Argentina's Folly.

Sequels have always been popular in Hollywood, as well as a recurring feature of modern warfare, but despite Argentina’s growing rhetoric, I believe the prospect of a Falkland’s War 2 is highly unlikely.

Argentina has greedily eyed the windswept islands since their independence from the Spanish Empire early in the Nineteenth century. After Britain recaptured the Falklands in order to guard the trade route around Cape Horn, the Argentines have laid claim to them and following their attempt to take them by force in 1982 ended with a humiliating defeat, we may have been forgiven for thinking that was the end of the matter; however a ruinous Argentine economy, a despised President and the little matter of a potential 60 billion barrels of oil have reignited this dispute.


Cristina Kirchner is the hugely inept Argentine premier who was swept to power in a landslide in 2007, and who is now deeply unpopular after overseeing the fragile recovery from the 2001 economic crisis stall. It seems to be that the standard response when right wing Argentine governments are in trouble is to whip up nationalist sentiment by raising the issue of Malvinas sovereignty again. Argentina has gathered support from fellow South American leaders, notably Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Lula da Silva of Brazil, the two old lefties, who never cease to rake up any imagery of colonialism as a matter of personal expediency. Sadly from Argentina’s point of view, all the diplomatic hot air in the world will never see the Falklands in their hands; on this matter the UK government will ignore the South Americans, the United Nations, and anyone else that Kirchner whines to for that matter.


‘Queen Cristina’ is not as stupid as she may appear though; she has been quick to rule out a military option - so why is she so keen to try diplomacy?  In 1982 the UK was caught with its trousers down over the Falklands, there was a negligible military presence and the Foreign Office did not anticipate what was coming. In the end, the war was a close run thing but it certainly would not be if fought today. The UK has a garrison of a thousand troops permanently based on the islands; the Mount Pleasant Air Base and a Falklands emergency response plan means that a British defense would take hours, not weeks as in 82. Make no mistake, a British government of either political persuasion would respond immediately with overwhelming military might. The vulnerability of the Eighties has been removed and a Falklands War 2 would lead to a resounding victory for the UK and a far more embarrassing defeat for the Argentines than the last time around.


Argentina’s claim to the Falklands can be charitably called tenuous. The islands history is one of imperial squabbling between Britain, France and Spain, none has any moral high ground in the matter; however as they were uninhabited islands the simple logic of dispelling a colonial power does not wash. It is uncertain who was the first to discover the Falkland Islands, they appear on sixteenth century Spanish and English maps, but it is widely believed to be a Dutch explorer who first sighted them; Britain and Spain both have claims from this time. Historically they have only ever been part of Argentina for five brief years and Spain for the thirty-five years previous to that, during an interlude in which Britain left the islands to save money to fight the American Revolutionary War and the British navy retook them in 1833. So the islands have been inhabited by Britons for nearly two hundred, out of two hundred and forty six years since European inhabitation.


The population of the Falkland Islands are British citizens, they have quite clearly expressed their desire to remain so and in the principal of self determination they have the right to remain so. If the Falkland Island government wishes to develop their natural resources, then that also is their right and has nothing whatsoever to do with any other state, the UN and it is none of Argentina’s business. Even if no oil had been discovered there, Britain would be right to defend this small outpost of our nation as fiercely as we would the Isles of Scilly or the Channel Islands, these British citizens have the right to exist without the constant threats from the banana republic on their door step.

European Coalescence

Europe is a contentious issue in Britain. In the papers it is seldom reported, unless there is a negative or euro-sceptical angle to be made – who knows who the Danish premiere is, or which party leads France? You won’t find the answer in the Sun or Mail - But we are all told Europe is something to be feared, if we were to discern Britain’s geographical position from the media, we would have to conclude we were anchored somewhere off the coast of Maine; not twenty miles away from France.



