Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Morality

John Lydon was Right…

Yes, he was. This was a man who called (as close as he could) “cuddly” family entertainers like Saville way back. John Lydon was called by the press the most dangerous risk to British kids since Hitler. There is no evidence of him ever doing that. In fact he has been married for nearly 40 years without a hint of scandal.

Three points:

The BBC is (along with the NHS) the most loved establishment in the UK (but have you seen the stuff on Sky of late?)

The BBC has a lot of vile critters who ought to be shot.

But the British have a long tradition of contrarians like Lydon and we need them. They are the counterweight to the box-tickers of the BBC who only prove how much complacent shit you can stack in a Burton’s suit.

Shoddy Absurdia

Regular readers will know I have little or no time for the only country on the planet that forbids women from driving. They also stone homosexuals. I on the other hand have got stoned with homosexuals. I have also been in cars driven by women. The times we live in eh?

It’s coming out. I knew. I just knew the camel-fucking bastards were up to their fucking necks in 9/11 (and the rest).

I don’t care for their depravity but depravity is just that. Being implicit in the murder of nigh on 3000 people is another matter entirely. I don’t care if they want to make my ancestors who embuggered monks on Lindisfarne and stole their plate look civilized. But that was over a thousand years ago. Things move on. The last gift my country got from Norway was a Christmas Tree. What have we ever got from Saudi Arabia? Hatred, evil and 15/19 on 9/11.

The time has come…

We build nuclear because Saudi you have nothing but oil. Nothing. I mean nothing. Let’s put this bluntly. This is not Islamophobia – oh, no! This is straight horror at our bending-over for a vile regime. I have visited some of the great Mosques of the World. I was treated with respect and I showed them respect.

I have dirty little secret. I do. I like photographing religious buildings and Islam does seem much more amenable than Catholics for example.

This is not Islam. This is an unspeakably corrupt regime we have enabled.

This has to end. Now.

Oompa Trumper

This is not a post about abortion per-se and I hope any comments reflect that. No, this is about the moral vacuum that is Donald Trump and of the many, many reasons he should never be President his flip-flops on the subject are just one. But one hole is sometimes enough and this should be enough. If you want the full sp then reason has it here. It is a good article. I shall not quote from it directly because I had independently come to much the same conclusions. Great minds think alike? Not really. These are obvious observations.

My distinct impression in the abortion “debate” in the US is that there is usually very little middle-ground and that is why it rages on with immense passion on both sides of the fence. Now, that might seem a bad thing and in some ways it is. My point being that that is because it is something that people’s opinions on come right from the core of their moral being. It is something that whether “pro-choice” or “pro-life”* people care about with a passion. I understand that. I understand why people care fundamentally about either the autonomy of the woman or the rights of the embryo/fetus. It is an important moral question and should be treated as such but The Donald managed to change between five different positions in three days. On such a fundamental issue that is remarkable even by Trump’s lamentable standards. It goes without saying that on something that is also a major political issue in the US and has been for a long time (Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago for example) that is to be, at my most generous, politically naive. No wonder the US Christian Right can’t stand him any more than a fervently “pro-choice” atheist Democrat does.

So what makes The Donald like this?

Well, recently there was a documentary on C4 presented by Matt Frei about the Trumpster. It included an interview with Mr Trump’s ex-butler who now runs a shop in Miami selling high-end tat of the sort that Elvis would have considered tacky for his Jungle Room at Graceland. Frei asked if Trump visited and the answer was in the affirmative. Frei followed up by asking what in particular Trump bought most. The answer was, “mirrors”.

And just like that I knew! Most of us take our moral positions from some sort of basis whether it be the Bible or Marx, The Book of Mormon or those of Ayn Rand. Whatever. It means that we believe in something external to ourselves. Or put it another way our morality is comes from something other than ourselves.

Some people believe in God (for example) and try to follow Him.

