" with "squirrel executioner" has to be a bit nuts*.
Atthey is a terrifying man for a variety of interesting reasons. First, and most obviously, he's a psychopath who drowns small animals for fun, the kind of person you wouldn't want as a neighbour, anyway. He's also out-an-out racist who believes in the superiority of the red squirrel over its cousin, the grey. Alright, I don't know if that's a bit strong, but still. Probably the most disturbing part about Atthey is the fact that he's killed, according to that article, two hundred and fifty squirrels and that this was the most humane way he could find apart from shooting them. The implication there is that he has potentially found two hundred and forty eight ways of killing squirrels in a less humane way. And vol-lia, squirrel genocide. Maybe he has a stuffed squirrel army.
He's got problems, anyway.
Now, I can hardly talk. I do like eating dead animals. Delicious tender meat and all that. I'm no ethical saint. So maybe all this talk of psychosis and genocide is a little bit wrong. After all, returning to the Elliot article, we find it isn't really wrong to kill squirrels, according to the Forestry Commission. However, they disagree with Atthey, so its all an academic argument of how you should kill the fluffy animal, not why. Interestingly, the most humane way recommended by the Forestry Commission is to put the squirrel in a sack and beat it to death with a hammer. That's preferable to drowning, apparently, although I'm sure no one asked the squirrels.
Its interesting to think that drowning kittens in a sack is just sad, but bludgeoning kittens to death with a mallet would rank you up there with people like Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, and George Osbourne amongst the most dangerously unhinged people in Britain. This isn't true of squirrels. Kittens are cute and grey squirrels are immigrants. Maybe this is going a bit too far anyway.
The child has left. Or exploded. Or something. Anyway, it isn't here anymore so my eardrums are taking a well earned rest. But if you tip your head to one side, and listen very, very, very carefully, you might hear that odd little chirping noise. The kind made by a trapped, frightened and lonely animal in the last few seconds of its life. You're not a monster if you drown squirrels, and even less a monster if you pulp them with a hammer. For some reason, this isn't exactly comforting, and for some reason, those little chirping screams keep ringing in my ears.
*Yeah, that was a bad one. I'm sorry.
Monday 25 October 2010
Thursday 21 October 2010
The Whitehall Chainsaw Massacre
I was going to avoid this, and do a piece on squirrel genocide that the library computer managed to swallow up completely in its dying seconds a few days ago. In reality? It would be impossible for me to write about anything other than the spending review today. George Osbourne has let the axe fall, and then taken up the chainsaw in his place. If it were a film, the spending review would be something like Psycho crossed with the Magic Roundabout. A delusional and psychadellic experience in which George murders Zebedee, Dougal and the rest of the cast in a variety of horrific ways - in the spirit of 'fairness' - while the slightly disturbing theme-tune plays over and over again in the background.
Now, before I actually get into the spending review - since I'm as good an economist as I am a blogger, which is to say, bad - I'd like to step back and consider the issue of fairness. This is a slightly warbling pseudo-intellectual rant so if anyone wants to skip to the end where I advocate burning down Parilament, do so now.
Fairness is one of those wonderful words like freedom, democracy, and justice. Even now I feel like I have to make some excuses before I start tearing up the road, because really no one wants to put across that they have a problem with freedom, justice, democracy or fairness. Its just really difficult to do unless you are President Ahmadinejad, but even then, that's a bit subjective. The problem with fairness is that everyone wants it, and everyone has a different idea of what fairness entails, but no one particularly wants to argue for what might be percieved as "unfairness". A this point, you get a wry smile for reading that the "Budget for Justice" has been cut, and that this year we will be 6% "less-Just", with a full reduction of "23% of our Gross Domestic Justice" (GDJ) over the period. See what I mean?
What I'm driving at here is something along the lines of fairness being what you make of it. Which is to say, it'll be different from what someone else makes of it. I, for example, think that its completely reasonable to torch a cop car in almost any circumstance. Some may disagree.
Anyway, Osbourne is hacking his way through the Public Sector like lumberjacking is going out of fashion. As we know lumberjacks are awesome, this isn't the case. Nor is the necessity to make hundreds of thousands of people economically destitute. I could, at this point, launch into a futile soapbox speech, or painstakingly go through news reports, websites and the blogosphere trying to determine exactly how bad it all is, but I'll just say that its pretty bad. At least, it is for me. Benefits being cut, cost of living, cost of transport up, University top-up fees up - for my eventual retraining as a productive member of society instead of a graduate bum. Fortunately, the Education budget isn't going to suffer as much as some things (for example, Justice), so I might still get out of the otherside with a PGCE, a pat on the back and a shove out the door so I can inflict my opinions on teenagers.