There seems to be a contradiction in the euro-sceptical argument. They are opposed to closer integration between the UK and our European neighbours, for they argue that it is a threat to British sovereignty; yet these are the same people who clamour for Britain to take the lead in foreign affairs, to exert ‘influence’ with an expectation of a seat at ‘The Big Table’. The fact that the public still seem to expect the UK to have this role is baffling. The Empire ended nearly seventy years ago now, and had been in sharp decline in the thirty years preceding that. Our global position has been maintained since the Second World War, primarily by developing an independent nuclear weapons program in the Fifties, the reason why we are part of the UN Security Council and secondly that the world was divided between just two superpowers after the war which meant that there was space at ‘The Big Table’ and as America’s most sycophantic ally, we were humoured. To quote Bob Dylan however, “the times they are a changing”.


There is a new world order slowly emerging as this century takes shape, with new superpowers consisting of China, India and potentially Brazil; the US is by no means guaranteed to be in this club by the end of the century. States like Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are of little geo-political consequence, we are both small and insignificant despite what our pride would like us to believe. Barack Obama realises that the next century will be defined by pan-Pacific treaties; not North Atlantic ones. He wouldn’t meet the Europeans at Copenhagen; instead he bypassed us, forming a policy with India, China and South Africa. Europe is at a pivotal point in its ancient history, for the first time since the Dark Ages we could become a global back water; rather than making and defining history, we will instead become history.


There is a solution to this, a Federal Europe – euro-sceptics may now vent their spleens.


In order to explore this, we must first face a couple of home truths; firstly Britain is not and never again will be a superpower; secondly the ‘Special Relationship’ is only special to the British and politically expedient to certain US presidents; thirdly a state is only a matter of representation, not identity. The only way Europeans can influence this new order is if the British, French and Germans stop their teary eyed reminiscences for the Nineteenth century, grow up and face the Twenty-first century together. The tinkering at the edges of the EU needs to end, it must be reformed radically and fundamentally to achieve this; I realise this difficult to implement and unpalatable to conservatives and xenophobes alike, however the consequences of not doing this are enormous and should at least be discussed in an open manner within our societies.

I should point out that I am far from happy with how the EU is currently constituted. There are four positions now that can be viewed as the head; EU council president (Von Rumpoy); council president; the rotating residual president (currently Spain) and finally speaker of the European parliament. Insanity is sure to ensue. The commission must be abolished, to be replaced by a senate; the parliament must be given far greater power; the executive must be directly elected. There must be an end to the turf wars between Britain, France and Germany; the behind closed door decisions made in smoke filled rooms must be stopped. The EU has to be open, democratic and fully accountable to all Europeans. A federal law and judiciary must be established. This is all achievable, let’s build a new republic based on the highest ideals of democracy and fairness, and recognise that we have far more in common than we have differences. United we stand, divided we fall etc, etc.


Whenever I have challenged anyone of a euro-sceptical bent to be specific about their disdain for the EU, they will mutter darkly about the attack on the Pound, or bureaucrats imposing silly rules on the shape of fruit, or if they are older, about having to use the accursed metric system. Naturally these are all such tremendously important issues; however the more honest amongst them will tell you that ‘they aint going to be ruled by no Frogs or no Krauts’. So can this aspect of opposition ever be overcome? I believe it could be; if we look at US history then there are parallels with Europe today. The thirteen founding states were largely suspicious of one another and made sure they each retained a large degree of autonomy from the federal government. America seems to have muddled along quite successfully in the intervening two hundred and forty years. For this to happen though, political capital from our governments would have to be expended and the media would have to change its outlook in Britain; neither of which seems probable today.


What most people don’t seem to realise is that in Britain we are governed by self serving elites, it is unlikely that you will ever be in a position of power or influence unless you have very wealthy parents, went to a private school, and followed up with a stint at Ox-bridge. Nearly all government decisions are London centric and usually self serving, benefiting the elites who placed them in power in the first place. In fact, if we view many European countries, they look after their populations far better than we are treated here in Britain. This is the heart of anti-EU sentiment within the governing classes and the press barons; they don’t want Britain to be dissolved into a European union as they might lose their influence – no longer able to exert their God given right play with Albion as though it was their own private little toy.


