ilovecress

Notes on the first draft of Lost Season 6

2009-07-31T17:40:00.010Z

While poking around in the bins outside Carlton Cuse's mansion, I came across some ABC notes for one of the scripts, it looks like the first episode of the new series....

The government can keep you safe from the heatwave zombie apocalypse

2009-07-02T16:20:00.000Z

So you may have noticed that it is pretty hot today in London. And for those of you who may be overseas and haven’t heard how hot it is, let me tell you. It’s cocking hot. They tell me that it’s 33 degrees out there. And as I have no frame of reference for what 33 degrees even means, then I’m going to assume that it is hotter than Mexico here right now. Get that, hotter than mexico!

Anyway, this unexpected heat wave (seriously, who saw this weather coming in June?) has sent us all into a panic, so I decided to get some advice on how to survive the next couple of weeks until it rains, without letting London degenerate into a sort of desert zombie apocalypse. (Heatwaves turn people into zombies, right?)

The best place to get advice is obviously the Government. Without the government, how would we know how to do anything? So I logged onto the NHS Choice site.

First of all – the Met office have declared a level three heatwave alert. They have also called it Heatwave Red Alert, so I’m not sure how scared to be. The top of the page has a picture of Big Ben melting, so I guess it’s pretty serious. I decide to take off my coat.

High temperatures can be dangerous, especially for:
• the elderly,
• the very young, and
• people with chronic or long-term medical conditions, such as a heart condition or breathing problems.
This initially comes as a relief to me. I am definitely not elderly, and don’t think that I could be described as very young. And if you are going to be facing off hordes of zombies, you’d be hoping they’d be zombie grandmas, or zombie toddlers. The concerning part, however, is the bit about heart conditions or breathing problems. If these are the two groups to turn to zombiedom first, their disabilities won’t matter.

Note to self, remove the head of anyone with asthma.

Listen to alerts on the radio and TV about keeping cool.

Now I have watched daytime TV all day, and I haven’t seen any adverts about keeping cool. Perhaps they are confusing ‘keeping cool’ with ‘consolidating all your debts’ or ‘buying a stairlift’. Although I’m not sure how those will help.

Avoid unnecessary travel.

This one doesn’t seem to make sense, although I guess the government knows best. I would have though that if you are dying from the heat, then travelling somewhere with less heat would be a good idea., but I guess not. Sorry Grandma!.

I have decided to strap myself to the sofa, and barricade all the doors, so I physically cannot travel anywhere.

Stay inside and in the coolest room in your home as much as possible, and splash yourself with cool water.

It looks like my barricading myself indoors was a good idea, but perhaps I was too premature in the choosing of which room to barricade myself into. The living room is fairly warm, even with the window open, and the kitchen, although cool right now is going to heat up once I start cooking that delicious bacon. I think I shall lock myself in the damp closet under the stairs.

Keep rooms cool by using shade or reflective material external to the glass. If that's not possible have pale-coloured curtains, and close them. Metal blinds and dark curtains can make the room hotter.

Improvisation needed! Prefering the darker curtain to allow me to sleep at night for more than 2 hours, I have had to cover all the curtains in my house with tin foil to keep the zombie rays out.

Keep the windows closed while the room is cooler than it is outside. If it's safe, open the windows at night when the air is cooler than the room.

If it is safe? I suppose when the heatwave zombie epidemic is in full swing, the windows will be a valuable point of entry. I think I’ll just stay here in the cupboard under the stairs like a sweaty Harry Potter until this whole thing ends on Saturday.

My rejected 'Poems for the Underground'

2009-07-02T10:38:00.002Z

My Journey Home

Hot so hot
As the sweaty pit of jubilee
Encowers my face
3 stops
That’s it
3 stops
And then the realisation
I paid for this.

The Lake District

It is the light
that
transforms the bracken
into shades
of heather, as
streaming clouds
rush through the dales
and weep weep
upon these lakes
until the
deadly robots crush
the skulls of us
and skynet
rules us all.

Dolphins.

Rape rape rape
Rape rape rape
Rape
Rape rape rape
Rape
Rape rape
Rape

Dolphins.

from Chasereviewseverything - my review of Moby Dick, the Musical.

2009-07-02T10:37:00.000Z

Chase reviews - MOBY DICK THE MUSICAL - By GEOIDS

I have no idea what I have just seen. It was either the worst piece of theatre I have ever seen in my life, or a work of art so mindboggling in its genius that it deserves its place in history alongside Andy Kaufmann, Hunter S Thompson or the inventor of the spork. As such I can’t really be all that objective with this review, so what I am going to do is walk you through the experience, so you can judge for yourself.

7.00pm
I met up with Pip and Matt in the pub beforehand. We really have no idea what to expect, but Matt tells us that there are a lot of ‘dick’ jokes and a man dressed as a woman, who then plays a man.

7.25
Walking up to the theatre we see a lot of ‘naughty schoolgirl’ types hanging around outside. I think they are trying to improve lines a schoolchild might say, but it sort of sounds like my dad trying to sound street. Which is odd, because most of them actually are teenagers.

7.30
Bought my ticket and waiting to go in. The cast are in the foyer and interacting with the audience. And by interacting, I mean annoying. Some of the cast are boys dressed up as schoolgirls, which I’m sure is hilarious.

7.31
I’m pretty sure one of the cast is Victor Obogu in a blonde wig. There are no words.

7.35
Okay its starting. I think we have a flavour of what this is going to be. We are in a school assembly, and one of the teachers, played by a man in drag, is reading out some really unfunny notices.

7.36
My mistake, that is actually a woman.

7.40
The whole cast is onstage now, and there are about 60 of them. My favourite are the three old dears at the back, who look a bit scared. I know how they feel.

7.45
Okay, here comes the man dressed as the woman. He is playing the head mistress. You know Rupert Everett in drag, its kind of like that, except awful, and with more than a touch of the rapist about him.

7.47
Okay, I’m not sure what is going on, but I am going to take a guess and say that the school is going to put on a musical to raise some money. Victor Obogu agrees. I think he is standing next to someone from KISS.

7.49
Okay. Plot update. Someone in glasses has written Moby Dick the musical, which the girls at this school are going to rehearse and perform. The man dressed as a woman headteacher is going to play Ahab, which cleverly means it will be a man playing a woman playing a man. Oh God someone is running across the stage with some blue fabric, I think they are going to sing.

8.00
Yep. “It’s Moby Dick, Moby Dick the Musical..”. The old lady looks confused. Ahab has just been wheeled on in a shopping trolley, and he is wearing one cricket pad. Victor Obogu and the dude from Kiss have snuck under the blue sheet, but we can see their shadows being cast on the back wall. The words MOBY DICK are projected onto the back wall. For some reason, none of the cast have any trousers on.

8.10
Ishmael is in Nantucket now. I can tell because someone has projected ‘NANTUCKET’ on the back wall. Other than that I am a bit lost. Someone calls Ishmael ‘Fishmael’ and everyone gasps. I have no idea why.

8.15
Okay, they seem to be in some sort of bar or tavern, maybe Ishmael is looking for somewhere to sleep? There is a man spanking another man at the back, and a woman dressed up as a german SS officer watching everything. The bar seems to be owned by a large bald gay man with no trousers on. Someone calls her Fishmael again. All gasp.

8.20
Heres Ahab again. I think he’s returned from somewhere, because I think that other girl is meant to be his wife. She is wearing a wedding dress and screaming. Oh, now shes run off.

8.21
Ahab seems to be sad that his wife has run off (although he seems to think she’s died?) I can’t concentrate on the song though, because I can see right into the wings, and Ahabs wife is getting out of her costume, and I just saw some boob.

8.25
Back to Ishmael now, and the weird bar. The mane of the bar is projected on the back wall. She says shes going to go upstairs, and some ominous music sounds. Again, I have no idea why. WHY IS NO ONE WEARING ANY TROUSERS?

8.26
Ishmael is now upstairs and…..holy shit….what the f*ck is that projection? It looks like some sort of sentient toy doll looking sad, sitting in the corner of a large empty room. That is literally the freakiest thing I have ever seen.

8.27
Ishmael is talking to an African tribeswoman in her bedroom. I’m not sure what they are talking about, but they seem to be friends. The African Tribeswoman (who is a white girl in her 20’s) has a necklace made of bones and talks in a really bad Jamaican accent. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure this is racist in some way.

8.40
I have no idea what the last 10 minutes was about, but everyone is smiling a whole lot. Except Victor Obogu of course.

8.45
They are now in church I think, and about to sing some gospel. Hang on, nope, its not gospel. I think it was meant to be gospel, but again it’s pretty much just racist. Victor Obogu doesn’t seem to mind though. Three women in identical wedding dresses stand on stage right. And now they’ve walked off again.

8.46
I have just noticed one of the chaps has a squirrel sticking out the side of his head.

8.50
An Irish drinking song. Of course. Now the whole cast are singing and marching in time to the music. Somehting about America I think. Holy Shit, they are only flying in a 25 foot American Flag!

8.55
Interval. I am thinking about leaving and missing the second act, but I have a nagging suspicion that somehow this will all come together and make sense in the second act. I think I shall see it through, if only for the sake of Victor Obogu and his pal from KISS.

9.15
So the second act... On the way in, one of the cast members asks me if I have donated any money yet. I tell her I have, although I haven’t actually seen anyone collecting any money. We take our seats and it begins. I think they are on a ship. At no point have I heard mention of a whale. Everyone is still without trousers for some reason. They decide to party (the projection on the wall says it), which seems to involve 35 people doing a box step over and over again. Except the three old dears, who are waving their arms in the air. Someone throws 6 beach balls into the audience.

9.20 Aha! I think I just heard something about a whale. Ahab has come out and sung something about revenge and madness. In the dark. A woman in a blue dress waves at him from the top of the stairs, before running off. The projection on the back wall is of a sad face. It also has the word ‘madness’ written above it. The cast are just repeating the words ‘moby dick’ over and over again, so I assume they are trying to catch it. One girl in the cast shouts out “Cock!” at the top of her voice.

9.21
I was right, they are singing a song about how awesome whaling is. Projected onto the back wall are pictures of bloody whale carcasses. It is horrifically disturbing. Victor Obogu seems to really like whaling. Hang on, is that a picture of a whale CUT IN HALF? It is. The cast are singing in front of a 15 foot picture of half a whale.