At this point, the abstract issue of fairness would make it fair, in my mind, to ask me what I advocate. But I'll only say "abolition of the wage system" and you'll laugh because you think its neither practical, realistic or fair. Instead, for those patient enough to have endured the earlier part of my ramblings, here's a bone. We're going to burn down Parliament. It is practical, since it would save millions on bureacracy, wages, and all that stuff. It is realistic, as it has been tried before by Mr. Fawes, who's much-celebrated death approaches as inevitably as the continuted ruin of the lower classes. And it is fair. At least, it is to me. Which if you're George Osbourne and the Tory Party, that's about all you need. Anyway, we missed the much publicised and ultimately disappointing "Summer of Rage" a year or two ago, so I'm looking forward to the "random acts of fairness" that will hopefully follow.
It's been commented by the Abbot of Citeaux that we should simply kill them all, and that God will know His own. I can't think of a more apt conclusion.
In related news, 22 million is going to be sliced off the budget for Calderdale, which is concerning to me even if I-certainly-don't-live-there-at-all, because I like the place. An actual practical solution combines two popular Government departments - Counter-Terrorism and Tourism, for the ultimate money generating experience. Now, some people might think that these two make odd bedfellows, until you realize that we have the last remaining Piece Hall in the world.
The plan? Lots and lots of cheap putty, a digital alarm clock and some jump leads. We break into the Piece Hall, pack it full of wired-up Playdough and issue a £22 million ransom demand or we nuke the last bit of history off the map. Obviously, we can't really do that, but it'll probably be for the best when we're up in court. Anyway, the ransom is paid by wealthy historians, art-lovers, businessmen and societies who would hate to see that sort of thing obliterated. The £22 million then pays the council budget for one year. Victory us, I think.
Now, before I actually get into the spending review - since I'm as good an economist as I am a blogger, which is to say, bad - I'd like to step back and consider the issue of fairness. This is a slightly warbling pseudo-intellectual rant so if anyone wants to skip to the end where I advocate burning down Parilament, do so now.
Fairness is one of those wonderful words like freedom, democracy, and justice. Even now I feel like I have to make some excuses before I start tearing up the road, because really no one wants to put across that they have a problem with freedom, justice, democracy or fairness. Its just really difficult to do unless you are President Ahmadinejad, but even then, that's a bit subjective. The problem with fairness is that everyone wants it, and everyone has a different idea of what fairness entails, but no one particularly wants to argue for what might be percieved as "unfairness". A this point, you get a wry smile for reading that the "Budget for Justice" has been cut, and that this year we will be 6% "less-Just", with a full reduction of "23% of our Gross Domestic Justice" (GDJ) over the period. See what I mean?
What I'm driving at here is something along the lines of fairness being what you make of it. Which is to say, it'll be different from what someone else makes of it. I, for example, think that its completely reasonable to torch a cop car in almost any circumstance. Some may disagree.
Anyway, Osbourne is hacking his way through the Public Sector like lumberjacking is going out of fashion. As we know lumberjacks are awesome, this isn't the case. Nor is the necessity to make hundreds of thousands of people economically destitute. I could, at this point, launch into a futile soapbox speech, or painstakingly go through news reports, websites and the blogosphere trying to determine exactly how bad it all is, but I'll just say that its pretty bad. At least, it is for me. Benefits being cut, cost of living, cost of transport up, University top-up fees up - for my eventual retraining as a productive member of society instead of a graduate bum. Fortunately, the Education budget isn't going to suffer as much as some things (for example, Justice), so I might still get out of the otherside with a PGCE, a pat on the back and a shove out the door so I can inflict my opinions on teenagers.
At this point, the abstract issue of fairness would make it fair, in my mind, to ask me what I advocate. But I'll only say "abolition of the wage system" and you'll laugh because you think its neither practical, realistic or fair. Instead, for those patient enough to have endured the earlier part of my ramblings, here's a bone. We're going to burn down Parliament. It is practical, since it would save millions on bureacracy, wages, and all that stuff. It is realistic, as it has been tried before by Mr. Fawes, who's much-celebrated death approaches as inevitably as the continuted ruin of the lower classes. And it is fair. At least, it is to me. Which if you're George Osbourne and the Tory Party, that's about all you need. Anyway, we missed the much publicised and ultimately disappointing "Summer of Rage" a year or two ago, so I'm looking forward to the "random acts of fairness" that will hopefully follow.