It seems to me that we have three potential paths ahead of us. If we are determined that we should remain as a sovereign British state, so be it; however we must also accept the consequences of that. We will become a second world nation, another Sweden or Poland, which isn’t such a terrible thing. We will have to stop poking our nose into the affairs of the superpowers, accept our influence is marginal and roll with the punches that are thrown our way. Britain will, without a shadow of doubt, lose its place on the Security Council. India and Brazil have far more right to be there than the UK or France. We will have created the modern world, only to be drowned by its consequences. Another option is to effectively become the Fifty-first state, to leave the EU and like the weak child on the playground, clinging to the big boy’s coat tails hoping to absorb some of his power and respect. Or we can put aside our few petty differences, forge a United Europe, and set aside the xenophobic and self-interested to put forward a European voice on the world stage.


Let us at the very least have a robust, thorough and most importantly honest debate about Britain’s and Europe’s future.


In case you were wondering: France is ruled by the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a centre right party and Denmark’s prime minister is Lars Løkke Rasmussen from the Liberal party.

Criminal Injustice

Election campaigns tend to be an opportunity for our political representatives to posture themselves as the toughest on crime – who can forget Blair’s 1997 pledge of “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. In practice New Labour were neither, but at least they started with lofty aspirations to attack the root of criminality; however this soon descended to “zero tolerance” when David Blunkett cherry picked a report on crime prevention from New York and applied one narrow aspect of it, without adopting the vast majority of the techniques used by the New Yorkers. This ‘zero tolerance’ approach was cheer led from the sidelines by the conservative press, which is to say, in essence all the press; a policy which flew the face of decades of research which have shown this approach has never worked.

Enter David Cameron into the fray, with a pledge to stop the government's early release scheme. This rash promise has led to the Conservatives proposing the reintroduction of prison ships, which when last used were described by the then Chief Inspector of Prisons as unfit for purpose. Cameron has condemned the government's early release scheme, citing that since Gordon Brown’s premiership 75,000 prisoners have been released early, with 1,500 offences being committed by inmates on early release. So, that is a massive 2%; clearly this is a political decision attacking the policy in general, to whip up support from the True Blues and the media.


The question our politicians should be seeking an answer to is; why are British prisons so full that we have to release prisoners early in the first place?


Britain has the largest prison population in Europe. About 70% of the detainees have two or more diagnosed mental disorders; about 60% have a reading age of less than that of a six year old and conservative estimates show at least a quarter of inmates are heroin addicts. New Labour has been obsessed during its tenure to criminalise British society, creating over 3,000 new offences with about half warranting a custodial sentence. When analysed many seem incredibly minor, with the Home Office’s zeal for sending people to jail for bad driving, petty crimes such as shop lifting, or as part of the ill conceived war on drugs.


The simple truth is that tens of thousands of prisoners in British jails just simply shouldn’t be there; in the Eighties the Conservative's inspired policy of ‘care’ in the community dumped thousands of severely mentally ill patients in small unsecured units, although in reality on the streets. Many now find themselves part of the prison population. Drug addicts should be rehabilitated, as this has been shown repeatedly, over and over again by countless studies to reduce crime and re-offending rates; New Labour’s response was to reduce the number of treatment centres in the UK. The prisons are too full to have effective education programmes to equip inmates with the skills necessary to be a worthwhile participant in society and then everyone throws their hands up in the air when the latest re-offender figures are released as though it is a mystery; then our intrepid political masters suggest being tougher or buying a couple of boats to solve the problem.