9.30
Just when I thought I was following things….. so Ahab seems to be in Las Vegas now (it is projected on the back wall), singing a disco tune. One girl in a sailors outfit is dancing around him, and 4 people in red dresses are walking around the stage. One of the ladies just tripped over her dress, and her boob fell out. Victor Obogu and Mr Kiss pick up Ahab on their shoulders. The spotlight is in Victor and Mr Kiss face, so they squint. Ahab is singing, but he is out of the light now.

9.33
So, now this girl with no trousers is singing about something and holding up a gun. I’m not sure what it is she’s singing about, but the projection says ‘mutiny’. I can’t really tell what is going on, because the whole thing is in darkness. One guy at the back is in the light, but he just says “sacre Bleu!” and then leaves.

9.40
She’s still singing, but now the whole cast are on stage. I have just spotted an old man. I’m sure he’s not been there before. He seems to be beating someone up in the background.

9.42
Still singing. Everyone has left her alone. Sometimes she’s welsh.

9.43
She’s finished, so it looks like shes going to Ahabs cabin. The projection shows a picture of a kettle in a barge. Oh, hang on, shes singing again.

9.55
I seriously have no idea what is going on. A gay chap with an English accent has been singing about finding a little boy. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the actor is a possible homosexual. Victor Obogu, the guy from Kiss and a Chinese man are dancing around. I think squirrel head guy might be a beat or so behind, but then again it could just be a mild seizure.

10.00
More racist dancing from the woman playing the savage. The three old dears have been given inflatable palm trees to hold. Oh shit! A woman has just fallen off the back of the stage!

10.01
Now they are singing about the woman falling off the back of the stage. I can her getting changed into rollerskates in the wings. Now someone has pushed her across the stage on the rollerskates. People clap.

10.05
They are all looking out at the audience and pointing. I think they are trying to say that they have finally seen Moby Dick, and that they are scared about it. Some cast members run into the auditorium with water pistols and squirt them at the audience. This seems to annoy people. Other cast members have mops, with which they hit audience members. Once they have done this, they all go back onto the stage. Lets see how they handle the appearance of a 50 foot whale on stage!!! I can’t wait!

10.08
Everyone on stage now has an umbrella. Still no trousers in sight.

10.10
Okay, so everyone with an umbrella has now chased Ahab off the stage. Except there isn’t enough room in the wings, so it takes about 2 minutes of embarrassed shuffling to get them all off.

10.11
Ishmael now comes onto stage, chased by cast members dragging a blue bedsheet (which has a crown embroidered on it.)

10.12
Okay, I think I know what happened. The Whale sunk the ship, and Ishmael washed up on a desert island, and a gay chap in the floppy hat rescues her. He kisses her, and she fights him off, but he isn’t taking no for an answer. As the gay chap rapes Ishmael, the company come to the front and bow.

10.13
Ahab has now changed back into drag, and is carrying a metal box. She is very pleased about it. She says the school has been saved, and its something to do with this metal box. The cast look very happy, except Victor Obogu, who is talking to the Chinese man at the back.

10.14
They all break into song and dance. Some of the cast come into the audience, and one girl gets an audience member to dance with her. I can see him considering if suicide would be a useful escape. It won’t.

10.16
It ends, and the audience shuffle out of the theatre unsure of exactly what just went on. It was kind of like being raped in the eyes by a jam doughnut. Kind of, but not exactly

Jobs in the Evil Sector

2009-03-13T17:43:00.000Z

Number two position within Global Organisation

Location – West London, plus Subterranean travel

Salary - £60,000 plus generous commission structure.

Our client, a NATO recognised global super villain, is looking for an experienced number two for help with an ongoing project for world domination.

Based out of modern offices in the West End, this organisation has come close to achieving total domination of the worlds superpowers on several occasions, and is now looking for an inspiring and dedicated team leader to make that final push over the edge!

With extensive experience of carrying out needlessly complex plots involving either environmental, nuclear or death ray based evil plots, you will be a self starter, with a good attention to detail and a sense of humour. You will be comfortable dealing with high level strategy and ideally have a contact book full of willing henchmen. Must be CIPD qualified.

This is an excellent opportunity for a henchman team leader to gain that next step up the ladder to super villainy, or for an ambitious HR or IT director to make a sideways move into a more strategic role in the evil sector.

To apply, please send your cv, plus a covering letter detailing the last two plots you or your current organisation have been working on. If successful we shall send you an application pack, as well as our diversity questionnaire. cvs to be sent to ilovecress@gmail.com

Receptionist - start up position

Location – Island Volcano

Salary £14,000 plus free coffee.

This is a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of an ambitious start up evil empire, and really make a difference to the direction of the organisation.

Working out of a hollowed out volcano inexplicably filled with exploding barrels, you will act as the front line to the organisation, meeting and greeting our visitors, booking rooms, and carrying out some light filing duties. As this is a fairly new company, you will also be responsible for managing the office, including a complete office redesign scheduled for later on this year.

This role would suit a graduate looking for a way into the evil sector, although experience of working in a similar sector (banking, telesales, Channel 4) would be an advantage.

To apply online, please click here: CLICK TO APPLY

Nigerian Billionaire ‘frustrated’ by UK cynicism.

2009-03-11T13:33:00.001Z

Clement Okom, a Nigerian businessman has complained of ‘a saddening culture of cynicism’ in the UK, as his attempts to move money out of the country failed on Friday.

Mr Okom, a wealthy businessman, and member of the Nigerian Civil Service, was looking for a British bank account in which to transfer over $21,000,000 for a period of two months. He was willing to pay the intermediary 10% of the final fee. The reasons for the transaction are as yet unclear, but Mr Okon assured us it was “something to do with the military”.

However, Mr Okom has been surprised by the low response from UK residents in taking him up on his offer. After sending over 200 emails to carefully selected individuals, he received only one response, which turned out to be from an intoxicated student with a hotmail account.

“I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING” said Mr Okon, “ALL I AM WANTING TO DO IS THE CONFIDENT TRANSFER OF US$21,000,300 (TWENTY ONE MILLION AND THREE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS) INTO THE ACCOUNT OF A TRUSTED AND HONOURED FORIEGN COLLEAGUE.”

After the deadline for the transfer passed last Friday, Mr Okon has had to allow the sum to pass directly to the Nigerian military, with little to no record of what it will be spent on, leaving Mr Okon with only his large inheritance to pass on to a deserving UK charity.

90% of searches for ‘Voodoo Love Spells’ end up at this blog.

2009-03-11T12:00:00.001Z

Google have released an official statement declaring that they have “no idea” why fans of Voodoo Love Potions, and Viagra salesmen are failing to find the internet sites they require.

“You’d think that it should be easy”, said Brian Tractor, head of the voodoo Love Potion consortium based in Essex. “I spend nearly 6 hours online a day looking for information on Voodoo Love Potions, and nine times out of ten, I end up at some losers blog. I always leave a comment, just to be polite, but in truth, its not necessarily the information I am looking for.”

This was a problem shared by Kevin Sachs-Minelli, a Viagra Salesman from Cheshire. “As a Viagra salesman, searching the internet for people looking to buy my product should be an easy way to identify target markets. However, due to the negligence of Google, and other search engine providers, I often end up at someones blogger account.”

In some statistics released into the ether by Google, it emerged that 84% of comments on blogs were from people either trying to sell Viagra, or people looking for information on Voodoo Love potions, and while nearly always polite and courteous, served no purpose, other than to use up bandwidth.

No one at Google was available for comment.

‘U’ taken off the endangered character list

2009-03-11T11:45:00.000Z

Five years after the Government vowed to take the Letter ‘U’ off the endangered character list, the first crop of lower case ‘u’s are due to be released into the wild this April.

The delisting, which has been supported by environment minister Ben Bradshaw, represents an official recognition of the population boom of letter u’s in the United Kingdom since 1995, more than tripling in the last 15 years.

The letter U was added to the endangered character list in the early eighties, after more than three decades of decline. The fashion in the sixties of omitting the letter in favour of brevity was widely condemned at the time, most famously when Honor Blackman was attacked by pro-vowel protesters outside BBC Television Centre. Although a petition was sent to 10 Downing street, it wasn’t until 1982 that Margaret Thatcher bowed to public pressure, and added the letter ‘u’ to the list of officially endangered characters, along with Q, X and Pi.

This April, the first u’s to be born in captivity, will travel from Stonebridge Inner City Farm in Nottingham to Dorset, where they will be released into their natural habitat, and encouraged to breed with the indigenous population of wild u’s found in the area.

Plans to introduce the u’s to America have stalled.

Less Serious Movie Review - What you need to know

2009-02-13T09:34:00.004Z

Zach and Miri Make a Porno

The film is pretty good, but you don't get to see Elizabeth Banks' tits.

Semi Serious Movie Review - Zach and Miri Make A Porno

2009-02-03T11:02:00.002Z

Between two stools.

Poop jokes and nob gags are funny and let no one tell you otherwise. Kevin Smith has made a career of taking those poop and nob gags and showing them on the big screen to the delight of adolescents everywhere.

Students of the late 90's had Clerks posters on their walls, right next to The Godfather, and the one of the tennis player scratching her ass. And that’s where Kevin Smith seems to fit, between the artistic and the scatological.

His latest film, Zach and Miri makes a porno comes 15 years after Clerks debuted, and Smiths audience has grown up. We were all there with the corpse shagging of Clerks, the Finger cuffs of Chasing Amy, and we all tolerated Ben Affleck in Mallrats. But then we passed the gross out baton onto the kids, who lapped up American Pie and, well American Pie 2. We moved onto the weirder Zoolander, and briefly South Park, before Judd Apatow came into our lives.

The Apatow era, as this period will undoubtedly be known, is the logical progression from Smiths work of the late 90's. The characters in these movies (nearly 15 films over the last 2 years) often start out as characters from a Kevin Smith movie, but end up more grown up than Smith’s characters ever did.

So what of the Kevin Smith film in the Apatow era? Well Zach and Miri Make a Porno is one of those sold three star films. It's okay. It’s not brilliant, but I didn't regret watching it. The synopsis is there in the title. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth banks play the titular Zach and Miri, who, when finding themselves skint and without electricity, water or heating, decide to make a porno movie to raise some cash. And during the making of this skin flick, they realise their true feelings for each other.

But this feels like Kevin Smith, half way there. There are some really touching scenes, and some excellent performances (especially by Banks), but ever present are the nob and poop gags, which feel out of place in this story. It’s like having an interesting adult conversation with someone, who then asks you to pull their finger. The 'laughs' jar, and Smith hasn’t worked out (as Apatow did with Knocked Up) how to tone the scatological humour along with a truthful and resonant story.