It's been commented by the Abbot of Citeaux that we should simply kill them all, and that God will know His own. I can't think of a more apt conclusion.
In related news, 22 million is going to be sliced off the budget for Calderdale, which is concerning to me even if I-certainly-don't-live-there-at-all, because I like the place. An actual practical solution combines two popular Government departments - Counter-Terrorism and Tourism, for the ultimate money generating experience. Now, some people might think that these two make odd bedfellows, until you realize that we have the last remaining Piece Hall in the world.
The plan? Lots and lots of cheap putty, a digital alarm clock and some jump leads. We break into the Piece Hall, pack it full of wired-up Playdough and issue a £22 million ransom demand or we nuke the last bit of history off the map. Obviously, we can't really do that, but it'll probably be for the best when we're up in court. Anyway, the ransom is paid by wealthy historians, art-lovers, businessmen and societies who would hate to see that sort of thing obliterated. The £22 million then pays the council budget for one year. Victory us, I think.
Friday 15 October 2010
A Thousand Different Subtleties
Is it me, or is there an irritating spate of lawyer related advertisements these days. Ok, I'll bite, I've only got nineteen minutes left on this computer and I really need to get this done. When I get the internet at home, I'll do something thoughtful, maybe even funny. But until that day, curses! Suck it up.
Anyway, lawyers. There are a lot of them, or their minons, or whatever, on my TV. And its starting to make me a little annoyed. Numerous people tripping down endless flights of stairs or throwing themselves into the road for cash. To quote the great Withnail and I.
"Look at that. "Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness."
Alright, I'm not having a go at people having accidents or taking multinational corporations to the cleaners for giggles. I'm just getting fed up of the amount of commericals I have to sit through inbetween not watching The Gilmore Girls and not watching Desperate Housewives on E4 or Dave or whatever. As background noise goes, something about insurance brokers and claims lawers really gets up my nose. Example*?
"Directline have the cost of tradesman insurance nailed down..."
Followed by
"At Injury Lawyers for you..."
Followed by
"Have yout taken out a loan, credit card, or morgage in the last five years. If so, you could be entitled to compensation due to mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance, or PPI"
Followed by
"Directline now offer landlord cover, because normal home insurance doesn't cover rental properties..."
Followed by
"Have you had an accident in the last three years that wasn't your fault?"
Followed by
"Thousands of people have been mis-sold PPI..."
*This actually happened
Not even my almost constant abuse of alcohol manages to kill that many braincells in so short a space of time. It is as ludicrious as it is depressing, knowing damn well that you've not had an accident you can cash in on a no-win-no-fee basis and yet labouring under the assumption that every other poor sod in the country has fallen off a roof sometime in the last three years. It's enough to drive you mad. So mad, infact, that you begin to notice all the different sublties between the adverts.
One company raving about PPI offers "Up to £5000 pounds or more!". How can it be up to and more than something? That makes no sense to my puny non-legal brain. Another PPI-er offers "around £7500 pounds", presumably because it consists of better lawyers than the other guys, who can't even formulate coherant sentances. One definately-not-fictional couple even got about twenty grand for mis-sold PPI. Lucky them.
Also, something about the Injury Lawyers for you advert makes me chuckle with the surest onset of madness everytime it comes on. The fact that it opens with a serious man telling us that "We are real layers" and "100% lawyers" makes me think that somewhere along the line, they weren't being taken seriously - thus the need to stress that they are, infact, actual lawyers. Perhaps the idea of the clown lawyer wasn't been taken seriously. The 100% lawyers comment just reminds me of the Birdseye "100% beef" burger promise, making me simultaneously amused and hungry at the same time.
And finally, perhaps someone should tell the electrician that falls down the stairs in one of the dozen compensation adds that he is actually responsible for his own fall. Who leaves cables at the top of flights of stairs? Could be the electrician that subsequently trips over them. Then again, the idea that sometimes people are just *that* stupid might be too terrible to contemplate.
Anyway, lawyers. There are a lot of them, or their minons, or whatever, on my TV. And its starting to make me a little annoyed. Numerous people tripping down endless flights of stairs or throwing themselves into the road for cash. To quote the great Withnail and I.
"Look at that. "Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness."
