Thursday, June 15, 2006
  A meeting of the mindless
It's the ultimate crossbreeding from hell, as Simon Heffer reviews Melanie Phillip's new book. Or at least coloured it all in. Simon concedes that many of her opponents regard her as a "crackpot" but praises her "relentless logic". Like Melanie herself, he seems to regard her as a revolutionary who is restricted from media access but holds the truth while all those around her wallow in ignorance. Mind you, that's what Bin Laden seems to think too.
 
  Pick of the month: GASH
Uh oh, do I smell competition?

Well, I finally got around to finishing Melanie Phillips’ ‘Londonistan’ .. and if you thought that Satanic Verses was a tiresome drudge, then you aint seen nothing till you’ve finished this marathon trudge through a huge vat of very sticky treacle.

It isn’t often that you can sum a book up in two words, but with this one it is stunningly simple:

ISLAMOPHOBIC DRIVEL

Melanie Philips’ entire premise is that there are three key features by which Islam poses a serious threat to the fabric of the United Kingdom:

  1. Murderous incitement.


  2. Flagrant defiance of both the rule of law and free speech.
  3. Religious fanaticism.
… which is fatally flawed by the fact that none of these are a feature of mainstream Islam .. and of course the fact that they just happen also to be the ‘values’ of the Alliance of the Willing that she is so desperate to defend.
  • For murderous incitement: See the words and actions of Bush and Blair
  • For flagrant defiance of the rule of law: See the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the way our domestic governments have cast aside the fundamental laws of humanity and institutions like the United Nations
  • For flagrant defiance of free speech: See the persecution of anyone who dares to speak out against the murderous incitement or the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, see the persecution of people like Brian Haw, see the protracted imprisonment of people without trial, see international abductions and torture and see the paranoid obsession with which Tony Blair has seized ever possible opportunity to restrict our civil liberties and the Bush government engages in illegal spying on US citizens
  • For religious fanaticism: Look no further than Bush and Blair, who driven by their born-again religious beliefs and ‘Christian’ principles decided to willfully lie in order to get us to war .. a fraud so great that even the Catholic Church – the masters of twisted morals – had to condemn as immoral

For sure we have SOME Muslim extremists in this country – just as we have extremist British nationalists, white supremacists, Jewish supremacists, Zionists, Christian fundamentalists and militant Irish nationalists .. just as the United States has all its own versions of those same extremists (one of the London bombers was an American citizen).

Look no further than the United States, where white supremacists have been responsible for terrorist atrocities that are far worse than ANYTHING we have ever seen (or are likely to ever see) in this country.

Melanie Phillips claims that ‘Londonistan’ stands as a warning to both Britain AND the United States (not just Britain, as right-wing American commentators who haven't even read the book would have you believe), but where does she ever suggest tackling the evils of white supremacists or Baptist fundamentalist extremists? The simple truth is that she doesn’t; because she only has her one bogeyman: Muslims … ALL MUSLIMS.

Britain has always thrived on providing a safe haven for the dispossessed and the rejected of all national, political and religious persuasions, so whilst it is an absolute given that we must do whatever we reasonably can to curtail the activities of the militant extremists, what we must absolutely not do is follow Melanie Phillips’ racist assumption that all Muslims (the vast majority of whom are British to the core) are guilty until proven innocent .. for it is when we do that that Britain looses the essential welcoming and inclusive core of what Britain, Britshness and especially London is about.

Like it or not, indigenous people are as much of a minority in the United Kingdom as they are in the United States. Britain has always been built on immigration and always will be: The Celtic peoples, the Jutes, the Saxons, the Romans, the Vikings, the Norman French, the Germans, the Russians, the Poles, the Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Afro-Caribbeans, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Turks, the North Africans, the Africans, the Jews, the white, the pink, the yellow, the tan, the brown and the black .. in fact I defy any British reader of this to prove to me that they are even fifth generation thoroughbred British, back to the time of Victoria coming to the throne. Hell, the most British-of-British – the Royal family itself - can’t even do two generations and have a family tree where British blood is about as rare as the sperm of the giant panda.