Although Smith deals with some of the dramatic scenes well, it sometimes comes across as mawkish, and often right on the nose. Smith seems to revert to nob-gag type all too often, which now seems out of context within this new ‘grown up’ style of filmmaking. Nearly there, Kev.

2007-08-23T10:21:00.000Z

Review For - THE BEST OF DAVID HASSLEHOFF

2005-12-07T15:25:00.000Z

Over at Amazon, everyone is eagerly awaiting the new Hasslehoff album, and some lucky reviewers have managed to get a sneak preview. If you are a fan of the Hoff - why not go over and leave a review of your own?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B0000070S1/ref=cm_rev_next/103-5579250-0505461?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=5174&s=music&customer-reviews.start=11

Below is an example:

We all love Hassehorve. And he loves us all back., May 31, 2005
Reviewer:
Almas Paradies "We're knocking on heaven's door" - See all my reviewsHow Germanic, how Teutonic, how Aryan it is to rock out so hard. David Hassehorve leaves behind a brilliant acting career to "super pursue" his place in rock history. He hires all the key grips and crewmen from the set of Baywatch and transforms them into musicians, producers and even backup singers for his debut offering. After a few listens, you can tell it's an electrician backup-yelping behind David in "Crazy For You." Only a boom mike operator can play an electric guitar solo that badly. And surely a junior caterer was behind the mixing board. The general effect is one of controlled chaos. David rules over this motley crew of unlikely rock gods, sitting on his magnificent throne like Zeus with a perm. When inspiration strikes, he rears his oversized head back and screeches like a baboon stuck in a car door, turning every listener giddy and flatulent. The song "Hot Shot City" is particularly good.

MAKE WRISTBAND SHORTAGE HISTORY

2005-10-19T11:00:00.000Z

As we sit in our offices, with our heating and air conditioning, drinking clean water from the cooler, or making a steaming hot cup of coffee, we find ourselves taking wristbands for granted. Many of us have two or three wristbands for ‘Make poverty History’ or perhaps you’re lucky enough to get one of those cyclist guys’ wristbands. With so many wristbands on the streets these days, it’s easy to assume that there are enough wristbands to go round.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The horrible fact that we fail to notice is that over 60% of the nations good causes go completely without an assigned wristband. For every National Autism Association’s blue wristband campaign there are literally hundreds of good causes that are left totally wristbandless. I’m talking about the Association for the Children of Pirates (ACP), The Jellyfish Awareness Campaign, or Elect Midgets Now! All of these causes, and several more are left completely wristbandless. Some don’t even have a slogan.

That’s why we need your help.

For just £5 a month, or whatever you can afford, we could supply causes like ‘Lets Put A Stop To Tofu’ a wristband. A really good wristband. A wristband that works. Like maybe a blue one with a red stripe.

Please email your bank details along with your name and address to iam@dumbass.com and pledge whatever you can. In return, we’ll send you one of our unique ‘Make Wristband Shortage History’ wristbands.

With your help, we can give these causes the wristbands they deserve. Once we do that we are halfway to finding a cure. Unless it’s not a cause about a disease, or it's one for an incurable disease; in which case we’ll be halfway to raising lots of awareness, or something.

Please give generously.

Spot the Hero at the Feminists Rally

2005-09-27T10:36:00.000Z

Crappy Parents against Maddox

2005-09-22T15:31:00.000Z

I thought this was a joke, until I looked further into it, but it seems to be real.

If you haven't seen it before, you need to check out Maddox's website www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net. It's a brilliantly satirical, but ultimately honest collection of one mans musings on the world. He gets loads of traffic, because he really does kick ass.

Now theres an organisation called Mothers Against Maddox, who are out to have the site banned. One 'mother' (I'm going to use this term loosely with her) gave this as the reason...

I discovered his website when I found my oldest son, age 14
looking through a page on his site that
promoted suicide. I was shocked to find out that my son had been going to this
site on a constant basis. Ever since my son started going to Maddox's website, I
noticed an increase in his hatred towards certain groups of people and his
negative attitude towards life.

Maddox has been so kind as to mirror their crappy website here: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/mam/about.htm

So, from this we can deduce that Beth Robbins, the 'mother' has such bad parenting skills that a badly formatted web page offers her son more advice on how to deal with the world than she does. Maybe if she spent less time trying to piss on the constitution by protesting about free speech, and actually spent some time with her kid, we'd end up with less fucked up shits running around happy slapping pensioners.

NEWSFLASH - If your Kid grows up to be a shit, it's your fault as the parent. Full stop. I honestly can't find anything else to blame. If you are such a bad parent that you can't teach your kid that moral authority doesn't come from a webpage, then, I'm sorry, your kid needs to go live with someone else. There are loads of people out there looking for kids to adopt, lets give these people a chance as you've obviously fucked it up.

To this end, I thought that I would start a petition : People pissed off with whiney little shit kids against bad mothers. Starting with Beth Robbins. If you think that Beth Robbins should give her child up to someone that can teach a child that there are other places to form your opinions other than a website - please reply below.

Thankyou.

"Why Choose Continue" Snake Wonders

2005-02-02T10:40:00.000Z

Solid Snake, tactical-espionage expert and star of PlayStation's "Metal Gear Solid," questioned the nature of the universe today when, moments after his 11th death in two hours, a cruel God forced him to "Continue" his earthly toil and suffering.

"Is this all there is?" asked Snake, hiding in a storage locker while two masked guards searched for him in the hold of a cargo ship. "Is this why I was created? To suffer? Will I ever escape this endless loop of grueling labor followed by violent death?"
Snake was then discovered by the guards and cut down in a hail of gunfire.
Snake, who has been fatally shot 2,143 times in the past six months, said he does not know why God deems it necessary for him to endlessly repeat his mission, which involves sneaking aboard a hijacked military ship and discovering who stole the walking nuclear-equipped battle tank known as Metal Gear Ray.
"Why will the Lord not grant me my final rest?" asked a reincarnated Snake, crawling underneath a lifeboat on the ship's weather deck. "Certainly there must be a greater purpose for me than to kill dozens and eventually be killed myself."
Added Snake: "As Goethe said, 'Man must strive, and in striving he must err.'"
Pitching himself over the ship's railing to avoid a trio of patrol guards, Snake pondered the notion of self-determination, wondering aloud whether he had any control over his own destiny. Before he could draw any conclusions, however, he lost his grip, falling into the sea and drowning.
"The Koran asks, 'Shall not the Lord of all the Earth do right?'" said Snake, rematerializing under the lifeboat. "But scholars have often argued whether the question is an assertion of belief or a refutation of faith in absolute goodness on the part of the Creator. As for myself, all I know is, I'm tired of the constant pain, death, and destruction."
Snake was then shot in the head by an undetected guard, falling into a pool of his own blood before reappearing in the ship's afterdeck, where his mission began.

"I often wonder, as many video-game characters do, whether God forces me to Continue to punish me for my sins," Snake said. "After all, I've deserted the American military, killed hundreds of guards, and betrayed my would-be lover, Meryl Silverburgh, by submitting to torture in the alternate ending to the first installment of 'Metal Gear Solid.' But sometimes, like when I suicidally attack dozens of armed guards with only my bare hands, it seems that God is putting me through hell merely to amuse Himself. It just doesn't make sense."
According to Rev. Paul Flessing of Yale University's Divinity School, Snake's theosophical quandary is far from uncommon.
"We all wrestle with the Big Questions about the will of God and one's place in Creation," Flessing said. "But the important thing is to have faith and try to find meaning in one's life–or lives, as the case may be. We must remember the trials of Job, whose faith God continually tested. It seems Snake is going through something very much like that, with this constant pattern of 'Continues.' The purpose will become clear to him in the end."
Sidling along a companionway toward the ship's lounge, Snake considered his ultimate fate.
"What awaits me at the end of my lives' journeys?" Snake asked. "Is there a Paradise on the other side? Or will it all end in a full-motion video sequence that hints at a forthcoming sequel?"
The hallway then filled with nerve gas, fatally asphyxiating Snake.

Call me Wolf - insists 60 year old Michael.

2005-01-27T15:32:00.000Z

More than eight years after his last appearance on the ITV television programme Gladiators, Michael "Wolf" Van Myjk continues to insist that friends refer to him by his on-air name. "Please," Van Myjk told acquaintance Lynn Crane at a dinner party Monday. "Call me Wolf." In recent years, Van Wjyk has bought a "WOLF69" number plate for his Ford Mondeo, , and attempted to make restaurant reservations under the name "Wolfman." Still garbed in the all dayglo lycra body suit, Van Wyjk was last spotted shouting at a cashier at Sainsbury's in Sutton, after his signature didn't match his cheque.

The Voysey Inheritance

2005-01-18T10:06:00.000Z

To the blogspere at large! In my secret life as a theatre director, I have finally managed to persuade 12 young actors to let me direct them in the first play at the Bridewell theatre!! Anyone in the area at the time, please do pop in and have a look - its all for charity in the end!!

For info, check out www.sedos.co.uk

The Voysey Inheritance

Dates: Preview 7.30 22nd February Run 7.30 23rd-26th February Matinee 3.00 26th February

Venue: The Bridewell Theatre, Bride Lane, (off Fleet Street) London

The Play: Misappropriation of client funds..... fraudulent speculation on the Stock Market.... deceit...lies ...and an intricate cover up. Sounds familiar? This could well be the ingredients of a recent City or Wall Street corporate corruption. However, written and first performed in 1905 "The Voysey Inheritance " fittingly kicks off the Sedos Centenary Year. Old fashioned in its setting, the tale of the Voyseys is bang up to date in the ethical conundrum it poses. When young Edward Voysey discovers that the family's wealth has been built on three generations of deceit and theft he must choose between confessing all and ruining the clients that have innocently trusted the firm, or continuing the deceit in the hope of righting the wrongs that the firm's clients have unwittingly been subjected to. So the scene is set for an intriguing examination of ethics - and their absence - in the world of high finance. Written the same year SEDOS was formed, the themes and issues raised are as relevant today as they were 100 years ago.

The Author: Harley Granville Barker; actor and playwright is heralded as one of the most important influences on the Golden Age of theatre (1880-1920). He produced and acted in ground breaking productions of Shakespeare as well as definitive productions of the plays of his friend and mentor George Bernard Shaw. The Voysey Inheritance is his most successful play and seen as one of the great 'progressive' works of the era. Its relevance is still felt today.

Tickets: £12.50 (£8.50 concessions and SEDOS members) £10 Preview

Box Office: boxoffice@sedos.co.uk or call 07956 932 357

Robert Knapp "Most hated Kid in School" report finds.

