Reid's Speech
Few people would think that telling members of a group that they are in the best position to be aware of signs that their children are being subverted by radical elements is a bad thing. Especially if that community is insular to the point of racism and further distance themselves from the rest of us by continuing to refuse, in some cases, to even learn the language of their adopted country. When the radicals we're worried about are exclusively from within their community and when these radicals have openly declared war upon the rest of us, is it in any way surprising that we ask the non-radical majority of that community to be involved in policing themselves?
To have made that request at an open meeting within that community can be considered either brave and courteous or opportunistic and manipulative. With New Labour involved you can guess which is my call, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. However, to allow known radicals to just walk in without the slightest check was foolhardy and stupid.
The guys who did, whose names I can't relate, clearly are not the ones who would ever be strapped to a bomb. No, those cowards talk others into doing that for them. Reid did, however, hand them something of a media coup.
Few were talking about his request or his attempt to encourage ordinary, decent muslims to engage with the rest of us, in some way, in the war against terror. Those that were were were doing so in the terms of the radicals. The rest were just simply talking about what those radical hecklers said and did. News-wise they were far more interesting than boring old Dr Reid and New Labour's spin-meisters should have expected that.
Leaving that aside, though, am I the only one in the word to have noticed one chilling comment amid the bile they were spouting? "How dare you come into a muslim area?" they said. A tacit admission that they have already identified areas which they claim from the rest of us, areas that they want in this country where the indigenous population are not only not welcome but are actually banned.
Some would say that such areas have long existed, but that no one chose to pass comment on it, that Dr Reid himself allowed them to publicly claim such an area for themselves was equally terrifying to me. Was he afraid to dismiss such a claim?
Monday, September 25, 2006
Better
Better?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
BLOODY HELL
BLOODY HELL!
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
Review DOA
Review: D.O.A.
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