In British society an unvirtuous circle has evolved between politicians, the media and public opinion; which has taken us down a path where the best interests of our society are seldom served. It starts with a populist conservative sentiment based on ignorance and prejudice; the right-wing media then feeds on this sentiment, criticising the politicians for not immediately bowing down to it in the most reactionary way possible; the weak politicians then make policies to get applause from the press, and so we descend. Once when journalism was about reporting the truth, and politicians made their decisions based upon facts, public opinion could be changed and society improved. Capital punishment was abolished in the face of overwhelming public opposition, such a thing could not happen today, due to the debasement of our politics and press; maybe the Enlightenment has finally ended?


If petty criminals, the addicted and the insane were taken out of the prisons then those convicted of serious crimes could receive the punishments that they deserve and serve sentences that reflect the harm they have caused. The vast sums of money saved could be used to fund secure hospitals where the mentally ill could receive suitable treatment and drug rehabilitation centres could be built to help the helplessly addicted, as well as developing effective prevention programmes.


Our current justice system is a thing of deep collective shame, an indictment on our society where we lock up the deranged, the weak, and the feeble and offer them no realistic chance to redeem themselves after our retribution. We all feel good because justice has been seen to be done, we have reinforced our prejudiced opinion and the fact is we have not made society one jot safer.

No to nuclear: not so clear

I have often been left somewhat confused by the contradictory messages from environmentalists regarding the use of nuclear power. In one breath we are told that climate change will destroy us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels immediately; yet we are then told that the low carbon energy source of nuclear power is not even an option, for it is dangerous, dirty and terrorists will blow us all up. Instead we are told that we should move to renewables as these are safe, clean and it will probably make you your tea if you ask it nicely.



Fine, but is this really true, is this what science tells us, or is there something else driving this debate?


If we look at renewable energy as it stands, then there is an immediate problem with the green lobby message. It cannot meet our energy needs; even if Britain was bristling with wind turbines, like the spines on a hedgehog’s back, lights would still go out, factories would have to reduce production and shock-horror, we might even have to turn our televisions off! I expect as time goes by, given enough financial backing, renewable technology will improve to bridge this energy gap; technology usually does, my x-box makes my eighties Sinclair look positively prehistoric. However “you can’t put the cart before the horse” as my Dad is fond of saying, so until renewables are in a position to meet our energy needs, why not use nuclear?


The argument against nuclear is a flawed one. Firstly nuclear power does not equate to a nuclear bomb; this seems to be a fairly obvious point, however in this debate the obvious and rational have too often been forced into the background. Those against nuclear power will also point you towards Chernobyl, usually in semi-hysterical tones. Let’s be absolutely clear, in terms of technology, Chernobyl is to power stations what the Trabant was to the automotive industry. It was shamefully underfunded by the USSR and safety was non-existent; the disaster was an indictment of the people who ran the plant – not nuclear power. Returning to my x-box metaphor from earlier, the technology of today’s nuclear power plants has massively advanced; the plants of the eighties are arcane in comparison with those being built today.


The second complaint is that the waste produced is too expensive to dispose of, and it remains dangerous for thousands of years. If handled responsibly, nuclear waste can be safely stored. France generates over 75% of its energy from nuclear power and by using ‘the closed fuel cycle’, where the waste is reprocessed to be used again, the amount to be disposed of is greatly reduced. In fact, extrapolating from Department of Trade and Industry figures, an average household would produce a teacup full of high level waste over a seventy year period, indeed all of the high level waste produced over the last fifty years would fit inside the Albert Hall, leaving enough room for another thirty years worth at current production. So, we are hardly swamped with the stuff.


We are also told that terrorists could somehow target a nuclear plant, although how this scenario would play out is never expanded. If they flew a plane into a reactor, they would kill those on board, as well as any plant workers on the ground; however this would NEVER cause a containment breach. They could steal some fuel, however as I have already pointed out, a nuclear power station is not a bomb, if they stole the fuel it would still need to be enriched to be weapons grade. So this argument is perhaps the weakest of all, why go to all that trouble when they could attack a soft target for less effort and greater effect.