2005-01-18T09:55:00.000Z

The entire year six class, everyone from Ashley Amberson to James Zoellner, hates Robert Knapp, sources at Whitchurch County Primary School revealed Tuesday.

"The popular kids, the nerds, even the disgusting one with the snotty nose and the lisp—they all hate that little sh*t," Social Worker Lisa Harcourt told reporters Tuesday. "The consensus? Robert Knapp is a child dumbass."

Knapp, who runs really slow, is rubbish at football, and forgets his schoolwork at home practically every other day, has been despised for as long as anyone at the school can remember. Playground rumours are also that he has fleas.

"Last year, in Mrs. Swanson's class, Tim Ball was in the bathroom with Robert Knapp," student Paul Derrick said. "Well, Tim pushed Robert, and Robert’s hand went right into the toilet. But Robert didn't even take his hand out! He just kept it in there for, like, forever."

"He started crying, too," Derrick added.

Students forced to stand next to Knapp during school dinners will often leave a four-foot gap between themselves and Knapp in an effort to avoid association with the undesirable ten year old the report indicated. Similarly, no one wants to sit with Knapp on the bus, pick him for a playground football team, or collaborate with him in any class, for any reason, ever.
"I'm not going to share a xylaphone with Robert Knapp," Rebecca Sloyan said during music class Monday. "I'm not. I'll go to the nurse's office if [music teacher] Mrs. Cook tries to make me."
"At the Christmas Concert last year, I had to hold hands with Robert Knapp, so I pulled my sleeve all the way down, so I wouldn't have to touch him," said classmate Clare Evans, commiserating with Sloyan. "He didn't even sing. He just stood there breathing really heavy. And he had a cold sore on his lip that started bleeding, because he kept licking it. And he was wearing sandals, even though Mrs. Cook said 'no sandals.'"

Although Knapp is in year six, students in years four and five, who encounter him on the playground and during field trips also hate him.

"Remember the time Robert Knapp threw up when we went to Cirencester?" said Jen Welsby, of Mrs. Black’s class. "It was so gross. I hate him."
"I hate him, too," said classmate Kevin Clark, making a sour face.
"Me, too," added classmate James Drum.

Harcourt couldn't find one student who would admit to liking Knapp, who is also known as Robert Krapp, Robert Nappy, and Fleabag.
"Robert Knapp nose is always so full of snot that you can hardly understand what he's saying," Harcourt said. "He talks like this: 'Mmr mmr mmr. I'm Robert Knapp.'" .

Three are rubbish.

2005-01-14T16:08:00.000Z

7th January 2005

To whom it many concern,

I write to you in total exasperation, and to be honest, with little hope that you will resolve my complaint, send me a letter of apology, or indeed even give me a courtesy call.

3 Customer Services are, without a doubt, the most useless and incompetent helpline I have ever had the misfortune of contacting. The individuals who staff your helpline make promises that they have no intention of keeping, and they must think that the customers they deal with are complete idiots.

I cannot express in words my sheer level of annoyance and frustration at your company’s inability to resolve a simple situation. Needless to say, if I am writing to you, I am telling every one of my friends and work colleagues how utterly hopeless your company is. When I update all my contacts with my new work and business mobile number, I will also inform them how incompetent and inadequate your services are. Hopefully they will pass on this information to others who are considering taking up your services.

I am normally a very calm and rational man, but as you can tell from the tone of this letter, I have utterly lost my rag with your company, and I have no faith at all in your ability to provide any acceptable level of service.

I shall list the failures of your company in order. This could take some time…

My dissatisfaction began upon purchasing your phone – a Motorola A835 - and joining your network. The USB port on the phone would not work, so I could not connect the phone to my computer to make use of any of the mobile phone tools, preventing me from putting any music or images onto my phone. 3 Customer Services informed me that they would have to take the phone to be repaired, which would wipe all my phone numbers and text messages (which I could not back up, thanks to the fault). I decided I could not be bothered with this
Unfortunately, I was eventually forced to send the phone to be repaired on 18th August 2004 because the battery would no longer charge. Having bought the phone only 6 months previously, I assumed that it was a problem with the connection, not the actual battery or charger. So your people helpfully took the phone away, with the battery, wiped all my data from the phone, and sent it back to me. Without repairing it. It still would not charge.
Which is when I got in touch with your ‘Customer Services’, possibly the worst misnomer and oxymoron I have ever come across, as you will see. ‘It’s not your phone’, they said, ‘It’s your battery and charger’. ‘Then why did you take my phone?’ I asked. ‘To make sure it was your battery and charger’ came the reply. ‘Couldn’t you have taken my battery and charger?’ I responded. ‘No,’ came the reply, ‘We don’t deal with those.’ Hmm. ‘Well then, how are you going to fix the problem’, I asked. ‘Well, we’ll send you a replacement battery and charger.’ Only, they didn’t.
So two weeks later, I phone your polite, yet totally unhelpful staff. I hadn’t received my charger or battery, I informed them. Which meant I was still stuck with a mobile that had to be constantly plugged in to function, making it not very mobile at all. Oh, they said, it must have got lost in the post. Really, I replied, that’s strange, as I seem to be receiving all my other post. So they ‘promised’ to send another one straight away. At this point I didn’t know that the word ‘promise’ had entirely different connotations for your ‘helpline’ staff. And, unsurprisingly, it never arrived.
So two weeks after that, a phoned again. Still no charger or battery, I explained. Oh, we’re very sorry, they said. Which is funny, because they didn’t sound it. We PROMISE (and I could hear the capitals) to send it now. Indeed, they even called the depot to make sure it would be sent, whilst putting me on hold for 15 minutes. Great. At last, I would have a mobile mobile, I thought. But of course, I was mistaken. This was, after all, 3 that I was dealing with.
So two more weeks go by, before I call back, in exasperation, to inform them that I STILL don’t have my battery or charger. 1 failed attempt at a repair, and 3 failed attempts to send a simple item in the post meant I had not been mobile with my mobile for over 6 weeks. Oh, we’re sorry, honest, came the dull mantra, but we PROMISE to send it…’Stop,’ I interrupted, ‘I don’t want to play this game anymore. I don’t believe you are capable of a affixing a stamp to an envelope, let alone actually posting the battery/charger to me. I want this sorted now.’ I think I had been more than accommodating up to this point. They asked if I wouldn’t mind being put on hold for 2 minutes whilst they spoke to a supervisor. I assume the supervisor was on lunch or holiday, or something, because it took quarter of an hour for a solution to be found. And that solution was for ME to go out and buy a charger and battery. Yep, your customer service ethos is “Don’t bother doing anything – just make the customer do it themselves. But only after we’ve buggered them about for 2 months. It’s more fun that way” Hang on, I asked, who will pay for this. ‘Oh, we will,’ came the reply. ‘You promise?’ I asked. ‘Oh yes,’ came the reply, ‘we really do promise…’ Why didn’t I see this next bit coming?
So, I buy the battery and charger from a 3 shop, who tell me that 3 retail is separate from 3 customer service, so I’ll have to fork out £50 for a battery and charger. Hang on, I said, I’d better clear this with your muppets on your nohelpline. So I duly phone your comedians, who put me through to finance, who do indeed promise to credit my account with the £50. ‘Now you’re not messing me around are you?’ ‘No, of course not, sir, we wouldn’t do that. We promise.’ But of course, they were lying.
So, I get back home, only to find that the battery and charger don’t work. Of course not. Why would they? So I had them checked at another mobile shop, along with my old battery and charger, just in case…and imagine my surprise when they all worked. There had never been a fault with the battery and charger – it had been the connection on the phone all along. All along. So your repair staff hadn’t even bothered checking the problem for which the phone had been sent to them. Brilliant.
So I phone your useless staff on your useless helpline. ’Oh, we’re so very sorry.’ Don’t be sorry, I said, just sort out this god-damn phone. I don’t want it or your service anymore. ‘Sorry sir, but your contract means you’re stuck with our [useless, pathetic, incompetent] service for 12 months’. He actually sounded smug. ‘But what we can do is repair your phone for you’. ‘What,’ I exclaimed, ‘like last time?’ ‘Oh no sir, we’ll actually do it this time. We promisssss’. And yes, it did sound like the hiss of a fork-tongued snake. ‘And give me my £50!’ I added.
So again, you take away my phone to be wiped of all the useful information, before sending it back to me with exactly the same fault! ‘What are you playing at?’ I yell, ‘Can’t you do anything except wipe my phone?!’ The predictable reply came: ‘Oh, we’re sssoo sssoorry, sssirr, but we promissss to repair it thisss time.’ Lies, all lies! I don’t believe a word you say. You failed twice to repair the problem, failed to send a battery/charger three times, and left me without a working phone for almost two months, and you STILL want me to play this little game of yours? No god-damn way. You send me a new phone right now, dammit! Or words to that effect. And sort out my bill! You still haven’t credited my account with the £50!
So after much persuasion, you send me a nice little phone, which I can take outside and everything, which is just as well, as your network refuses to cover my house. Which is next to Canary Wharf. Which you might want to cover in your network, what with it being a business hub of London, and all. Except the next bill comes, and you still haven’t credited my account. Is it too much to ask, that after I go out of my way to buy the battery & charger and remedy the problem that is beyond the abilities of your company, that you actually give me the money I was promised? You’ve had two months to sort it, for crying out loud. How hard can it be to type in the numbers 5 and 0 and press the button ‘Add’. It’s not rocket science! ‘Oh, we’re soo sorry sir. We promissss to…’ Yeah, yeah, whatever. Put me through to the people who ACTUALLY deal with this, because I don’t think you even work for 3! So your accounts department apologizes profusely, and promises to sort it out. But of course, they don’t. Because November’s bill arrives, and it still doesn’t show my £50 credit.
So I phone up, and speak to useless muppet #17, and explain that I have cancelled my direct debit, because you have failed for the third month running to credit my account with the £50, and since you owe me more than I owe you, that shouldn’t be a problem should it? Now sort it out! And this is what I was told: ‘We’re sorry, but I assure you that we will sort it out this time. And we totally understand why you don’t want to pay the bill. We will sort this, and we’re sorry for messing you around so much.’ ‘Well,’ I say, ‘can you write that down now in your log that you’re saying it’s ok for me not to pay, because I’m not giving you any more money for a service you’re not providing. So you’re not going to disconnect my phone or anything, right?’ ‘Of course,’ came the reply, ‘we wouldn’t do that, because 3 is in the wrong. So I am now writing down what you have said, and that it’s acceptable for you not to pay this bill until we have credited the £50 onto your account… which I promise I will sort out personally…’ Oh, déjà vu. Only it wasn’t sorted. And he didn’t write down what I’d said. And how do I know this? Well, because…
YOU CUT ME OFF! I can’t believe that your company actually had the audacity to bar my phone! YOU owe ME money, and you bar my phone for non-payment of a bill you said I didn’t have to PAY! Are you utterly MAD?? I was livid!