Alright, I'm not having a go at people having accidents or taking multinational corporations to the cleaners for giggles. I'm just getting fed up of the amount of commericals I have to sit through inbetween not watching The Gilmore Girls and not watching Desperate Housewives on E4 or Dave or whatever. As background noise goes, something about insurance brokers and claims lawers really gets up my nose. Example*?
"Directline have the cost of tradesman insurance nailed down..."
Followed by
"At Injury Lawyers for you..."
Followed by
"Have yout taken out a loan, credit card, or morgage in the last five years. If so, you could be entitled to compensation due to mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance, or PPI"
Followed by
"Directline now offer landlord cover, because normal home insurance doesn't cover rental properties..."
Followed by
"Have you had an accident in the last three years that wasn't your fault?"
Followed by
"Thousands of people have been mis-sold PPI..."
*This actually happened
Not even my almost constant abuse of alcohol manages to kill that many braincells in so short a space of time. It is as ludicrious as it is depressing, knowing damn well that you've not had an accident you can cash in on a no-win-no-fee basis and yet labouring under the assumption that every other poor sod in the country has fallen off a roof sometime in the last three years. It's enough to drive you mad. So mad, infact, that you begin to notice all the different sublties between the adverts.
One company raving about PPI offers "Up to £5000 pounds or more!". How can it be up to and more than something? That makes no sense to my puny non-legal brain. Another PPI-er offers "around £7500 pounds", presumably because it consists of better lawyers than the other guys, who can't even formulate coherant sentances. One definately-not-fictional couple even got about twenty grand for mis-sold PPI. Lucky them.
Also, something about the Injury Lawyers for you advert makes me chuckle with the surest onset of madness everytime it comes on. The fact that it opens with a serious man telling us that "We are real layers" and "100% lawyers" makes me think that somewhere along the line, they weren't being taken seriously - thus the need to stress that they are, infact, actual lawyers. Perhaps the idea of the clown lawyer wasn't been taken seriously. The 100% lawyers comment just reminds me of the Birdseye "100% beef" burger promise, making me simultaneously amused and hungry at the same time.
And finally, perhaps someone should tell the electrician that falls down the stairs in one of the dozen compensation adds that he is actually responsible for his own fall. Who leaves cables at the top of flights of stairs? Could be the electrician that subsequently trips over them. Then again, the idea that sometimes people are just *that* stupid might be too terrible to contemplate.
Wednesday 13 October 2010
The Ultimate Showdown
Long ago, a drunken comment by a friend of mine raised the burning issue of what was the hardest thing on the planet we could possible take down in a cage fight. Mentioned associate believed that he could conceivably take Vladimir Putin, ex premier of Russia. Of course, this can be empirically tested - and indeed has been - and found to be false. Mr. Crowther is around five eight, on normal side of beer-swilling, bacon gobbling unhealthy that we all fall into, and has no previous combat experience. While I cannot readily find the size and weight of Vladimir Putin, I think these photos readily summarize the chance of him losing to an irate Yorkshireman.
Here, here, and here.
Putin - an ex KGB colonel who spends his time mainly doing manly outdoor pursuits such as removing his shirt to hunt bears with a huge gun - would unfortunately dismember Mr. Crowther before resurrecting him in order to kill him some more. As for my idea of all wars being resolved between the respective leaders in a cage fight - Russia would probably be ranked fairly highly on the potential 'world domination' scale.
However, far more rationally, I suggested that it was not unfair to say I could win combat against an Andean condor. Now, why I would fight a condor is not really the point anymore. The point is, I would win. This is my opponent.
I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
Because this is a highly intellectual discussion, I have utilized wikipedia for its academic neutrality and scientific reliability to get the vital statistics of the Andean condor.
The Condor:
Sharp, flesh tearing beak
Packing a wingspan about ten feet.
Five feet in length.
Blunt claws
No eyelids
Doesn't kill its own prey
Max weight - 15 KG
Endangered species
The Challenger
Cutting sarcastic remarks
Arm span of about five feet
Around six foot in length
No claws, but hands
Eyelids
Doesn't kill own prey
Estimated weight - 11 stone
Not endangered species
As we can clearly see, the Andean condor is already at a huge disadvantage. Obviously, because it is not as tough as a twenty-something Yorkshireman, it has already been placed on the endangered species list - and I merely postulate - the exact reason for this is because I am very dangerous to condors. It is severely outweighted, putting us in a completely different category, but this is merely academic at this point, since we'd be fighting anyway.