One of the things I admire most about the acceptance in Britain is that people don’t ask you what your religion is (or even what your moral stance is on issues like abortion and contraception). What does anyone need to know that for? Even at the height of the troubles in Ireland, the Irish weren’t asked where their sympathies were. At most they may ask you your politics (which is far more telling than whatever faith’s mast you pin your limp opportunistic colours to).

Follow Melanie Phillips’ logic and where do we draw the line? Do we regard anyone with a white skin as indigenous? How about her North American political opponents who have been condemned as Communists in their own country .. the ones who unfailingly become some of the most generous and productive members of our society when we welcome them here? Are the Spanish OK? If the Spanish are OK, then which South Americans do we say yes to? Which shade of tan or brown do we draw the line at? … and once we start, how do you control the beast of racism? What happens when it gets to the Jews? Will Melanie Phillips then not be the first to stand up to decry the evil that is afoot when that judgment doesn’t (as it surely wont) go the way of her plans?

It is all a folly. The single greatest sectors of illegal immigrants in Britain aren’t black or Mexican or Muslim .. they are white Anglo-Saxon Anglophone Christians from the southern hemisphere. When do you ever hear her, and her like, suggest that we take action against them? You don’t, because they are white and they are Christian and they LOOK like they conform.

Like it or not, Melanie Phillips’ whole sad little cornucopia of racist drivel boils down to two things:

  • She is an isolationist Zionist who puts the interests of Israel and Zionism before all else and will stop at nothing to defame those who she perceives as the enemies of Israel and Zionism.
  • She is a racist and whilst she will defend the right of the Jewish community to isolate itself and stick faithfully to its own farcical little traditions; she will insist that any non-Jewish minority group has to integrate totally into society and become a predictable force for her and her racist kin .. or face the wrath of her poisoned pen.

Follow Melanie Phillips and Britain will end up as the 51st state and will be afflicted by all the paranoid and uneducated phobic insularity that today afflicts the United States of America. Is that what any of us can honestly say that we want of Britain?

Of course all of this is pretty needless. Need you look further than the fact that Melanie Phillips works for the Daily Mail - the most racist newspaper in Great Britain and for thirty years (even through the second world war) the heart and soul of nationalism, fascism and the anti-Semitism in Britain – to understand the perversion that drives her?

Did having revolutionary thinkers, like Karl Marx, living here ever do us any harm?

Did having actual revolutionaries, like John Adams, living here (who by the measures of today's Bush government would be a terrorist) ever do us any harm?

Did giving a home to all those supposedly terribly evil and subversive American "communists" ever do us any harm?

The key is surely respecting the fundamental values of British society, which the vast majority of Muslims unquestionably do .. to a point where their hardworking desire for British ‘respectability’ is almost so painful and embarrassing to watch that the phrase ‘too British to be British’ springs to mind. It is a shame that we can’t say the same for people like Melanie Phillips and Carol Gould.

The other major flaw with the book is that Melanie Phillips argues that the 7/7 attacks on London were the culmination of a sinister Islamist conspiracy to infiltrate Britain and bring our entire civilisation to its knees .. but even the government’s own official inquiry - which had a vested interest in agreeing with that – could only conclude that, in fact, they were the work of four ordinary guys with no al-Qaeda mastermind and no hint of any links to al-Qaeda at all.

What makes it all so very sad is that it is only through dreaming up these non-existent global Islamist conspiracies that creatures like Melanie Phillips can square her own racist consience .. and doubly sad by the fact that if anyone anywhere mentions anything about any Zionist, then she is always the first to start bawling "Global Zionist conspiracy libel!"

At the end of the day, once you have taken away Blair and his kitchen cabinet, there is only one major fault with London and Britain that you wont find anywhere else – and that fault is that it doesn’t pay homage to the warped mindsets of Tel-Aviv, Shitsville Tennessee and the banal paranoia of McCarthyism. Is that really such a bad thing?

Do we really care about the judgment of pathetic domestic fascists, Zionists and paranoid American nationalists? We certainly shouldn't.

Melanie Phillips claims ‘Londonistan’ is “an attack on those who equate prejudice against minorities with an attack upon a society” (which I guess it is) .. and that she "is therefore exposing a moral and cultural confusion". All she exposes is her own racism, justification of supremacist attitudes and rank hypocrisy, because woes betide anyone who dares to attack ANY member of HER minority (even when they are doing a fair imitation of a NAZI concentration camp guard), let alone the minority as a whole.