So I phone your help-lie, and take part in another episode of the Muppet Show, (sponsored by 3). I tell them to reconnect me now, and it takes over half an hour to sort it out. More apologies. Although I didn’t believe them. More promises. And I didn’t believe them either, despite them coming from the most senior supervisor there. They said it was obviously 3’s fault, and that they would remedy the situation, and reconnect me immediately, but it would take 24 hours to go through the system. And they would phone me back personally with an update, we promissss. Oh, did I mention that most of your staff promised to phone me with the outcome of each complaint/problem I had? No? Well they did promise. And in line with your company policy on promises, none of them actually fulfilled them. No-one called me. All I got was texts telling me to pay my bill. So, unsurprisingly, this manager didn’t call.
And obviously, you didn’t reconnect me. One last go. I gave it one last go. But your tack had changed. ‘I know we promised you all these things, sir, but frankly, we’re a bunch of good for nothing liars, and unless you cough up the cash for November, we’re not reconnecting you.’ WHAT? WHAT THE F@*K? You want me to pay you money, despite the fact it is you who owe me money?? You’re having a goddamn laugh! ‘Oh no sir, you also owe us for December.’ What? You haven’t even sent me a bill for December, and you want the money for it? What kind of blood sucking company are you running here? Reconnect me, you incompetent fool, like you promised! And give me my £50 back like you promised to me 4 months ago, and then, and only then, will I pay the bill for the totally useless service that your company has allegedly provided. ‘No sir, we won’t reconnect you until you settle November and December…’ I hung up. No more will I take part in your muppet show.
I got home to find December’s bill on my doorstep. With no £50 credit. So that’s the fourth month in a row that you’ve failed to do a simple task. 4 months. Not to mention the months where you couldn’t even fix the phone or send a battery through the post. Or phone me to explain why you’re so incompetent. And then you disconnect me. Well, no more games. I don’t believe you will put the credit on January’s bill, and since I would be cancelling my contract with your useless company in February, there is no doubt in my mind that I would never see my money. Which I think was your plan all along.

So here’s what will happen now. I will not pay you a penny. You have breached the contract in so many ways, that I am duly entitled to repudiate the contract. You are also liable for those breaches, and your liability far exceeds and money I might owe you for phone calls, especially when you take into account the £50 you owe me.
And until you make a reasonable offer of settlement for your breach of the terms of our contract, I will be holding onto the nice new phone you sent me.

Oh, and I shall now go off to one of your competitors and give them my money instead. And I shall be forwarding this email to all my contacts, just in case they ever consider taking up a contract with your company.

No regards whatsoever,

Tom Brennan

KYOTO CARRY ON.........

2004-12-16T15:58:00.000Z

I really hate to broach this subject since it is off topic, but I do so in the vain hope that it will silence those who recite the global warning mantra:
(From the Denver Post)
Michael Malin, president of Malin Space Science Systems, talked about gullies that may have been sculpted recently by liquid water; evidence of ancient seas; and the discovery that the planet’s south polar cap of dry ice is losing weight.
“Mars is experiencing global warming,” Malin said. “And we don’t know why."
I guess those Martians elected a Republican government and drive SUV’s.

Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:48 AM (Link to this comment)
I don’t have now the time to answer to all of u but yes there are policemen in France, but it doesn’t change anything. Hussein submitted himself to the UN tests, but US government affected not to hear and see this, cause they already got their war plan, and they shown us false clues like picture of Cheney’s garden taken with a bad camera, who could look like a WMD storehouse (wel I’m joking but the picture of a truck an’t tell u what’s inside of it). Hans Blx and his guys visited all Iraq and didn’t find any WMD. But Bush was annoyed by this and steel affected not to hear what the reports said. If UN were created, it was to prevent war, and the nations had al to say ok if a war had to be done. So US had not to go to war without the aproval of UN. So you can say this war was illegal. Even if Hussein was a criminal and had to be overthrown. And even if he was a criminal, your country didn’t respect the Geneva’s convention when he as arrested. You were scandalised when an american prisoner was shown on TV, but didn’t care when it was an iraqi one, but the convention says you don’t have the right to show any picture of any prisoner in the media. If UN have no credibility, why did you create them so? And proove me then why you would be more credible than them.
I don’t mean to change the topic, but you said yourself how can you negociate with some conqueror with dreams of world domination? Is it the reason which make you follow your president blindly and don’t dare to tell him when he’s wrong.
I don’t know the one who said terrorists had middleclass roots. I think you’re wrong. Terrorist’s CHIEFS are middleclass or millionnaire, but the suicide bombers or plane hijacker are mostly underdogs. That’s because of their poverty that Al Qaida and co can recruit them, because they don’ have any hope in future because they’ve been starving for years and think it’ll go on and on with Karl Rov… er George Bush and co’s policies. As u do, they believe in the ones who have money. Of course Saudi Arabia is quite rich, and of course the money comes from here, and of course too, you don’t attack them because they got money and oil. But suicide bombers ain’t oilwell’s owners.

Posted by jetboy on 12/16 at 03:55 AM (Link to this comment)
And about Kyoto, of course the treaty isn’t perfect, but Bush’s argument are wrong. He says it’s not enough, but what is he doing? Does he show a real environment policy? No, he’s not doing anything, and he’s even doing more pollution than ever. Do you realise that if each people on earth lived like a middle american, we would need 23 earths to stock your pollution and wastes? And I’m not ommparing to other countries because most countries would need more than one earth. But others would need no more than about 10. It’s big, but it’s not 23.

Blunkett quits after banging a married lady and allegedly sorting her out with a quickie visa

2004-12-16T10:11:00.000Z

DAVID BLUNKETT resigned last night after an inquiry found his office was involved in "fast-tracking" his ex-lover Kimberly Quinn's nanny's application to stay in Britain.Whitehall mandarin Sir Alan Budd discovered there had been a fax and an e-mail through Mr Blunkett's office discussing the case and the Home Secretary told Prime Minister Tony Blair he would resign immediately.Mr Blunkett insisted he had no recollection of dealing with the case but added he would not hide behind civil servants and accepted full responsibility.He said a memo had been sent from his office which said "no favours, but slightly quicker".Mr Blunkett said he had "misunderstood" the relationship he had with Mrs Quinn.Referring to Mrs Quinn's young child, whom he believes is his, he said: "I misunderstood what we had. I misunderstood that someone could do this, not just to me, but to a little one as well."The anguish of the weeks I have just had, and they have been the worst of my life, and the disappointment and sometimes I think probably the depression of the months to come are absolutely nothing compared to the joy of, in the future, being able to grow and work alongside - along with my elder sons - that little lad."The Home Secretary's resignation was inevitable after Cabinet colleagues and Labour backbenchers made clear they were withdrawing their support.Colleagues said his bitter paternity battle with Mrs Quinn over her son had become an embarrassment to them and the government, no matter how strongly they might sympathise personally with the Home Secretary in his troubles. It was the granting of Indefinite Leave to Remain to nanny Leoncia Casalme which provided the trigger for Mr Blunkett's decision to quit.At first the Home Office insisted Mr Blunkett had done nothing more than check her application for factual errors. Then it emerged she had been told it might take a year - but 19 days later it was granted.Recollection
"The key issue has always been whether I used my public office for private benefit," he said in a statement. "Since these issues were first raised, I have always given my honest recollection of the facts, on the record as I remembered them."Mr Blunkett said he had been "overwhelmed" by the support of "the Prime Minister, my sons, my family, people who have never known me who have been in touch."I owe it to them that I am honest and open and that I get out of the situation I'm in and I rebuild," he said.The MP said he had come to a second "realisation" three months ago."If I was ever going to see my youngest son again, if I was ever going to hold him as I did as a baby in my arms, there were going to be consequences."I hadn't fully grasped the enormity of those consequences."But in time people will understand what I have been through, what I am prepared to go through, what I was prepared to sacrifice along with my three elder sons for that little boy."Asked if he could return to the Cabinet Mr Blunkett said: "It is entirely dependent on what I have done, how I have handled myself."I believe in making a difference to people's lives. And in the 30-odd years that I have been in formal politics I think I have contributed along with colleagues to changing the world."Tony Blair replied to Mr Blunkett's resignation saying: "You leave government with your integrity intact."

No opposition on the ID card debate

2004-12-15T08:56:00.000Z

INteresting newsnight debate last night. It seems that the Tories are going to support Blairs ID card idea because they don't want to be seen as soft on terror this close to the election. There were several unnamed sources who were either going to be missing in the vote on friday, or were going to 'vote holding their nose'. Howard has come out for the cards, and the party (for the moment) is going to stick with him.

Jack Straw, Mr Blunkett's predecessor as home secretary, first floated the idea of a "citizen's access card" shortly after Labour came to power in 1997. The idea was quietly shelved, until the home affairs select committee last year backed the idea of an "entitlement card" as a measure towards checking immigration flows - but also valid for library lending, NHS treatment and benefits claims.
Although that card was intended to voluntary, the home secretary accepted it would be hard to prevent an entitlement access card becoming mandatory. Additionally, there would be the cost of hi-tech security devices, such as machine-verifiable photographs, fingerprints or even iris recognition.
The card would also require the sharing of personal information data across Whitehall departments and local authorities, which, although the prime minister expressed his favour of it, again generated concerns from civil liberty groups. And, more importantly, it raised the possibility of expensive legal actions against the home office if the trillions of pieces of information held on individuals were incorrect, not updated or missing.
After the September 11 attacks, one of Mr Blunkett's first actions was to put forward the idea of an ID card again, despite warnings that organised terrorists were unlikely to deterred by the prospect of forging a piece of plastic.
Although the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation - essentially the unions of low-ranking officers - have expressed support for the scheme, more senior police have acknowledged the scope for greater social and racial conflict that the cards could spark. Mr Blunkett has in the past conceded that police would not be given the powers simply to stop people on the streets and demand to "see their papers".
Not that so-called "internal passports" are a merely a pet project of a Labour government. The former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Lilley favoured the idea in the 1980s, but the police told him the idea was unhelpful.
In the dog days of John Major's government, then home secretary Michael Howard, on the back of introducing photographic driving licences, proposed an "anti-crime" ID card, only to be shouted down in cabinet by libertarian colleagues.
And, of course, Mrs Thatcher wanted a football supporters' identity card at the height of the 1980s hooligan terrace culture.
Britain abandoned its war-time identity papers, which were used for receiving rations, 50 years ago, although having no form of state-authorised identity card beyond the simple national insurance number puts the UK out of step with 11 of the 15 EU states.
How Britain compares with other countries:
· France: Voluntary ID cards with photographs give access to health, education, voting rights, and are needed for bank and post office transactions, making the carrying of the French card near universal. The police are entitled to stop citizens and demand identification.·Germany: ID cards are compulsory, and citizens must remember a PIN number to accompany them in order to obtain local government services.
· Belgium: mandatory ID cards must be presented to the police if demanded, and detail the citizen's blood group, as well as giving acces to government services.
· Italy: a voluntary ID card that can be used as passport across the EU.
· Netherlands: similar to Italy.
· Portugal: compulsory ID cards with contain both photograph and fingerprints.
· Australia: no ID cards.
· New Zealand: no ID cards.
· USA: no ID cards, although the social security number is essential for most transactions, and much more closely guarded than its British equivalent. Photographic driving licences are so universal they act as virtual unofficial ID cards.
· Japan: No ID cards.