So if nuclear is not as dirty or dangerous as the propaganda tells us (if you don't believe me, ask a physicist), renewables cannot possibly meet our current energy needs and we accept that climate change is putting us in peril – why on earth are environmentalists opposing it. From a rational and scientific stand point, their position just doesn’t make any sense. This is the problem with green politics; it isn’t just about saving the environment, it is riddled with politicking, even when this leaves them supporting a view which whilst perhaps well meaning, is contradictory, naive and they are left looking like fools; my suspicion is that as the green movement evolved out of CND and the far left during the seventies; the ‘ban the bomb’ and ‘no to nuclear’ rhetoric has proven just too hard to give up, so hard in fact, they cannot differentiate between a power plant and a bomb.

Disrespect or Dystopia?

It came as no surprise today that the lunatic organisation of Islam4UK announced that they won’t be holding their inflammatory march in Wootton Bassett after all. What a bombshell it was to hear that swivel eyed moron, Anjem Choudary, after creating a storm of publicity, decided that trampling on the grief of the bereaved; as well as the wishes of a quiet little community was no longer necessary.



Let me share a little secret with you all – They were never going to hold a march.


Their only motivation was desperate publicity seeking: to gather as many of the conspiracy theorists; religious zealots; Islamist right-wingers; and misfits to their tawdry little club. Islam4UK is a pathetic organisation, full of grandiose plans to destroy Britain’s secular society, install Sharia Law and create a fundamentalist Islamic state. It is like an amalgamation of the BNP’s politics, spiced up with bible-belt faith creationist values, being ran by schizophrenic ex-pats.


"His (Choudary’s) attempt to demonstrate at Wootton Bassett was set out to provoke hatred between communities and is not welcomed in the Muslim communities," Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation is reported by the BBC to have said, before adding "He and his cronies have no support in the British Muslim communities."


In much the same way that Nick Griffin and Sarah Palin do not represent mine, or majority British opinion; Choudary and his band of bigots do not represent the views of British Muslims.


The problem for them now, is that they have boxed themselves into a corner after reaching publicity-stunt-critical-mass (as it were); for Islam4UK have played the “we are going to hold a controversial march” card before, to muted media attention. However after the furore this time, they in future will have to actually carry their threatened crassness through to its end in order to garner so much press attention.


As David Mitchell rightly pointed out in the Observer, the winners of this debacle are the press, who got to be outraged, whilst confirming the views of the little-Englanders; that Britain is going to hell in a Muslim hand cart. At the same time Islam4UK and their ilk get unfounded publicity and are able to claim confirmation that Britain is repressive towards Islam.


The loser in all this is free speech, for the general public reaction was to call for the proposed march to be banned. Whilst I totally sympathise with the sentiment, I don’t agree this would be the appropriate or desirable course of action. We, in theory at least, live in a free society, the foundation stone of which is freedom of expression and free speech. If we lose this right, then we are separated from the essence of being human and take another step towards an Orwellian dystopia.


The price of our freedom is that anyone can express their view, however ludicrous, unpleasant or disrespectful that view may be; it is their right. If someone wants to hold a march supporting the notion that the Moon is blue, so be it. I would think they were insane and it is my right to tell them they are idiots; or to ignore them; or as David Mitchell suggests, tell them to “fuck off”. The argument that ‘they wouldn’t allow you to do that in a Muslim country’ as is often spouted by right-wing bods is not really a particularly intelligent one - You can be stoned to death for adultery in some states, should we adopt that one too?


The next time Islam4UK threatens to march, (through the Normandy War Cemeteries or pissing on the Cenotaph are about the only options to up the ante I guess?), we could collectively ignore them and then the fuel of publicity would be extinguished. If we’d said “let the morons march then”, with no one acknowledging them, free speech and liberty could be served. If our 24 hour news media could control its desperate need for hype and controversy; see Islam4UK for what it is, and tell them to fuck off; then this whole episode could avoid being repeated. 

 I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Clicking in the name of!