If you are a fan of skillfully crafted propaganda that is short on fact and high in misinformation - so high that it is rank - then you will love this book ... which is why Smellanie is exclusively for dummies.

 
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
  Unexpected Hero: Jean Sara Rohe
21-year old college student Jean Sara Rohe destroys pro-war politician, John McCain:

"When I was selected as a student speaker for the New School commencement about two months ago I had no idea that I'd end up on CNN and in Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times, among other places, when it was all over. One day after the big event I'm still reeling from all the media attention and emails from professors, students, and other supporters from all over the country, so forgive me if my writing is a little scattered.

In my speech yesterday I had hoped to talk about social responsibility in a time of war, but in much more oblique terms. I wanted to speak about communication, and how I have found that one of my strongest and most enjoyable methods of communication is music. I wanted to talk about the New York City public school preschoolers with whom I work each week and how they've been empowered through music, how they've been able to learn linguistic and social skills by singing together. I wanted to talk about my grandfather, who, despite the fact that he has Alzheimer's disease and cannot remember even my name, still knows all the songs he sang in his youth. I wanted to fearltalk about music as a powerful tool for peace. I wanted to encourage everyone to identify his or her talents and to always use them for the greater good.

Unfortunately, a certain not-so-dynamic duo of "centrist" politicians foiled my standard graduation speech and forced me to act. Until just the day before commencement I really hadn't understood the gravity of the situation. I suppose I should tell the story."

...continue reading at the Huffington Post



Just when I began to marvel at the prominent political activism amongst the high school youths who took to the streets with their American flags to protest the new immigration bill a few months back, Jean Rohe came along and blew everything out of the water. It was flawlessness generated by shock and awe capable only by what is righteous and in a rare opportunity to present itself. But more than just a courageous attempt to pre-emptively rebuttal McCain's speech, she immensely polarised with McCain's ideals of the type of world that we all strongly desire to live in. She exuberates a certain confidence in the type of values that she and her fellow countrymen, and indeed the rest of the world, should embrace. And all this coming from a 21-year old young lady.. Shame on the middle-aged man who is paid to care for such issues.

"Finally, Senator Mc Cain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, "have nothing to fear from each other." I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet. Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace. We have nothing to fear from people who are different from us, from people who live in other countries, even from the people who run our government--and this we should have learned from our educations here. We can speak truth to power, we can allow our humanity always to come before our nationality, we can refuse to let fear invade our lives and to goad us on to destroy the lives of others. These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part. I speak today, even through my nervousness, out of a need to honor those voices that came before me, and I hope that we graduates can all strive to do the same."


See also Mark Salter (Senator John McCain's staff member) get his panties in a bunch and throw a hissy fit at Rohe:

"Should you grow up and ever get down to the hard business of making a living and finding a purpose for your lives beyond self-indulgence some of you might then know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of living in an echo chamber. And if you are that fortunate, you might look back on the day of your graduation and your discourtesy to a good and honest man with a little shame and the certain knowledge that it very unlikely any of you will ever posses the one small fraction of the character of John McCain."


If all the world were peaceful now and forever more,
Peaceful at the surface and peaceful at the core,
All the joy within my heart would be so free to soar,
And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.
Don't know where we're going but I know we're going far.
We can change the universe by being who we are,
And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.


Related:
- DemocracyNow.org

 
Monday, June 12, 2006
  Simon says: Talk out of your arse
Apparently, if there is one key difference between the feeble-minded pair Heffer and Phillips it is their views on how desirable it would be to travel back to Medieval times. As we have seen on countless ocassions, Phillips repeatedly cries in a hysterical tone that she can't bear to see them again, believing, as she does, that a gigantic underground Islamic army is about to rise up at any second and drag us back there, destroying Western values and enslaving us all. Meanwhile, Heffer's comments in The Telegraph this week apparently give an indication of just how far back he wants Britain to be dragged before we can recover "the good old days" that wild eyed conservative types are prone to babbling on about when confronted with hoodies and skateboards. Not to bore us too much, he has generously given his reasoning for dragging the country down the drain a topical slant, setting it against the killing of Islamist mass murderer Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

In his wise judgement, the death of Al-Zarqawi was carried out in "wonderfully medieval fashion" [one has images of coalition forces entering his hideout on horseback, dodging vats of boiling [olive] oil, breaking in with the aid of a battering ram and then skewering him with their crossbows. Or maybe Simon, like the Taliban, enjoys the prospect of enforcing the Dark Ages with modern technology].