The condor doesn't kill its own prey. While I do not kill my own prey either, this is because human society has supermarkets. It is safe to say that we, as a species, generally kill our own prey. Further disadvantages for the condor lie in the fact that it simply has no arms. I think this is very important. Having four reliable limbs is better than two, in my opinion. It would be perfectly possible to immobilize the condor's neck with one hand, while pummelling it with the other. Obviously, the flapping wings would create the impression I was attempting to put up a tent in a storm, but I'm confident I could land some good hits. This would be the decider, I think, as the condor has a weak sternum.
Crucially, the condor has no eyelids. This might seem unimportant, but to me it is very important. Anyone not possessing eyelids is already at a huge disadvantage, and does not even have the minimum of protection against me pushing my thumbs into its eyes.
Now, it wouldn't go all my way. It does have powerful legs and a sharp beak, which would need to be taken out of the equation pretty quickly. It can fly, which gives it the element of surprise and the ease of escape. However, these things aside, the Condor is not really any more dangerous than the average goose, really. Now, geese are dangerous - and seem to be permanently on a cocaine bender which infuses them with bold fearlessness and the feeling of invulnerability. But still. Perhaps a condor on cocaine would be more of a challenge?
It has since been pointed out to me by a tactical advisor that the Condor, being capable of flight, will possibly have the element of suprise and time to gather speed. Some of you may have already thought about this. It is a fair point, but for one fatal flaw. Once again, I'm going to point out that Condors are an endangered species. Because I am dangerous to Condors.
Here, here, and here.
Putin - an ex KGB colonel who spends his time mainly doing manly outdoor pursuits such as removing his shirt to hunt bears with a huge gun - would unfortunately dismember Mr. Crowther before resurrecting him in order to kill him some more. As for my idea of all wars being resolved between the respective leaders in a cage fight - Russia would probably be ranked fairly highly on the potential 'world domination' scale.
However, far more rationally, I suggested that it was not unfair to say I could win combat against an Andean condor. Now, why I would fight a condor is not really the point anymore. The point is, I would win. This is my opponent.
I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
Because this is a highly intellectual discussion, I have utilized wikipedia for its academic neutrality and scientific reliability to get the vital statistics of the Andean condor.
The Condor:
Sharp, flesh tearing beak
Packing a wingspan about ten feet.
Five feet in length.
Blunt claws
No eyelids
Doesn't kill its own prey
Max weight - 15 KG
Endangered species
The Challenger
Cutting sarcastic remarks
Arm span of about five feet
Around six foot in length
No claws, but hands
Eyelids
Doesn't kill own prey
Estimated weight - 11 stone
Not endangered species
As we can clearly see, the Andean condor is already at a huge disadvantage. Obviously, because it is not as tough as a twenty-something Yorkshireman, it has already been placed on the endangered species list - and I merely postulate - the exact reason for this is because I am very dangerous to condors. It is severely outweighted, putting us in a completely different category, but this is merely academic at this point, since we'd be fighting anyway.
The condor doesn't kill its own prey. While I do not kill my own prey either, this is because human society has supermarkets. It is safe to say that we, as a species, generally kill our own prey. Further disadvantages for the condor lie in the fact that it simply has no arms. I think this is very important. Having four reliable limbs is better than two, in my opinion. It would be perfectly possible to immobilize the condor's neck with one hand, while pummelling it with the other. Obviously, the flapping wings would create the impression I was attempting to put up a tent in a storm, but I'm confident I could land some good hits. This would be the decider, I think, as the condor has a weak sternum.
Crucially, the condor has no eyelids. This might seem unimportant, but to me it is very important. Anyone not possessing eyelids is already at a huge disadvantage, and does not even have the minimum of protection against me pushing my thumbs into its eyes.
Now, it wouldn't go all my way. It does have powerful legs and a sharp beak, which would need to be taken out of the equation pretty quickly. It can fly, which gives it the element of surprise and the ease of escape. However, these things aside, the Condor is not really any more dangerous than the average goose, really. Now, geese are dangerous - and seem to be permanently on a cocaine bender which infuses them with bold fearlessness and the feeling of invulnerability. But still. Perhaps a condor on cocaine would be more of a challenge?
It has since been pointed out to me by a tactical advisor that the Condor, being capable of flight, will possibly have the element of suprise and time to gather speed. Some of you may have already thought about this. It is a fair point, but for one fatal flaw. Once again, I'm going to point out that Condors are an endangered species. Because I am dangerous to Condors.
Thursday 7 October 2010
Tomorrow's forcast: Dry, with a chance of showers and possibility of global terrorism.