My problem is not only one of the nanny state issues, and how much the government know about me (I don't even like having store cards for supermarkets) it's the cost. No one seems to have really latched on to this much. The final bill is said to be £3 billion , but the final cost is likely (on past track record of Governemtn technological implementations) to be twice that. So thats £6 billion. That is before every government department, every hospital, every police station and every job centre installs the reader machines.

I don't know about you, but I reckon I can find better things to do with £6 billion to combat 'terror'.

Evolution

2004-12-14T10:00:00.000Z

The power of belief always astounds me. The majority of americans (in a recent poll) don't believe in evolution. Now I'm all for believing in a higher power, but to dismiss scientific fact because it doesn't fit in? Just to get all Bill Hicks for a moment - what about the Dinosaurs?

You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one
word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the
world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time,
you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by
a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a
shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took
the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"Dinosaur fossils? God put those
there to test our faith." Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think
God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "Uh huh." Does that
trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be...fuckin' with our heads? I
have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:
"Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA."

If we teach 'Intelligent design' because we argue that evolution is a theory, then I think that we should teach 'unintelligent design'. The theory that we were all created by when an alsatian living in an interstellar caravan.

Gets me angry................

Paratrooper wins blog awards....

2004-12-14T09:43:00.000Z

Unofficial results show that www.paratrooper.us has won the Blog awards. Congrats to him. Bourne out of the flames of Moorewatch, where a liberal can get a pretty tough ride for even suggesting the idea of universal healthcare, Para has made a forum where people can discuss things!!!! This is what bloggings all about. Please go over and check him out.

The Producers

2004-12-14T09:35:00.000Z

I managed to blag tickets to the Producers in the west end last night. My god. It's the best thing I have ever seen. And not just in theatre. I laughed from beginning to end, and there are several standout moments that are pure comedy gold. The springtime for Hitler number is the best musical set peice ever devised. Nathan Lane has it nailed. His comic timing is spot on, and even gags that would be groaners had me crying with laughter simply through his delivery. In what other show can you see a zimmerframe tap number?

In short, if you have to break in to your grannys house to do it, GET A TICKET!

http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/5087

Nativity Scene Vandalised!!!

2004-12-14T09:30:00.000Z

I've been waiting for someone to do this...

Beckhams' nativity scene closed after vandal attack
By Louise
Barnett
14 December 2004
Waxwork figures of Victoria and David Beckham
dressed as Mary and Joseph in Madame Tussauds in London were damaged in an
attack.
The figures were removed and the controversial nativity scene closed
off because of the vandalism, said a spokeswoman for Madame Tussauds last night.
"There was some damage caused to the figures of David and Victoria by a member
of the public earlier today."
A man in his twenties queued behind other
visitors before repeatedly punching the waxwork figures and escaping into the
street. The spokeswoman could not confirm the extent of the damage, or say how
it happened. The nativity scene also features Tony Blair, the Duke of Edinburgh
and President George Bush as the three wise men, and Kylie Minogue as an
angel.
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England earlier criticised
the scene. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said: "To have a very special part of
Christianity depicted in this way and its most precious symbol, which is the
coming of God into the world in Jesus Christ, seems to me to be not just
disrespectful to Christians, it is also disrespectful to the heritage of Britain
and does damage to the culture of this country."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=592934

This brings up all manner of issues... celebrity worship, disrespect for religious beliefs, whether this man was justified in damaging the waxworks. Personally I am just waiting for the cctv footage.

Doin' the rounds.........

2004-12-13T09:06:00.000Z

This has come via paratroopers blog, JimK of Moorewatch fame and several others including jessicarrot, so I might as well get off my arse and post it as well. Broadband problems sorted now so should be able to upkeep this site a bit better from now on......

A) First, recommend to me:
1. a movie. 2. a book. 3. a musical artist, song, or album.
B) Ask me three questions—no more, no less. Ask me anything you want.
C) Go to your blog (if you have one), copy and paste this, and allow everyone to ask you anything.

I think that its a great idea, and will be good to get everyone to go to everyone elses blogs. God knows I could do with the traffic..........

Do you like Michael Moore?

2004-10-29T09:00:00.000Z

Out of interest.
Looking into how Michael Moore has shaped attitudes. Has he changed anyones opinion of him or the presidential candidates. I am particularly interested in hearing from anyone who loved Moore in the past, but dislikes him now and vice versa.

Has Michael Moore changed your mind about who you want to become the next POTUS? Why?

Has Michael Moore changed your mind about him? Why?

Has Michael Moore strengthened your beleif in your candidate? Why?

Comments please!

QUESTION TIME FLORIDA!

2004-10-29T08:39:00.000Z

Excellent edition of QT last night - although the audience was a little more unruly than we're used to! My opinion - Richard Littlejohn was suprisingly good, although he did go to peices on the religion/stem cell question. Michael Moore was, well, Michael Moore - although he argued quite well. David Frum was probably the most composed, and looked the most professional - clever by bigging up Kerry, making the sleaze look like democratic sleaze, but did do the old trick of mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in association. Sidney Blumenthal I thought was rubbish. Didn't really challenge anything, and never answered questions straight. Lisa Rodrguez Tassef was suprisingly good, even though she brought EVERY issue round to the mechanicas of the election.

What did everyone else think?

I think that a lot of the questions were missed in electioneering.

Audience question: Who do you think Bin Laden would like to see become president?
I thought that this was a rubbish question becuase Bin Laden probably doesn't give a shit. Both administrations are going to deal with the war on terror.

Audience question: Should President Bush apologise for invading Iraq now that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found?
This question really annoyed me. the question wasn't should Bush apologise for going to war, which is the question most of the panel answered. Should Bush apologise for convincing the public that WMD's existed when they didn't. Blair (kinda) did.

Audience question: This election is expected to be extremely close. What assurances are there that the vote count will be accurate?
I think that Frum's point was one of the best ones I've heard either side say all election. The campaign should start out with mutual respect from both sides, and the debate should be civilised. I think the animosity between Republicans and Democrats is ultimately hurting democracy in America.

Audience question: In a country which allows us freedom of religion, should a president make decisions regarding such crucial topics as stem cell research, abortion, and marriage based on personal religious "faith"?
Really interesting question! Should have spent a whole hour on this one alone. Frum basically said that Bush consults scientists, but basically makes his decision based on his christian ethics. He went on to say that no one can cut that part out of themselves, but I think that my point is that they should. Decisions should be made objectively - and not based on faith. Faith by definition a lack of facts, and this is what religious arguments are based on. Ethics and faith should not be confused.

Audience question: How do you feel the 2004 presidential election could affect Prime Minister Tony Blair's public standing if the outcome was a democratic victory?
Yawn. He'll keep doing his thing. It may embarras him for about 5 minutes, but I think he'll carry on as before.

Comments please?!

MOORE OR MOORE-ON?

2004-10-29T08:37:00.000Z

In case you're not thouroughly bored with the argument about what exactly constitutes a 'lie' - here are two links that should help you come to your own conclusion about Farenheit 9/11. My verdict on Bush vs Moore - they're both cunts
.http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm - Anti Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ By Mikey himself (or you could just buy the book - out in time for Xmas!!)