Actually, before the flogging commences, an interlude. Al Zarqawi, whose death was about as tragic as a fart escaping from a fat man's ass, is joining a long list of people like Uday and Qusay, whose deaths are not just appreciated in the sense that the world is a minute amount safer [how much influence did Al Zarqawi have at this point?], but are celebrated and rejoiced over by men who are borderline extremists themselves. When Bush tells the world that a man responsible for the death of "thousands of innocent Iraqis" is dead, one of many responses is "yes, from the neck upwards, but he is still allowed to direct the most powerful military force in the history of the world in his own crazed fashion". Al Zarqawi's elimination will be a tactical blow to terrorists with their black hearts set on murder, but scum like Bush and Blair are in no position to lead the parade of joy which, for the Iraqi people and the soldiers forced out onto the front line is merely a brief respite.

Simon wants to join in the chorus too, but he wants to add his own defiant and rather irrelevant view, best summarised as: "capital punishment - I told you so". Here he blusters:

"...there is one important difference between Mr Blair and me. I have always believed in the death penalty for vicious murderers, though preferably after a fair trial: Mr Blair, so far as I am aware, has not. Why is he so happy to make an exception in the case of al-Zarqawi?"

Perhaps the fact that his death was a tactical gain in a warzone where trials genearlly don't apply when instant justice is more convenient. One question could be, what does Simon want to see for those who carried out the Haditha massacre? I think those medieval double standards would make a fool out of him. Blair was happy that an airstike did away with Al-Zarqawi, but one gets the feeling that this would not be enough for Simon, who would have subjected the neutralised captive to all kinds of sadism just to air some of his most outlandish torture fetishes. In his own words:

"Once, we put traitors' heads on stakes on top of Westminster Hall: now they are photographed and set in gilt frames. "

I hope he doesn't get too upset by all the litter on London's streets. Not sure what "traitors" have to do with anything, but then we saw last week that Simon seems to see North Korea as a good model for modern Britain. Has Simon stopped to think that decapitating people and toying with their severed heads is rather reminiscent of the man he is labelling a "psychopath"? Simon's desire to see the death penalty restored tells you all you need to know about his medieval impulses and his petty desire for revenge and payback. The death penalty has never discouraged crime, no matter how petty. People are still killed by states in South East Asia for drug trafficking, while murder rates in the US remain what Al-Zarqawi might have called "healthy".

He also extends the comparison to the Stockwell shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a disgusting incident where the problem ran far deeper than shooting first and asking questions later, but one where any idiot could see the principle at work: if a man had a bomb and was about to detonate it, taking him out would be the only option. This does not compare with slaughtering unarmed captives for the apparent good of the state.

Oh, and should anybody doubt Simon's very medieval siege menatality, don't miss his cutting edge [it is the 1940s isn't it?] piece entitled "Don't let's be (too) beastly to the Germans". Heffer, who is paid to write this stuff, moans that Jeremy Clarkson - who, in a paroxysm of wit, executed a Nazi salute safe within the confines of England, where it is legal [and indeed obligatory if you are in the BNP] - managed to some offence. A nostalgic Simon says:

"...for men of his and my generation it is a way of humorously expressing tribal feelings about a people who were, in living memory, behaving rather badly."

Simon likes to kid himself, and the rest of his thuggish tribe, that the whole of Germany was in on the act in WWII because then he can carry his bigotry into the twenty first century without stopping to consider that there are barely a handful of surviving Nazi collaborators alive in Germany today. One could throw the excesses of the brutal British Empire and the bombing of Dresden back at him to show that English people can also misbehave. Unfortunately, he approved of these things and it would be as much use as telling Bernard Manning that from time to time his pea-brained jokes offend people. Presumably the people incinerated in Dresden had had their trial before Allied capital punishment was meted out.