It was once commented on that quality show "Mock the Week", that the moment a man in a windowless box gets a clear view of your pork sword, terrorism has already won. There is an element of truth to this sad tale, I guess. Despite the fact they could be unlawful, have concerning implications for child pornography, and could give you cancer* - amongst other things, bodyscanners have been rolled out. The very fact that we've been reduced to numerically ordered phantom nudes has got to be some sort of victory for people wishing to radically alter government process, undermine liberal democracy and terrorise people into not going abroad. I, of course, have nothing to fear, being the very paragon of mansculine virtue. Indeed, the mere flex of my guns will cause the bodyscanners to implode, and instantly transform the drab (and possibly slightly perverted) average airport security worker into a smoking hot catwalk model, crowding in with offers to give me a pat down instead.
I. Wish.
However, for normal people, all is not lost. Being a massive loser for twenty three years made me realise the truth of when people say "its not the winning that counts, its the taking part". And the government is enthusaistically pursuing this moral victory on behalf of the people of Britain as we speak.
See, the terror threat level has five stages which all sound pretty bad, really. On the face of it, it's certainly not as cool as the five stage colour-coded American version, which features low, general (a general threat of terrorism?), substantial, severe and imminent. Americans can also get a cool tracker to help spread the hysteria from this cheerful website - terror-alert.com. We get two terror alert levels, being a rather special nation. One from Irish terrorism, and one from international terrorism, with the current levels being severe and substancial respectively. Now, the thing is, we've not had a large casuality inflicting terrorist attack since the - frankly awful - 7/7 bombings. Nor does Irish-related terrorism - being a different breed to religiously motivated terrorism - tend to deliberately target civillians indescriminately in everyday locations. The problem with the word terrorism is that it has become a big amorphous blob of burning towers, ruined buses and bearded psychopaths.
We do have a cheerful history of terror alerts, too, being mostly at either at severe or critical since August 2006. Sometimes I wonder if its just to keep us in the loop. I mean, we can't be conciously thinking of terrorism every day. After all, returning to "Mock the Week", if we had transformed into a nation resembling little more than a frightened ball of self-interest, unable to leave the house because of the ever present - some might say "big, looming, terrifying!" terrorist threat of dubious reality - then I guess they've already won. Spiked quotes:
"Somewhere, in what seems like a parallel universe, security men and women are working around the clock to track terror plots. As we go about our everyday lives, shopping, working and travelling, they are assessing our nations’ vulnerability to attack, shifting the terror-alert status to reflect the nature and extent of whatever threat they catch wind of.
Every now and then, officials like to remind the public that this parallel universe exists and is keeping us safe."
Some might see this as the duty of concerned government, while the more healthily cynical (which unfortunately can also broaden into the downright depressingly insane, self assured conspiracy theorists) might catch wind of the potential benefits and positive uses of such a system. After all, thinking about it, I don't know anyone who takes a concious note of terror threat levels unless they're splashed across the rags. I definately don't think anyone (at least I hope), apart from the most crazy right-winger, would rise early in the morning, grab his binoculars and head out looking for terrorist activity. Unless they work for the government, I suppose, in which case they really don't need terror threat levels.
Lacking a real practical use for terror threat levels other than to remind the population from time to time of the importance of being worried, I can't see the point in them. Unless making us paranoid is a political end in itself. Adam Curtis - in the much acclaimed "Power of Nightmares" - points out that politicans can't sell us dreams anymore. Only terrorists, recessions, cuts, war, immigration and crime. Nothing wrong with being a pessimist, I'm sure, being a convicted one myself, but every now and then you wonder if being raised on a diet of depressing news is good for our national conciousness.
*But if you are a glutton for depressing news, a full list - courtesy of the Daily Mail - of cancer causing substances can be found here. You might actually be on it.
I. Wish.
However, for normal people, all is not lost. Being a massive loser for twenty three years made me realise the truth of when people say "its not the winning that counts, its the taking part". And the government is enthusaistically pursuing this moral victory on behalf of the people of Britain as we speak.
See, the terror threat level has five stages which all sound pretty bad, really. On the face of it, it's certainly not as cool as the five stage colour-coded American version, which features low, general (a general threat of terrorism?), substantial, severe and imminent. Americans can also get a cool tracker to help spread the hysteria from this cheerful website - terror-alert.com. We get two terror alert levels, being a rather special nation. One from Irish terrorism, and one from international terrorism, with the current levels being severe and substancial respectively. Now, the thing is, we've not had a large casuality inflicting terrorist attack since the - frankly awful - 7/7 bombings. Nor does Irish-related terrorism - being a different breed to religiously motivated terrorism - tend to deliberately target civillians indescriminately in everyday locations. The problem with the word terrorism is that it has become a big amorphous blob of burning towers, ruined buses and bearded psychopaths.