WHY THE NEW YORKER DON'T LIKE DUBYA

2004-10-29T08:35:00.000Z

This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and asbitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in onedirection, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedlyindependent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray thechallenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both theVietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor. Thebitterness has been felt mostly by the challenger’s adherents; yet there hasbeen more than enough to go around. This is one campaign in which no one thinksof having the band strike up “Happy Days Are Here Again.”The heightenedemotions of the race that (with any luck) will end on November 2, 2004, arerooted in the events of three previous Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000,more than a hundred and five million Americans went to the polls and, by a smallbut indisputable plurality, voted to make Al Gore President of the UnitedStates. Because of the way the votes were distributed, however, the outcome inthe electoral college turned on the outcome in Florida. In that state, George W.Bush held a lead of some five hundred votes, one one-thousandth of Gore’snational margin; irregularities, and there were many, all had the effect oftaking votes away from Gore; and the state’s electoral machinery was in thehands of Bush’s brother, who was the governor, and one of Bush’s state campaignco-chairs, who was the Florida secretary of state.Bush sued to stop anyrecounting of the votes, and, on Tuesday, December 12th, the United StatesSupreme Court gave him what he wanted. Bush v. Gore was so shoddily reasoned andtransparently partisan that the five justices who endorsed the decision declinedto put their names on it, while the four dissenters did not bother to concealtheir disgust. There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, infederal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—bycutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery notonly of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism.A resultso inimical to both majority rule and individual civic equality was bound toinflict damage on the fabric of comity. But the damage would have been far lesssevere if the new President had made some effort to take account of the specialcircumstances of his election—in the composition of his Cabinet, in the way thathe pursued his policy goals, perhaps even in the goals themselves. He made nosuch effort. According to Bob Woodward in “Plan of Attack,” Vice-President DickCheney put it this way: “From the very day we walked in the building, a notionof sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, thatlasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. Wehad an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election—full speedahead.”The new President’s main order of business was to push throughCongress a program of tax reductions overwhelmingly skewed to favor the veryrich. The policies he pursued through executive action, such as weakeningenvironmental protection and cutting off funds for international family-planningefforts, were mostly unpopular outside what became known (in English, notArabic) as “the base,” which is to say the conservative movement and,especially, its evangelical component. The President’s enthusiastic embrace ofthat movement was such that, four months into the Administration, the defectionof a moderate senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, cost his party control of theSenate. And, four months after that, the President’s political fortunes appearedto be coasting into a gentle but inexorable decline. Then came the blackestTuesday of all.September 11, 2001, brought with it one positive gift: asurge of solidarity, global and national—solidarity with and solidarity withinthe United States. This extraordinary outpouring provided Bush with a secondopportunity to create something like a government of national unity. Again, hebrushed the opportunity aside, choosing to use the political capital handed tohim by Osama bin Laden to push through more elements of his unmandated domesticprogram. A year after 9/11, in the midterm elections, he increased his majorityin the House and recaptured control of the Senate by portraying selectedDemocrats as friends of terrorism. Is it any wonder that the anger felt by manyDemocrats is even greater than can be explained by the profound differences inoutlook between the two candidates and their parties?The Bush Administrationhas had success in carrying out its policies and implementing its intentions,aided by majorities—political and, apparently, ideological—in both Houses ofCongress. Substantively, however, its record has been one of failure, arrogance,and—strikingly for a team that prided itself on crispprofessionalism—incompetence.In January, 2001, just after Bush’sinauguration, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published its budgetoutlook for the coming decade. It showed a cumulative surplus of more than fivetrillion dollars. At the time, there was a lot of talk about what to do with theanticipated bounty, a discussion that now seems antique. Last year’s federaldeficit was three hundred and seventy-five billion dollars; this year’s will topfour hundred billion. According to the C.B.O., which came out with its latestprojection in September, the period from 2005 to 2014 will see a cumulativeshortfall of $2.3 trillion.Even this seven-trillion-dollar turnaroundunderestimates the looming fiscal disaster. In doing its calculations, theC.B.O. assumed that most of the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2011, as specifiedin the legislation that enacted them. However, nobody in Washington expects themto go away on schedule; they were designated as temporary only to make theirultimate results look less scary. If Congress extends the expiration deadlines—anear-certainty if Bush wins and the Republicans retain control of Congress—then,according to the C.B.O., the cumulative deficit between 2005 and 2014 willnearly double, to $4.5 trillion.What has the country received in return formortgaging its future? The President says that his tax cuts lifted the economybefore and after 9/11, thereby moderating the downturn that began with theNasdaq’s collapse in April, 2000. It’s true that even badly designed tax cutscan give the economy a momentary jolt. But this doesn’t make them wise policy.“Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans,” Bush saidduring his final debate with Senator John Kerry. This is false—a lie,actually—though at least it suggests some dim awareness that the reverse RobinHood approach to tax cuts is politically and morally repugnant. But for tax cutsto stimulate economic activity quickly and efficiently they should go to peoplewho will spend the extra money. Largely at the insistence of Democrats andmoderate Republicans, the Bush cuts gave middle-class families some relief inthe form of refunds, bigger child credits, and a smaller marriage penalty.Still, the rich do better, to put it mildly. Citizens for Tax Justice, aWashington research group whose findings have proved highly dependable, notesthat, this year, a typical person in the lowest fifth of the income distributionwill get a tax cut of ninety-one dollars, a typical person in the middle fifthwill pocket eight hundred and sixty-three dollars, and a typical person in thetop one per cent will collect a windfall of fifty-nine thousand two hundred andninety-two dollars.These disparities help explain the familiar charge thatBush will likely be the first chief executive since Hoover to preside over a netloss of American jobs. This Administration’s most unshakable commitment has beento shifting the burden of taxation away from the sort of income that rewardswealth and onto the sort that rewards work. The Institute on Taxation andEconomic Policy, another Washington research group, estimates that the averagefederal tax rate on income generated from corporate dividends and capital gainsis now about ten per cent. On wages and salaries it’s about twenty-three percent. The President promises, in a second term, to expand tax-free savingsaccounts, cut taxes further on dividends and capital gains, and permanentlyabolish the estate tax—all of which will widen the widening gap between therichest and the rest.Bush signalled his approach toward the environment afew weeks into his term, when he reneged on a campaign pledge to regulatecarbon-dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global warming. His record sincethen has been dictated, sometimes literally, by the industries affected. In2002, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding a key provision ofthe Clean Air Act known as “new source review,” which requires power-plantoperators to install modern pollution controls when upgrading older facilities.The change, it turned out, had been recommended by some of the nation’s largestpolluters, in e-mails to the Energy Task Force, which was chaired byVice-President Cheney. More recently, the Administration proposed new rules thatwould significantly weaken controls on mercury emissions from power plants. TheE.P.A.’s regulation drafters had copied, in some instances verbatim, memos sentto it by a law firm representing the utility industry.“I guess you’d say I’ma good steward of the land,” Bush mused dreamily during debate No. 2. Or maybeyou’d say nothing of the kind. The President has so far been unable to persuadethe Senate to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, butvast stretches of accessible wilderness have been opened up to development. Bystripping away restrictions on the use of federal lands, often throughlittle-advertised rule changes, the Administration has potentially opened upsixty million acres, an area larger than Indiana and Iowa combined, to logging,mining, and oil exploration.During the fevered period immediately afterSeptember 11th, the Administration rushed what it was pleased to call the U.S.A.Patriot Act through a compliant Congress. Some of the reaction to that law hasbeen excessive. Many of its provisions, such as allowing broaderinformation-sharing among investigative agencies, are sensible. About othersthere are legitimate concerns. Section 215 of the law, for example, permitsgovernment investigators to obtain—without a subpoena or a search warrant basedon probable cause—a court order entitling them to records from libraries,bookstores, doctors, universities, and Internet service providers, among otherpublic and private entities. Officials of the Department of Justice say thatthey have used Section 215 with restraint, and that they have not, so far,sought information from libraries or bookstores. Their avowals of good faithwould be more reassuring if their record were not otherwise sotroubling.Secrecy and arrogance have been the touchstones of the JusticeDepartment under Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft. Seven weeks afterthe 9/11 attacks, the Administration announced that its investigation hadresulted in nearly twelve hundred arrests. The arrests have continued, buteventually the Administration simply stopped saying how many people were and arebeing held. In any event, not one of the detainees has been convicted ofanything resembling a terrorist act. At least as reprehensible is the way thatforeign nationals living in the United States have been treated. Since September11th, some five thousand have been rounded up and more than five hundred havebeen deported, all for immigration infractions, after hearings that, in linewith a novel doctrine asserted by Ashcroft, were held in secret. Since it isofficial policy not to deport terrorism suspects, it is unclear what legitimateanti-terror purpose these secret hearings serve.President Bush oftencomplains about Democratic obstructionism, but the truth is that he has madeconsiderable progress, if that’s the right word, toward the goal of stocking thefederal courts with conservative ideologues. The Senate has confirmed twohundred and one of his judicial nominees, more than the per-term averages forPresidents Clinton, Reagan, and Bush senior. Senate Republicans blocked morethan sixty of Clinton’s nominees; Senate Democrats have blocked only ten ofBush’s. (Those ten, by the way, got exactly what they deserved. Some ofthem—such as Carolyn Kuhl, who devoted years of her career to trying to preservetax breaks for colleges that practice racial discrimination, and BrettKavanaugh, a thirty-eight-year-old with no judicial or courtroom experience whoco-wrote the Starr Report—rank among the worst judicial appointments everattempted.)Even so, to the extent that Bush and Ashcroft have been thwartedit has been due largely to our still vigorous federal judiciary, especially theSupreme Court. Like some of the Court’s worst decisions of the past four years(Bush v. Gore again comes to mind), most of its best—salvaging affirmativeaction, upholding civil liberties for terrorist suspects, striking down Texas’santi-sodomy law, banning executions of the mentally retarded—were reached byone- or two-vote majorities. (Roe v. Wade is two justices removed fromreversal.) All but one of the sitting justices are senior citizens, ranging inage from sixty-five to eighty-four, and the gap since the last appointment—tenyears—is the longest since 1821. Bush has said more than once that AntoninScalia and Clarence Thomas are his favorite justices. In a second Bush term, theCourt could be remade in their images.The record is similarly dismal inother areas of domestic policy. An executive order giving former Presidents thepower to keep their papers indefinitely sealed is one example among many of amania for secrecy that long antedates 9/11. The President’s hostility toscience, exemplified by his decision to place crippling limits on federalsupport of stem-cell research and by a systematic willingness to distort orsuppress scientific findings discomfiting to “the base,” is such that scores ofeminent scientists who are normally indifferent to politics have called for hisdefeat. The Administration’s energy policies, especially its resistance toincreasing fuel-efficiency requirements, are of a piece with its environmentalirresponsibility. Even the highly touted No Child Left Behind education program,enacted with the support of the liberal lion Edward Kennedy, is being allowed tofail, on account of grossly inadequate funding. Some of the money that has beenpumped into it has been leached from other education programs, dozens of whichare slated for cuts next year.Ordinarily, such a record would be whatlawyers call dispositive. But this election is anything but ordinary. Jobs,health care, education, and the rest may not count for much when weighed againstthe prospect of large-scale terrorist attack. The most important Presidentialresponsibility of the next four years, as of the past three, is the “war onterror”—more precisely, the struggle against a brand of Islamist fundamentalisttotalitarianism that uses particularly ruthless forms of terrorism as its mainweapon.Bush’s immediate reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, wasan almost palpable bewilderment and anxiety. Within a few days, to the universalrelief of his fellow-citizens, he seemed to find his focus. His decision to useAmerican military power to topple the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who hadturned their country into the principal base of operations for the perpetratorsof the attacks, earned the near-unanimous support of the American people and ofAmerica’s allies. Troops from Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Norway,and Spain are serving alongside Americans in Afghanistan to this day.Thedetermination of ordinary Afghans to vote in last month’s Presidential election,for which the votes are still being counted, is clearly a positive sign. Yet thejob in Afghanistan has been left undone, despite fervent promises at the outsetthat the chaos that was allowed to develop after the defeat of the Sovietoccupation in the nineteen-eighties would not be repeated. The Taliban hasregrouped in eastern and southern regions. Bin Laden’s organization continues toenjoy sanctuary and support from Afghans as well as Pakistanis on both sides oftheir common border. Warlords control much of Afghanistan outside the capital ofKabul, which is the extent of the territorial writ of the decent but beleagueredPresident Hamid Karzai. Opium production has increased fortyfold.The WhiteHouse’s real priorities were elsewhere from the start. According to the formercounter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, in a Situation Room crisis meeting onSeptember 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld suggested launching retaliatory strikesagainst Iraq. When Clarke and others pointed out to him that Al Qaeda—thepresumed culprit—was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq, Rumsfeld is said to haveremarked that there were better targets in Iraq. The bottom line, as Bush’sformer Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has said, was that the Bush-Cheney teamhad been planning to carry out regime change in Baghdad well before September11th—one way or another, come what may.At all three debates, President Bushdefended the Iraq war by saying that without it Saddam Hussein would still be inpower. This is probably true, and Saddam’s record of colossal cruelty--ofmurder, oppression, and regional aggression--was such that even those whodoubted the war’s wisdom acknowledged his fall as an occasion for satisfaction.But the removal of Saddam has not been the war’s only consequence; and, as wenow know, his power, however fearsome to the millions directly under its sway,was far less of a threat to the United States and the rest of the world than itpretended—and, more important, was made out—to be.As a variety of memoirsand journalistic accounts have made plain, Bush seldom entertains contraryopinion. He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside adviserswho dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives andworks within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has hissolipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments andwarnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central IntelligenceAgency, in the uniformed military services, and in the chanceries of sympatheticforeign governments had no more effect than the chants of millions of marchers.The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was made on the basis of fourassumptions: first, that Saddam’s regime was on the verge of acquiring nuclearexplosives and had already amassed stockpiles of chemical and biologicalweapons; second, that the regime had meaningful links with Al Qaeda and (as wasrepeatedly suggested by the Vice-President and others) might have had somethingto do with 9/11; third, that within Iraq the regime’s fall would be followed byprolonged celebration and rapid and peaceful democratization; and, fourth, thata similar democratic transformation would be precipitated elsewhere in theregion, accompanied by a new eagerness among Arab governments and publics tomake peace between Israel and a presumptive Palestinian state. The first two ofthese assumptions have been shown to be entirely baseless. As for the secondtwo, if the wishes behind them do someday come true, it may not be clear thatthe invasion of Iraq was a help rather than a hindrance.In Bush’s rhetoric,the Iraq war began on March 20, 2003, with precision bombings of governmentbuildings in Baghdad, and ended exactly three weeks later, with the iconicstatue pulldown. That military operation was indeed a success. But the cakewalkled over a cliff, to a succession of heedless and disastrous mistakes that leaveone wondering, at the very least, how the Pentagon’s civilian leadership remainsintact and the President’s sense of infallibility undisturbed. The failure,against the advice of such leaders as General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chiefof staff, to deploy an adequate protective force led to unchallenged looting ofgovernment buildings, hospitals, museums, and—most inexcusable of all—armsdepots. (“Stuff happens,” Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld explained, though nostuff happened to the oil ministry.) The Pentagon all but ignored the StateDepartment’s postwar plans, compiled by its Future of Iraq project, which warnednot only of looting but also of the potential for insurgencies and the folly ofrelying on exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi; the project’s head, Thomas Warrick, wassidelined. The White House counsel’s disparagement of the Geneva Conventions andof prohibitions on torture as “quaint” opened the way to systematic andspectacular abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American-run prisons--a moral andpolitical catastrophe for which, in a pattern characteristic of theAdministration’s management style, no one in a policymaking position has beenheld accountable. And, no matter how Bush may cleave to his arguments about agrand coalition (“What’s he say to Tony Blair?” “He forgot Poland!”), thecoalition he assembled was anything but grand, and it has been steadily meltingaway in Iraq’s cauldron of violence.By the end of the current fiscal year,the financial cost of this war will be two hundred billion dollars (the figureprojected by Lawrence Lindsey, who headed the President’s Council of EconomicAdvisers until, like numerous other bearers of unpalatable news, he wascashiered) and rising. And there are other, more serious costs that wereunforeseen by the dominant factions in the Administration (although there wereplenty of people who did foresee them). The United States has become mired in alow-intensity guerrilla war that has taken more lives since the mission wasdeclared to be accomplished than before. American military deaths have mountedto more than a thousand, a number that underplays the real level of suffering:among the eight thousand wounded are many who have been left seriously maimed.The toll of Iraqi dead and wounded is of an order of magnitude greater than theAmerican. Al Qaeda, previously an insignificant presence in Iraq, is animportant one now. Before this war, we had persuaded ourselves and the worldthat our military might was effectively infinite. Now it is overstretched, areality obvious to all. And, if the exposure of American weakness encourages ourenemies, surely the blame lies with those who created the reality, not withthose who, like Senator Kerry, acknowledge it as a necessary step towardchanging it.When the Administration’s geopolitical, national-interest, andanti-terrorism justifications for the Iraq war collapsed, it groped for anargument from altruism: postwar chaos, violence, unemployment, and brownoutsnotwithstanding, the war has purchased freedoms for the people of Iraq whichthey could not have had without Saddam’s fall. That is true. But a sad andironic consequence of this war is that its fumbling prosecution has underminedits only even arguably meritorious rationale—and, as a further consequence, thesalience of idealism in American foreign policy has been likewise undermined.Foreign-policy idealism has taken many forms—Wilson’s aborted world federalism,Carter’s human-rights jawboning, and Reagan’s flirtation with total nucleardisarmament, among others. The failed armed intervention in Somalia and thesuccessful ones in the Balkans are other examples. The neoconservative versionascendant in the Bush Administration, post-9/11, draws partly on these strains.There is surely idealistic purpose in envisioning a Middle East finally relievedof its autocracies and dictatorships. Yet this Administration’s adventure inIraq is so gravely flawed and its credibility so badly damaged that in thefuture, faced with yet another moral dilemma abroad, it can be expected toretreat, a victim of its own Iraq Syndrome.The damage visited upon America,and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s recklessmishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many votersthe desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry.But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W.Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care,the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreignpolicy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear,corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, anddemagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like tohave a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask whichcandidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.Throughout hislong career in public service, John Kerry has demonstrated steadiness andsturdiness of character. The physical courage he showed in combat in Vietnam wasmatched by moral courage when he raised his voice against the war, a choice thathas carried political costs from his first run for Congress, lost in 1972 to acampaign of character assassination from a local newspaper that could notforgive his antiwar stand, right through this year’s Swift Boat ads. As asenator, Kerry helped expose the mischief of the Bank of Commerce and CreditInternational, a money-laundering operation that favored terrorists and criminalcartels; when his investigation forced him to confront corruption amongfellow-Democrats, he rejected the cronyism of colleagues and brought down powerbrokers of his own party with the same dedication that he showed in going afterOliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. His leadership, with John McCain, ofthe bipartisan effort to put to rest the toxic debate over Vietnam-era P.O.W.sand M.I.A.s and to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Washington’s normalizationof relations with Hanoi, in the mid-nineties, was the signal accomplishment ofhis twenty years on Capitol Hill, and it is emblematic of his fairness of mindand independence of spirit. Kerry has made mistakes (most notably, in hindsightat least, his initial opposition to the Gulf War in 1990), but—in contrast tothe President, who touts his imperviousness to changing realities as a virtue—hehas learned from them.Kerry’s performance on the stump has been uneven, andhis public groping for a firm explanation of his position on Iraq wasdiscouraging to behold. He can be cautious to a fault, overeager to acknowledgeevery angle of an issue; and his reluctance to expose the Administration’sappalling record bluntly and relentlessly until very late in the race was amissed opportunity. But when his foes sought to destroy him rather than todebate him they found no scandals and no evidence of bad faith in his past. Inthe face of infuriating and scurrilous calumnies, he kept the sort of cool thatthe thin-skinned and painfully insecure incumbent cannot even feign during theunprogrammed give-and-take of an electoral debate. Kerry’s mettle has beentested under fire—the fire of real bullets and the political fire that willsurely not abate but, rather, intensify if he is elected—and he has shownhimself to be tough, resilient, and possessed of a properly Presidential dose ofdignified authority. While Bush has pandered relentlessly to the narrowest urgesof his base, Kerry has sought to appeal broadly to the American center. In atime of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatictemperament. In campaigning for America’s mainstream restoration, Kerry hasinsisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of ourmoment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century.That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice.As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the higheststandards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for hisvictory.