To be jaunty, he finishes with this:

"Apparently, a vehicle is also driving around Hamburg playing the Dam Busters March through loudspeakers. I do hope Fritz will be a sport, and hum along."

How can any sane person possibly comment? Except to say that you are about as likely to find a Fritz in Germany these days as you are a Viscount Rufus-Tarquin Huffington-Fothersbury XII in England. If Simon wants to bring British wartime history to life he could do worse than start by asking the mentally-restricted men driving around Hamburg exactly how much they know about WWII. Simon doesn't care about history - certainly not the accurate warts-and-all accounts that we learn most from - he just wants to drag us back there. Whether it is the 1940s or the Dark Ages, Simon is on the quest for enemies to conquer and traitors to hang. His stupidity and xenophobia have achieved only one thing: to draw a rant out of me. Note to our imaginary readers - comments responding to the title of my piece that state: "do you always do what Simon tells you to do?" will not be well received...

 
Saturday, June 10, 2006
  Ever seen an asshole talk?


- via Pink Dome

See also Jon Stewart going head to head with Bill Bennet's anti-gay marriage views.

"Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness." - J. Stewart

 
Friday, June 09, 2006
  Conservative Books for Dummies: Becoming a Conservative Author in Eight Easy Steps
I thought something was amiss a few days ago, when the calender struck 06-06-06. This summer week in England seems to be the warmest yet, and the peak temperature has been climbing steadily everyday. As if building up for the arrival of something big.. Almost apocolyptical. Oh yes of course, Ann Coulter's new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. When I first read Bennet Kelley's article title [same as this post's], I immediately thought of Satan's spawn bitch, Coulter. Coincidentally, she was not far from Kelley's mind when he wrote it.




From the Huffinton Post:

You too can become a best-selling author of conservative books in eight easy steps -- really. This is made possible by conservative publishers applying the lessons of Henry Ford's assembly-line production to the publishing industry by following a proven formula to churn out book after book, each guaranteed early best-seller status through bulk sales to conservative groups.

For example, Ann Coulter's newly released Godless: The Church of Liberalism is her fourth book in five years. Your path to replicating her success is only eight steps away.

Rule 1: Liberal, Liberal, Liberal

Use the word liberal like it is the foulest word in the English language, but still use it a lot.

Rule 2: Apocalypse Now

Your target for vilification, whether it be the Clintons, feminists or some other lucky group, must lead to the immediate ruin of our democratic system, Judeo-Christian values and/or Western Civilization and you are leading the charge to, in the words of Michael Savage, "beat back the tentacles of today's ever-expanding liberalism, which even now threatens to corrupt and ultimately destroy America's most cherished institutions."

Rule 3: The Oppressed Conservatives

The corollary to the second rule is that you and your conservative brethren are the oppressed underdogs even if they control all branches of government and the media. For example, Ms. Coulter complains that liberalism has become the nation's "official state religion [while] Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law." This would be news to the Democrats who still cower at the thought of being branded with the "L" word, but Ms. Coulter recognizes that the perception that this might or could someday be true is certain to sell books.

Rule 4: Reagan = Good, Clinton = Bad

Always remember that anything good happened because of Reagan and anything bad happened because of the Clintons -- no exceptions. For example, Reagan brought us "Morning in America" but is never responsible for the huge deficits of the 1980s that lead to the 1987 stock market crash (which either were immaculately conceived or the result of the big-spending Democratic Congress). At the same time, Clinton is as a "tax-and-spend liberal" for eliminating the deficits he inherited from Reagan and the elder Bush, but the economic boom that followed was solely the result of Reagan's policies and a Republican Congress.

Rule 5: Happy Days Are Here Again

Your vision of America must be something close to a cross between Little House on the Prairie and Happy Days, where white men were in charge, women stayed at home and what was good for GM was good for America -- that is until the liberals ruined it all. Nobody excels at conservative nostalgia like Ms. Coulter, who wants to repeal every law since the Emancipation Proclamation (including women's suffrage) and concedes she longs for the Cold War days when "at least our enemies were white."