We do have a cheerful history of terror alerts, too, being mostly at either at severe or critical since August 2006. Sometimes I wonder if its just to keep us in the loop. I mean, we can't be conciously thinking of terrorism every day. After all, returning to "Mock the Week", if we had transformed into a nation resembling little more than a frightened ball of self-interest, unable to leave the house because of the ever present - some might say "big, looming, terrifying!" terrorist threat of dubious reality - then I guess they've already won. Spiked quotes:
"Somewhere, in what seems like a parallel universe, security men and women are working around the clock to track terror plots. As we go about our everyday lives, shopping, working and travelling, they are assessing our nations’ vulnerability to attack, shifting the terror-alert status to reflect the nature and extent of whatever threat they catch wind of.
Every now and then, officials like to remind the public that this parallel universe exists and is keeping us safe."
Some might see this as the duty of concerned government, while the more healthily cynical (which unfortunately can also broaden into the downright depressingly insane, self assured conspiracy theorists) might catch wind of the potential benefits and positive uses of such a system. After all, thinking about it, I don't know anyone who takes a concious note of terror threat levels unless they're splashed across the rags. I definately don't think anyone (at least I hope), apart from the most crazy right-winger, would rise early in the morning, grab his binoculars and head out looking for terrorist activity. Unless they work for the government, I suppose, in which case they really don't need terror threat levels.
Lacking a real practical use for terror threat levels other than to remind the population from time to time of the importance of being worried, I can't see the point in them. Unless making us paranoid is a political end in itself. Adam Curtis - in the much acclaimed "Power of Nightmares" - points out that politicans can't sell us dreams anymore. Only terrorists, recessions, cuts, war, immigration and crime. Nothing wrong with being a pessimist, I'm sure, being a convicted one myself, but every now and then you wonder if being raised on a diet of depressing news is good for our national conciousness.
*But if you are a glutton for depressing news, a full list - courtesy of the Daily Mail - of cancer causing substances can be found here. You might actually be on it.
Friday 1 October 2010
An Extra Helping of Weird
There's nothing quite like waking up to BBC News 24. Like the wind blowing softly on your face until you're completely aware and refreshed, News 24 drones on with a tedious sense of repetitive inevitability, covering the same dull and uninteresting ground over and over and over again ad nauseum until you're wide awake, screaming in defiance at the television as caffeine pumps through your veins and the reporter says, "And as you may already know, something is about to happen behind me in the next few hours..." for the millionth time.
Anyway, today was a little different. News 24 briefly mentioned, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has declared a state of emergency after being attacked and besieged by his own police force. A helicopter evacuation of the mauled president was unable to land, and he had to be rescued from a hospital by soldiers after disaffected policemen angry at new austerity measures surrounded his room.
I mean, this might not seem too strange in a turbulent country like Ecuador with a strange pseudo left-wing 'president'. Indeed, it is the stuff of stereotypes. But think about it for a second. Any traditional sort of uprising of disaffected workers tends to be, ya know, a bit working class and not the police. Now, I'm not suggesting that the police were acting out of anything other than self-interest, and certainly not class consciousness. It must be said at this point that I don't particularly like the police in any nation. Well, it doesn't need to be said, but there, I said it, and why can wait for another time, I suppose.
What does seem strange is how willing the police were to fight the powers that be. Traditionally, coppers are those unimaginative types - unlike soldiers - who tend to doggedly follow the state line and not really kick off about anything unless its uncooperative newspaper vendors, in which case its with great vengeance and furious anger. But I digress. They're certainly not as cool as firemen, anyway, as this video aptly demonstrates. Airports occupied, roadblocks were set up, and there was the general widespread unrest that you get when politicians are making tough decisions that adversely affect people who are pretty angry about it.
Of course, this wouldn't be weird enough in itself to hold my macabre interest in the subject. I don't sympathise with the police, really. Only the genuine working class people that are the same regardless of nation. Anyway, without going on a political tangent anymore, check this madness out. Being the kind of over dramatic, delusional and desperate to appear as some sort of heroic revolutionary figure that Correa is, he did something that is both wonderfully stupid and fantastically amusing. At a rally attempting to calm a tense situation down, Correa tried to show his heart was in the right place, and it kind of worked, since people seemed pretty determined to find out exactly where his heart was, and then presumably tear it out. This is from BBC News.