So it’s happened. Rage Against The Machine, ironically enough, have proven the power of social networking to the remaining anti-techs out there, and it has real power. Last year we saw Barack Obama successfully highlight that the internet generally, and social networking specifically can be used to enhance a political campaign, he used it to: build a support network, raise money and target where his volunteers should canvass. This momentous achievement of new technology, helping in such a fundamental way to put the first black president in the White House was largely missed by most of the mainstream media; however Simon Cowell’s X-Factor act missing out on the Christmas number one - this is an achievement that cannot be ignored by our celebrity obsessed ‘news’ outlets.


It is a truly surprising outcome and a parable for our brave new world that husband and wife, Jon and Tracy Morter, could from the comfort of their own home, using the social networking site Facebook, topple the four year monopoly that the X-Factor has enjoyed over the Christmas number one slot. The LA rockers', Killing in the name of, has set two records: the most downloads registered in a single week, and the first song to peak the charts solely on download sales alone.

There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the demise of the Christmas number one over recent years, let’s be realistic, I can count the number of festive hits that had any artistic merit during my lifetime on one hand.


As a Rage Against The Machine fan, I’m ecstatic about their signature tune being so prominent once more, however the number of people who have commented that it is just a foul tirade of expletives have annoyed me. I would like to highlight the songs meaning for those who have dismissed it as profanity and empty angst.


The song is about powerful leaders and police officers being institutionally racist, many of them being members of the insidious Klu Klux Klan, it goes on to tell us that those in power manipulate and control what we think about them, i.e. ‘all police officers are heroes’, that in our society it seems justifiable for the police to kill, or to brutalise people from minorities in the name of the law, and that we moronically honour slain racist police officers. The line “Killing in the name of” therefore has two meanings: it is the murder of a black person by a racist cop, and that cop getting his just desserts in retaliation. “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” is a rallying call to black minorities to stand up to racist police and to fight back, rebel against and to defy corrupt oppressive authority.


Killing in the name of may not be a jolly festive tune, but for the first time in a great many years a song has topped the chart which has a powerful message, great guitar riffs, and soul. We have caught a glimpse of the future power of social networking and happily we have learnt that Simon Cowell can’t always polish a turd, giving us a superbly surprising end to the otherwise dull and culturally vacuous year that was 2009. Happy Christmas!

Copenhagen, another Kyoto cop out?

It appears that as I write some sort of face saving fudge has been reached at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. A US spokesman is reported by the BBC to claim “a historic step forward” after an agreement between the US, China, India and South Africa has been reached, adding “the deal was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future - but was an important first move.” Barack Obama describes it as a foundation for action, before adding there was “much further to go”. There is no mention in this statement of the EU, the world’s largest economic trading block, which seems a little surprising. I can only assume it’s an oversight, seeing as how Europe has led the charge on climate change for well over a decade now.



So will this “historic step” amount to anything? My suspicion is no, not really; it is another voluntary agreement, just the same as Rio and Kyoto. People will hail the fact that the US have taken part at Copenhagen, and are prepared to sign up this time. So what, would be my response; if we look at how many of the signatories to the two previous ‘agreements’ came even close to meeting their voluntary targets then we see that these conferences are utterly meaningless. They do however give our politicians the opportunity to strut on the global stage, spouting rhetoric to sure up their ‘green credentials’, whilst many will on previous evidence have no intention, whatsoever, of even attempting to implement a single commitment.


The conference build up was overshadowed by the accusations of “climategate”, where scientists from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were reputed to have suppressed evidence that there was a levelling out in the rising temperature trends over the last decade. This was followed by the Russians accusing the Met Office of “cherry picking” the weather station data from across their country in order to enhance the case for warming. The Met Office strenuously denies this charge and they say they choose a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe.