US FINISHES A 'STRONG SECOND' IN IRAQ WAR

2004-10-29T08:34:00.000Z

BAGHDAD—After 19 months of struggle in Iraq, U.S. military officials conceded a loss to Iraqi insurgents Monday, but said America can be proud of finishing "a very strong second.""We went out there, gave it our all, and fought a really good fight," said Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "America's got nothing to be ashamed of. We outperformed Great Britain, Poland, and a lot of the other top-notch nations, but Iraq just wouldn't stay down for the count. It may have come down to them simply wanting it more."American tanks and infantry surged out to an impressive early lead in March 2003, scoring major points by capturing Baghdad early in the faceoff. The stage seemed set for a second American victory in as many clashes with Iraq, with commentators and generals alike declaring the contest all but decided with the fall of Tikrit in April 2003."In spite of jumping out to an early lead and having the better-trained, better-equipped team, I'm afraid we still came up short in the end," Casey said. "Sometimes, the underdog just pulls one out on you. But there's no reason for the guys who were out in the field to feel any shame over this one. They played through pain and injury and never questioned the strategy, even when we started losing ground.""The troops were great out there," Casey continued. "It's not their fault the guys with the clipboards just couldn't put this one away."Casey said that, although the U.S. military did not win, it did set records for kills, yardage gained, palaces overrun, defensive stops, and military bases stolen."The Americans can be proud of the numbers," Casey said. "All things considered, there was some very impressive maneuvering out there. We kept the folks at home on the edge of their seats, that's for sure."PFC Brian Walters was part of a squad defending Fallujah for the past three months."We're looking at an opponent who just keeps coming at you until the echo of the whistle," Walters said. "I gotta hand it to them, they weren't gonna roll over. We were just out there playing not to lose."Former civil administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer said the U.S. troops performed admirably, adding that overconfidence may have been a factor."After that strong start, I really thought that we were going to take it home," Bremer said. "I'd say we can chalk this loss up to a combination of Iraq's home-field advantage and a poor second-half U.S. game plan."U.S. offensive captain John Baptiste of the 656th Infantry said that his fellow troops "were solid to the end," adding that he was disappointed in U.S. leaders' decision to call the game so early."The chief should never come out at halftime and call it 'Mission Accomplished,'" Baptiste said. "You never say that until the clock runs out. My guys did their best, but we've gotta remember that everyone plays to the final gun."