"In an emotional speech to soldiers from Quito's main barracks, President Correa tore at his shirt and said: "If you want to kill the president, here he is. Kill him, if you want to. Kill him if you are brave enough."
Moments later he was forced to flee the barracks wearing a gas mask when tear gas was fired by the protesters, and he was taken to hospital. "
Perhaps not the wisest thing to say.
Anyway, its hard to have a great deal of sympathy for the American trained economist who stated he would neither forget nor forgive, promised harsh reprisals, instituted a state of emergency and vocalised about the possibility of disbanding congress. Call me cynical or call me naive, but he doesn't really seem like the most decent bloke anyway. More like a shady Del Trotter character taken to a bizarre extreme and at the last possible second being spliced with an over-the-top Shakespearean actor. So yeah. A real odd scenario to wake up to, but it made me smile. Which might make me sound like a bit of a terrifying psychopath, but anyone who stands in front of an angry mob, tears open his shirt and screams "kill me if you are brave enough" has to be either mad or in stand up comedy. And I'm taking the latter, because the other one is frankly depressing.
Another account of the Ecuadorian 'coup' can be found on this fella's blog. Well worth a read for people who are interested in politics or labour under misaprehensions about the current regime.
Anyway, today was a little different. News 24 briefly mentioned, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has declared a state of emergency after being attacked and besieged by his own police force. A helicopter evacuation of the mauled president was unable to land, and he had to be rescued from a hospital by soldiers after disaffected policemen angry at new austerity measures surrounded his room.
I mean, this might not seem too strange in a turbulent country like Ecuador with a strange pseudo left-wing 'president'. Indeed, it is the stuff of stereotypes. But think about it for a second. Any traditional sort of uprising of disaffected workers tends to be, ya know, a bit working class and not the police. Now, I'm not suggesting that the police were acting out of anything other than self-interest, and certainly not class consciousness. It must be said at this point that I don't particularly like the police in any nation. Well, it doesn't need to be said, but there, I said it, and why can wait for another time, I suppose.
What does seem strange is how willing the police were to fight the powers that be. Traditionally, coppers are those unimaginative types - unlike soldiers - who tend to doggedly follow the state line and not really kick off about anything unless its uncooperative newspaper vendors, in which case its with great vengeance and furious anger. But I digress. They're certainly not as cool as firemen, anyway, as this video aptly demonstrates. Airports occupied, roadblocks were set up, and there was the general widespread unrest that you get when politicians are making tough decisions that adversely affect people who are pretty angry about it.
Of course, this wouldn't be weird enough in itself to hold my macabre interest in the subject. I don't sympathise with the police, really. Only the genuine working class people that are the same regardless of nation. Anyway, without going on a political tangent anymore, check this madness out. Being the kind of over dramatic, delusional and desperate to appear as some sort of heroic revolutionary figure that Correa is, he did something that is both wonderfully stupid and fantastically amusing. At a rally attempting to calm a tense situation down, Correa tried to show his heart was in the right place, and it kind of worked, since people seemed pretty determined to find out exactly where his heart was, and then presumably tear it out. This is from BBC News.
"In an emotional speech to soldiers from Quito's main barracks, President Correa tore at his shirt and said: "If you want to kill the president, here he is. Kill him, if you want to. Kill him if you are brave enough."
Moments later he was forced to flee the barracks wearing a gas mask when tear gas was fired by the protesters, and he was taken to hospital. "
Perhaps not the wisest thing to say.
Anyway, its hard to have a great deal of sympathy for the American trained economist who stated he would neither forget nor forgive, promised harsh reprisals, instituted a state of emergency and vocalised about the possibility of disbanding congress. Call me cynical or call me naive, but he doesn't really seem like the most decent bloke anyway. More like a shady Del Trotter character taken to a bizarre extreme and at the last possible second being spliced with an over-the-top Shakespearean actor. So yeah. A real odd scenario to wake up to, but it made me smile. Which might make me sound like a bit of a terrifying psychopath, but anyone who stands in front of an angry mob, tears open his shirt and screams "kill me if you are brave enough" has to be either mad or in stand up comedy. And I'm taking the latter, because the other one is frankly depressing.
Another account of the Ecuadorian 'coup' can be found on this fella's blog. Well worth a read for people who are interested in politics or labour under misaprehensions about the current regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)