Rule 6: Conservative Calumniations

To make your case you can cite one example of something that might have happened in Walla Walla, Washington as a sign of a national movement (e.g., John Gibson's "war on Christmas") or you can just make stuff up (it saves on footnotes). For example, Spinsanity described Ms. Coulter's Slander as "riddled with factual errors, egregious misrepresentations and a constant stream of broad, inflammatory claims about liberals." Why do research, when you can appear on the O'Reilly Factor instead?

Rule 7: Be Very Nasty

Your book must deliver the joy of hate to your readers, which is why liberals are not just wrong, they are, in the words of Ms. Coulter, Mona Charen, Mike Gallagher and Michelle Malkin, "traitors," the "spawn of Satan," "unhinged" and "useful idiots" who are trying to destroy "every value and standard, principle and ideal, concept of God, family, honor, duty, country and decency that we hold dear." There is one caveat to this rule -- you should be careful not to go after widows, orphans, cripples or people like Mother Theresa as you should save them for your next book instead.

Rule 8: The Importance of Good (Contra-)Diction

To be anointed as the next hot conservative author, you must be ready to spout pithy poison darts and gloss over the obvious inconsistencies in your message in all media appearances. For example, you must be able to claim that conservatives are for a strict interpretation of the Constitution according to the Framer's intent except when it means upholding separation of church and state, limiting the authority of President Bush or selecting a president. Don't sweat this rule too much since you always have Rule 7 to fall back on if you get in trouble.
By simply following these eight rules, you can become a best-selling author and member of the new conservative elite overnight. So skip the research and start typing and soon you will join Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and others in toasting to the true hero of today's media conservatives -- Dr. Faustus.

- See also John Kerry's response to one of Ann Coulter's comments.

Update: Here are some passages from Coulter's latest anti-Bible, on 9/11 widows:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." [p.103]

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." [p.103]

"[T]hey believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process." [p.103]

- From Media Matters

Check out the gossip on Technorati:
 
  Big Brother: Spasticated Entertainment
EVERYTIME I'm asked if I've been following the original series of UK's Big Brother, I have to admit guilt and hang my head in shame. I could throw up any number of excuses, such as I live with four girls now since my other male housemate left. But thank goodness it's only a few more months until our housemating obligations run out. I've often theorised to my male ex-housemate that if one of us should leave on holiday for too long, the remaining one in the house would be feminised eventually. And the returning male would return only to find his feminised housemate greeting him with feminised hand gestures, asking if he knows who's been sleeping with who on Desperate Housewives, and full of appraisal over his hair.

Alas, Big Brother is inevitable to every person literate in the English language. If you want to watch something a bit more wholesome, it is inevitable that at least one of your harcore housemates has already been camping out in front of the TV since the last Big Brother episode. Or maybe your girlfriend can't resist the gossip. I know people who can even tell me what's been happening on Big Brother without even having watched it! There's no escaping even on public transport where the free Metro just feels their obligatory duty to propagate fecal matter for the mind.

So given that Big Brother is essentially a crackhouse for attention-seekers, why is it still entertaining? And when I say 'entertaining', I mean more like driving-past-a-gruesome-road-accident-very-slowly kind of entertaining. You see, if you watch Big Brother long enough, it doesn't just become stupid entertainment. If this show were a science project, the hypothesis would be along the lines of if we put lots of stupid people together, will we be able to generate heaps of profit by getting the rest of the stupid people in the world to vote for them? But more importantly, we get to see how people at the bottom of the gene pool interact with one another. And I am hardly joking when I say that immigrants are not your cause for making your country go stupid. Here in the House is a collective cross-section of your problem.

Shahbaz (aka Shaspaz)
Lookit me!! I'm not shy!
If anything, Shaspaz should be ruler of the BB house. He is the epitome of everything that's wrong with Big Brother. He sets himself apart from the rest by being the greatest drama queen, able to make Mt Everests out of mole hills, start a third World War and then cry a river all by himself while the rest are left confused from a blitzkrieg.. All this in only less than 60 seconds. His best talent yet is probably his ability to piss off multiple minorities at once, being a gay pakistani. And a scotsman.