Who knows what the truth is; the mysterious thing to me over the last decade has been the idea that most people are quite happy to accept those scientists who are sceptical to be naturally corrupt and in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby, like modern day Dr Mengeles. At the same time there is a bizarre assumption that those meteorologists who agree with a warming hypothesis are beyond reproach, neutral and impartial; like some sort of noble Victorian gentleman scientist. Modern science is an expensive business, and regardless of what side of an argument a scientist finds himself on, he is funded by someone or other. In the vast majority of cases, because they have a vested interest in that research supporting their view, this will sometimes deliberately and often subconsciously impact the findings of that research.


On this basis; I like everyone else, assume the sceptics look to ‘find’ evidence which highlights their hypothesis, but I also assume the non sceptics (for want of a better term) are equally as biased as their counterparts. This is true in many other fields of science, so why people think it should be different in the field of climatic research a mystery; as such I wasn’t remotely surprised to hear of alleged ‘selection’ by the Climate Research Unit.


Incidentally I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the growing use of ‘totalistic’ language employed by green activists over the last few years; sceptics are painted as ‘climate change deniers’ which is quite frankly offensive, and mere climate change is no longer serious enough, it has to be ‘disastrous’ or ‘catastrophic’. This seems to be the language of a cult to me, where any dissent is no longer tolerated; there can be no other view or challenge to ‘consensuses’. These characteristics are counterproductive to the argument and will turn people off from the problem; hence 46% of people in the UK are supposedly sceptical of manmade climate change, according to a recent ICM survey.


I think that the case for Global Warming is now highly established and that pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is clearly effecting that process, however I also realise that those with the most to lose, should we try to reduce emissions are some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. The latter are the voices that global politicians hear, not ours; it doesn’t matter how hysterical the green movement becomes, they will stop using fossil fuels when they run out and not a second sooner. Sad, but unfortunately true, you may charge me with being too cynical, but I would suggest it is a realistic assumption based on history and human nature.

Straw Dogs

I once used to know a guy who would smoke pot and philosophise on the meaning of life, ponder the depths of the universe and question the very fabric of reality; he would then conclude that life is just a dream, we are merely creations of our own imaginations and that everything is just a shadow of an otherwise empty reality. To this we would politely listen, gravely nod and turn up Pink Floyd or Dire Straits and bring the conversation back to shallower subjects; such as football and pretty girls.


After reading John Gray’s ‘Straw Dogs: Thoughts on humans and other animals’ I am beginning to think he may have been on to something all those years ago. I had always dismissed this school of thought as a product of age. Too old to blithely live an existence in blind ignorance, though not yet old enough to have any real control or means of affecting that life, thus creating a nihilistic view of a cruel and ultimately empty world. John Gray poses a similar outlook, however coming from the Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, he is a little more difficult to dismiss than my pot smoking friend from yesteryear.


As an atheist my hopes were firmly based in a vaguely humanist/secularist philosophy; man would through progress and science, eventually arrive in a place of peace and prosperity. All would be equal, hunger vanquished, superstitions quelled by knowledge. Or at least things would inevitably get a little bit better over time at any rate. According to Gray, this is just as starry eyed as belief in a deity, and is in fact a relic of Christian logic, as are many tenets of Enlightenment thought.


This book will be somewhat of an anathema to those who were laboring in the belief that humankind is somehow special, different or set aside from the rest of nature; we are neither the masters of our destiny nor the controllers of our fate. We are simply animals like any other, locked into our automatic waking dreams. It would seem, if we accept Gray’s extremely skeptical philosophy, then we must accept that our lives are just a by-product of genetics, most of what we perceive are illusions created by our brains and the ultimate end is that there is no purpose or point to our lives; there are no happy endings in this book!


I thoroughly enjoyed reading ‘Straw Dogs’ and found its assertion that humanism is no more based on reality than any of our more mystical beliefs insightful. Some of Gray’s arguments are weaker than others and he is generally lacking in any attempt at substantiation, though the logic is at times convincing.


On the whole it’s a good read if not an uplifting experience.

