So a woman caught on camera being vile and abusive and racist has been charged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15933829
She may or may not be pissed, but she undoubtedly deserves to have the law come after her. I'd say what is more to the point is that she shouldn't be allowed to keep the toddler she is holding in her arms throughout the rant. You just know that child is going to grow up as a burden and a threat to society.
Just a thought though: what about the black woman that replies "if we don't come here, you guys don't want to work, we have to do the work for you (sic)"? She is absolutely delightful in comparison to the woman with the child, but isn't that response in itself racist? It isn't clear what she meant by "we" and "you", and perhaps she wasn't entirely certain herself, but she was definitely differentiating between different racial or cultural groups. You might argue that she was severely provoked, but do you think that she didn't believe, at least in part, what she said? And anyway, the law applies to act not thought.
I'm being a little glib. The black woman doesn't deserve to be punished; the white woman deserves to be... well, she deserves all the public humiliation that having 2 million people gawp at your stupidity on YouTube entails. But my point is that racism is pervasive and not the preserve of 'chav scum'. We all have a little of it in us. And the best way to combat it (as we should) is to acknowledge it every time we see it. Not pretend that some racism is OK.
Tuesday 29 November 2011
Monday 28 November 2011
Sheep Dip
Green. That's the colour of the new headphones I am going to design and manufacture. Red is so 2011. White? Don't even get me started. I had white headphones when Moby was still advertising the first iPod.
It really can't go wrong. Everyone is going to want a pair. Obviously the sound quality is irrelevant, but I may hire an ageing, overweight hip hop star to advertise them, just to make sure it's a slam dunk. The Corporate Board says we should go for Biggy Smalls.
It really can't go wrong. Everyone is going to want a pair. Obviously the sound quality is irrelevant, but I may hire an ageing, overweight hip hop star to advertise them, just to make sure it's a slam dunk. The Corporate Board says we should go for Biggy Smalls.
Friday 1 July 2011
Barrett Strong
Tax. Waste of money, right? Isn't that what we all think? Well actually I don't. However, I am aware that government is more than capable of pissing our hard earned cash down the drain. And so it was with the Edinburgh tram scheme. £375 million for a tram system to cover the city. Ridiculous, isn't it? How about £700 million for a network that is substantially smaller than was originally planned? That's what has happened, and Edinburgh residents are expected to grin and bear it. So that's an extra £325 million for a lesser service. Lets not quibble, and lets just say that it is an extra £325 million.
So assuming there are half a million tax payers in Edinburgh that is, on average, an extra £650 each, above an d beyond what they were originally paying. Imagine that. Imagine your council comes to you and says "you know that infrastructure that you've paid for, that you may or may not have had a use for? Well, we're going to take an extra £650 from you to pay for it." Half a million times.
My wife said something to me about this. She said "why isn't someone in prison for this?" Of course, the immediate answer is "incompetence isn't a criminal offence." Come to think of it, I don't think it's even a civil offence. But THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS! Someone should be in prison. And that statement applies equally to the Ministry Of Defence, HMRC (Vodafone), etc etc.
So assuming there are half a million tax payers in Edinburgh that is, on average, an extra £650 each, above an d beyond what they were originally paying. Imagine that. Imagine your council comes to you and says "you know that infrastructure that you've paid for, that you may or may not have had a use for? Well, we're going to take an extra £650 from you to pay for it." Half a million times.
My wife said something to me about this. She said "why isn't someone in prison for this?" Of course, the immediate answer is "incompetence isn't a criminal offence." Come to think of it, I don't think it's even a civil offence. But THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS! Someone should be in prison. And that statement applies equally to the Ministry Of Defence, HMRC (Vodafone), etc etc.
Friday 11 February 2011
Muse Sick-n-(my) Mess Age
Beyonce (with an acute accent) to headline at Glastonbury in 2011? Well, that seals it - I'll never attend again.
There was a bit of fuss a couple of years ago when B's hubby Jay-Z headlined, but I was fine with that. Glasto is (largely) about good and/or interesting music and Hova (as I believe he sometimes styles himself) ticks those boxes. The old reactionary Noel Gallagher whined about the lack of guitars, but he missed the point as usual.
But Beyonce is a different proposition. Karaoke. Cabaret, at best.
Actually, as I write this I realise that I am a little late to the party. Kylie headlined last year and what is different about her? Well, not a lot except that she appears to be a nice person whereas Beyonce is just, well... icy corporate product. But I guess there is (for the purposes of this argument) essentially no difference. Kylie... Beyonce... Glastonbury? No.