Lisa: Definition of the chinese scally

Fook the fookin' fook, fook fook fook!
This cigarette-puffing, coffee-chugger's vocabulary talent is punctuating every five words with the F word in her raspy Mancunian voice. While most women in the BB house are fond of wearing hotpants (for the cameras obviously), I can never quite figure out what Lisa is wearing. She seems to retain that morning look all day with her and forgot to put some pants on. Put some pants on, woman!!


Lisa: Plenty of men want me anyway..
Richard: No comment.

Nikki
I want my bottle of waterrr!!
There are plenty of improvised methods of suicide, should you one day wake up to find yourself living in a reality tv show. However, while you slowly wait in pain for death as you bleed dry or suffocate, the agonising presence of Nikki should prove that, for Health & Safety reasons, a break-in-case-of-emergency box with a 9mm pistol should be installed within the house for a quick trip to the afterlife. The first time I saw this season of Big Brother, Nikki was bawling her eyes out and wailing on national tv like a baby, only because she couldn't get her water in a bottle. She is they typical girl who got everything she asked for at young, who knows the price of everything and the value of none. And yes, her small tits are fake.

"I can't stand Richard and Lea... I wouldn't wipe my arse with them. I'd rather...[pause].. I'd rather use toilet paper."
Clyde says: Well, good thing we're not mates then.

Mikey
1,2,3,4...uhhh..9?
Mikey's wardrobe consists of singlets of varying colour for every day of the week. His ego eggs him on to leave every square inch of his arms exposed. He is the kind of guy who puts down "I am good with my hands" on his CV. So what does all this overcompensating ego mean for Mikey then? As an episode two days earlier revealed, Mikey attempted to count how many days the housemates have been living in the Big Brother house. With good old fashioned fingers and toes. Luckily for Mikey he has more than 19 fingers and toes.

Sam

He said she said they said I was an arse-licker
19-year old androgynous Sam has drawn a lot of fire and centers a lot of hipocrisy that generally goes on in the House. S/he together with Nikki are up for eviction today I believe. Frankly I'd rather Nikki get the boot because she struggles the hardest to stay in the game. Yes, I'm like a bear homing onto its stupid camper prey.




Lea
My face is up here, boy.
What is this 47 35-year old single mother doing here?? Oh that's right, the breasts are screaming lookitme! So she fits in perfectly then. Nevermind her kid. Unlike Nikki who has forgotten she is no longer 9, Lea has forgotten she is no longer 21 and is now 53 35.





Imogen: Cymru Queen

My my, what's this? No oversized tits hanging out? No cancer sticks permanently attached to the lip? No overdone makeup? She almost looks out of place in the BB house. Apart from having her face buried into Sezer's by day 2, Imogen remains one of the most subtle and neutral characters. Yet anything but dull. There is a certain manner of grace that she carries. Her natural features have not been contaminated by silicone, plastics and heaps of cosmetic dust. Afterall, she was previously the Welsh beauty queen. That must mean she at least supports world peace. So she is perfect then; a slither of salvation for Big Brother's housemate selection skills.

Well, no. You are on Big Brother afterall and guilty by association. Which earns you front row tickets at the gates of Hell along with the other housemates.

 
Thursday, June 08, 2006
  What simple Simon left behind...
And should anybody be in any doubt, no the Daily Mail didn't improve with Heffer's departure. The shocking and appalling story on today's issue should reaffirm what a nasty little rag this is. Entitled "Spousal rape to be treated like gang rape", the writer, one Steve Doughty, is actually complaining about this. Obvioulsy for the Mail, rape isn't just rape, and if your husband sexually assaults you than that is a wholly different matter from rape by any old stranger. Meanwhile, in parts of the world like Lebanon the law doesn't even recognise rape by a husband. If he sexually assaults his wife he is simply having he way with her. Hell, she's got a ring on, that's like the keys to the car. She should do what he likes without answering back. This is not an attitude that elevates these nasty men above the animals who carry out rape in the street. The article informs us that until 1991 the same was true in Britain. No sexual assault in marriage. I'm not cynical enough to believe that the writer, in acknowledging this, is secretly yearing for the good old days. He should have just stayed away from the issue.