Flavor of Love

My current regime of weekend nightshifts at the garage and days during the week at uni has left me with a somewhat erratic body clock; it’s like being perpetually jet lagged without all the bother of actually travelling anywhere. I can sometimes lurch into wakefulness in the wee hours and I have found a more modern version of counting sheep.



All I have to do is flick on MTV and there is the perfect mind numbing antidote, TV programmes that don’t require any of my brains higher functions, just the brain stem, that relic of our reptile ancestry is stimulated, keeping me breathing whilst I’m dimly aware of colours passing before my eyes and garbled nonsensical sounds wash over me; before I know it I’m back into a much more convincing version of reality.


A couple of nights ago however, I was startled back into alertness by a show that makes the rest of MTV’s American celeb-reality formats look sane by comparison – I had stumbled upon the arrestingly bizarre ‘Flavor of Love’. This is the happy tale of Flavor Flav, the front man of Public Enemy, who is on a quest to find ‘true’ love. Mr Flav was apparently badly burnt in his last relationship with Brigitte Nielsen, so is wary of dabbling with another famous woman. Naturally a reality show is a safer environment for Flavor to find the woman of his dreams.


Those born circa 1990 are probably wondering; who the hell are Flavor Flav and Brigitte Nielsen? Well Public Enemy were a hip hop group who allegedly made ‘politically charged’ music and the track ‘Fight the Power’ was their most famous offering. Flav also wore clocks around his neck, to which people used to say: “WOW! How like totally COOL”, for we lived in simpler and more forgiving times. Brigitte Nielsen was quite tall.


The best thing about this show are the contestants, who are the most stupid individuals on the planet; if you were to measure their collective IQs it would tally to that of an average poodle. They go on ‘dates’ with Flav and give the impression that they would do ANYTHING to win this show to capitalise on their 15 seconds of fame, including listening to Flavor’s nonsensical ramblings. I do not know if it’s because he’s meddled with too many drugs over the years or received a savage blow to the head, but with his 1000 yard stare and tourette's like mumbling, Flav does not give an impression of balance and composure.


If you get a chance to, you should watch one episode of this show for some jaw dropping comedy value; in much the same way as everyone should watch one episode of ‘Pimp My Ride UK’ to have a good laugh at the madness of Tim Westwood’s persona. Unfortunately my new accommodation doesn’t avail me with Sky in my room, so I will need to find some new sleep remedy; however I doubt I’ll see anything as monumentally insane as ‘Flavor of Love’ for quite some time.

Has the Independent had its day?

It would appear that the Independent’s future may be more perilous than was previously thought. It has been widely acknowledged for some time that the paper has had financial problems, with losses reputed to be in the region of £10 million a year, leading to workforce reductions and the Independent’s remaining staff being forced to rent office space in the Daily Mail’s headquarters of all places.

A source who prefers not to be named has told me that the paper is now being invoiced on a daily basis for its distribution, after its circulation has continued to drop, now below 200,000 copies per day, posing ever deeper questions about its financial viability. The paper’s ownership deserve much credit for keeping the Independent running for as long as they have, in the face of the losses they have incurred over recent years; the renascence it enjoyed after becoming the first ‘compact’ broadsheet seems so long ago now.

Should the Independent go, the political balance of the British press will become even weaker than it already is. Of the major titles the Mirror is alone in representing the left, and with the Guardian, the Independent representing a centrist viewpoint. All of the rest firmly support a right-wing view of the world, spreading pessimism and pandering to irrational fear. Clearly the circulation figures suggest the British public prefer their news to represent this view and the dominance of the tabloid format hints at unwillingness to read a story expanded beyond the bare facts.

I hope the Independent can survive, it seems sad to me that virtually all newspaper sales are focused on such a narrow point of view. We need papers that challenge the prevailing opinion; opposing the Iraq war, promoting environmental issues, supporting civil liberties and campaigning for electoral reform to fix Britain’s crooked politics.  What other paper would run a blank front page with simply "WHITEWASH?" printed to display their contempt at an establishment cover up?