Glastonbury, by all accounts, used to be a beautiful thing, and it was still a pretty unique experience when I first went in the late 90's. But now? You might as well save yourself for Liz's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The journey home will be a lot easier, you won't be surrounded by wannabe hipsters or pissed undergraduates with nouveau riche daddies pretending to be poor, and you might get to see some genuine talent like Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't have the opportunity to see some of the really exciting new bands on the fringe stages, but admit it: you wouldn't have bothered anyway.
There was a bit of fuss a couple of years ago when B's hubby Jay-Z headlined, but I was fine with that. Glasto is (largely) about good and/or interesting music and Hova (as I believe he sometimes styles himself) ticks those boxes. The old reactionary Noel Gallagher whined about the lack of guitars, but he missed the point as usual.
But Beyonce is a different proposition. Karaoke. Cabaret, at best.
Actually, as I write this I realise that I am a little late to the party. Kylie headlined last year and what is different about her? Well, not a lot except that she appears to be a nice person whereas Beyonce is just, well... icy corporate product. But I guess there is (for the purposes of this argument) essentially no difference. Kylie... Beyonce... Glastonbury? No.
Glastonbury, by all accounts, used to be a beautiful thing, and it was still a pretty unique experience when I first went in the late 90's. But now? You might as well save yourself for Liz's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The journey home will be a lot easier, you won't be surrounded by wannabe hipsters or pissed undergraduates with nouveau riche daddies pretending to be poor, and you might get to see some genuine talent like Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't have the opportunity to see some of the really exciting new bands on the fringe stages, but admit it: you wouldn't have bothered anyway.
Wednesday 2 February 2011
BNP
Tricky things names. I bet the founders of Banque National de Paris never contemplated that their company acronym might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. And I bet the founders of Electricite de France never contemplated that their company might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. C'est la vie.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
Monday 10 January 2011
Musicola
The BBC has announced that it's "Sound of 2011" is a young lady called Jessie J. The fact that J's career is owned by Universal, the largest record company in the world, rings alarm bells. I am not suggesting that the BBC is in Universal's pocket, but they simply would not have noticed J if she had been on a true independent label. Having said that, she sounds mildly interesting in a Ms Dynamite kind of way and I predict her career will follow a similar trajectory - mild critical acclaim, a couple of hits, universally ignored second album, followed by occasional reality TV appearances.
But there is something quite depressing about this award. We are asked to view singers like J (and Dynamite, Lily Allen, Rumer, etc etc etc) as true artists striking a blow for female empowerment. But scratch the surface and you inevitably find some middle-aged male musician billed as a "co-writer"/mentor. This isn't an exclusively female phenomena - the same applied to Robbie Williams/Guy Chambers - but the record industry has clearly seen it is onto a good thing with young female "singer-songwriters".
The real shame is that there must be great female artists out there who ARE in charge of their music in the same way as forerunners such as Bic Runga, Tori Amos, Kate Bush & Carly Simon. It would be wonderful to hear that the BBC's "Sound of 2012" is a young woman otherwise unheralded by the industry, and who is producing her own music from scratch. Sadly the reality is that the next 'next big thing' will be another record company mannequin. So much for 'Girl Power'.
But there is something quite depressing about this award. We are asked to view singers like J (and Dynamite, Lily Allen, Rumer, etc etc etc) as true artists striking a blow for female empowerment. But scratch the surface and you inevitably find some middle-aged male musician billed as a "co-writer"/mentor. This isn't an exclusively female phenomena - the same applied to Robbie Williams/Guy Chambers - but the record industry has clearly seen it is onto a good thing with young female "singer-songwriters".
The real shame is that there must be great female artists out there who ARE in charge of their music in the same way as forerunners such as Bic Runga, Tori Amos, Kate Bush & Carly Simon. It would be wonderful to hear that the BBC's "Sound of 2012" is a young woman otherwise unheralded by the industry, and who is producing her own music from scratch. Sadly the reality is that the next 'next big thing' will be another record company mannequin. So much for 'Girl Power'.
Tuesday 4 January 2011
The Choice Is Yours
A jolly little piece on the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931 proves a great advert for Islam. Of course, like any supernatural belief system, Islam is almost certainly wrong in its fundamental tenets - God, life after death, a timeless and universal moral code and so on. Well, OK, let's not split hairs - it is wrong.
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)