Of course, being strongly conservative, the Mail has long been a strong advocate of marraige, provided that it is not of the homosexual variety, which past editions claim would "devalue" the sacred bond. One hopes they would see a gay marriage as more 'valuable' than a lifetime of rape and abuse. One thing for the Mail to consider is that, although gang rape and rape by strangers is horrendous and lasts a lifetime, the victim will not have to wake up beside the abuser every morning for the course of their marriage. A wife who reports her abusive husband is just as brave as any other rape victim, and deserves the same peace of mind when justice is being delivered.
 
  From one leech to another: Eff off Simon
Snotty ex Daily Mail and current Daily Telegraph darling, Simon Heffer has indulged in a seething and irrational rant about Ken Loach in his latest column [you need to naviagte past his erudite and well-researched opinions on John Prescott football and burgers to see it]. Heffer used to write short alarmist rants in the Daily Mail, generally critical of Marxist Britain, pesky gay people and the death of morality all around him, demonstrating how bigotted and out of touch he really was. Therefore, when he moved to the Daily Telegraph in 2005 some believed he had found his natural habitat, forgetting that, while The Telegraph is bad, it is hardly North Korea.

Heffer's main complaint about the Palme d'Or-winning film The Wind that Shakes the Barley [at least we have to asume that is what is raving about. The buffoon never mentions any film by name] is that Loach uses public money to make films that, instead of praising the British Fatherland and its history of perfect foreign policy, criticise the behaviour of the British government and its behaviour towards Ireland in the 1920s. Criticism? We shant be having any of that. If you want to make a film about Britain, do it properly; chuck in some Spitfires and if there are any foreigners involved make sure they're on the wrong side of a good hard machine-gunning.

Unfortunately, Simon gets off to a bad start by claiming that Loach's name looks a lot like "leech". Of course, I would view that as a compliment. Leeches can be used to draw out poison from a wound, an apt metaphor for what Loach has actually been doing over the years in his films, that often side with the oppressed in the face of imperial force. Simon also leaves himself exposed. To me, Heffer looks and sounds an awful lot like "heifer", Simon. Imagine, a mad cow from Great Britain. How absurd...

As
George Monbiot points out, Heffer can hardly deny that the events portrayed actually happened. So it seems that Loach's crime is to force the British public to look at - what can't be called their own crimes [despite what Simon, and other right-wing loudmouths like Melanie Phillips might think, it's not anti-British, nor masochistic to critique the government] - but the crimes committed against the Irish at a particular point in history. If a German was to use public funds to make a film about the evil of the Holocaust would he complain? Having read his bitchy Daily Mail columns over the years I already know the answer, and the sad thing is that Simon doesn't think the Germans dwell enough on this point in their history [I say "their" history, but if you subtract the German people who were born after 1945, the German people who opposed Hitler and the German people that would have found the crimes of the Third Reich abhorrent had they seen past the propaganda, that part of German history doesn't belong to many people these days]. It's ok for other countries to flagellate themselves in Simon's world. But an admission of guilt from Great Britain is "repulsive". North Korea would be too good for our Simon.

I suppose it can only get better for Simon after all these double standards and gunshots to the feet. But Simon is on a roll, ad in such a compact columan he manages to fit in one last coup de grace:

"And no, I haven't seen it, any more than I need to read Mein Kampf to know what a louse Hitler was."

He hasn't even seen the film! I don't use exclamation marks lightly, but I think a few more are in order here!!! And of course, we all know that Hitler is universally reviled because he wrote a nasty book. If the xenophobic Simon Heffer was a German he would be the first to sing Hitler's praises, and I should know. I've actually taken the time to read the louse's columns.
 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this weblog are not necessarily shared by Jesus, God, Mohammed, Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Marxists, Communists, Muslim fundamentalists, tree huggers, Amnesty, Global Warming, any other members of the Axis of Evil, Coalition of the Willing and/or Unwilling, holy entities, nor the authors of this weblog.

Sister Blog
Martha's Mania
"Your IQ must be this high to enter."
Recent Posts
Political Rants
The Knight Shift
Pentagonlies (cool conspiracy theory video!)
Sorry Everybody
Wake Up & Smell the Fascism
Pink Dome
Take the Political Test
Vox Day
GASH
Random Bastards
Fetus Spears
Darth Vader
I HATE MUSIC
Mulch
Archive




Powered by Blogger