Trump though believes he is God. And a capricious one at that. What is right is what is good for The Donald and because He is the supreme being so he can make it up on the fly. I mean who dare question God himself because whatever God says is right is right by definition. Trump is a malignant narcissist. And that more than anything else is why he should never be President of the USA.

*I dislike both those terms.

Fog in Atlantic – United States cut off

Scales of Justice above the Old Bailey

In British comedy, especially satire as practised by the late Peter Cook and co., the judge is commonly portrayed as a senile old fool out of touch with modern times and quite often reality itself, but it is not just the judges that are being held up for mockery this week, it is the whole British legal system.

A Court of Appeal judge allowed an injunction sought by PJS and although the couple’s identities were revealed on Wednesday by an American newspaper British media outlets remain banned from publishing the names.

But the British court’s ruling has been mocked, with critics saying it has made “an ass out of the law” as the celebrities’ names were revealed scores of times on Twitter and social media.

On Friday, the man who had the threesome with the top entertainer’s partner told The Sun: “The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.

“We have been threatened with perjury, contempt of court and prison – all for telling the truth about this threesome.

“We have had endless calls and emails from the star’s lawyers, and even had a threatening letter hand-delivered letter through our door.

“The famous couple don’t deny that it happened. But they have used the courts to cover up what the partner has done in a way they should not be used.

The Telegraph – Celebrity threesome gagging row

As a UK resident, I could be fined and possibly even jailed for contempt of court if I were to reveal who this “celebrity couple” are, SO I WILL NOT DO SO, but our American readers simply have to go to their local news-stand, pick-up a copy of the most scurrilous weekly tabloid and the scandal is there for all to see.

Having had my curiosity piqued by the injunction itself (as the “Streisand effect” could have predicted would happen), I went directly to Google and within a few minutes was looking at the headline that was being otherwise denied to British residents, my reaction at the scandal itself could best be described as “meh“.

If the allegations were both damaging and untrue, then perhaps an injunction would be understandable, but it appears that the allegations are substantially true. The reason that the injunction is being upheld is allegedly to “protect the couples young children” (aged 5 and 3 respectively).

Yeah. Right.

I have no problem with the “celebrity couple” having sexual intercourse with any number of consenting adults of either sex, but I do object to this abuse of the British legal establishment to shield what is essentially the dirty laundry of their private lives from public view.

Throughout this blog posting, I have avoided mentioning the couple concerned so that I am not in contempt of court*, but I have nothing but contempt for any court that supports this sort of draconian 19th century bullshit.

* - as well as the fact that to reveal their names would be an abuse of Cats hospitality, which I respect.

PLEASE DO NOT NAME THE “CELEBRITY COUPLE” IN QUESTION, ANY COMMENTS DOING SO WILL BE REDACTED OR DELETED (AS APPROPRIATE)

Embarrassing Bodies

A short few years back I flicked onto a show called, “Embarrassing Bodies” on C4.

I watched dumb-founded not just because I saw it as a C21st freak-show (which it is of course) but because I couldn’t work it out. The central idea was that people with complaints too embarrassing to see a GP (or whatever) were OK to be seen by the travelling circus of Dr Christian and Dr Pixie* instead.

I hated the communal showers after PE as a kid (I am not the only one for whom this is the case – far from) and the only person in this World of 7.x billion people I feel OK being naked in front of is my wife. Obviously. I don’t buy the whole Germanic Nazi gym mistress “Health and Efficiency” schtick. One of the most bizarre sights I ever saw was in Yugoslavia (as was) on a beach. A late middle-aged geezer was offering boat trips and, as it was “clothing optional” and he was nearly starkers. I mean nearly because whilst he was fully cock’n'balls to the breeze because he would be the Captain of your lugger the only garment he was wearing was a captain’s hat. My mother laughed so hard she almost died. No wonder a couple of years later they had a brutal civil war. For to quote John Rotten, “There was fuck all else to do”.

Nudity is obviously our natural state but we haven’t been natural since Ugg- the Person of Cave – thought of bringing fire inside the cave. It’s called culture and nakedness is special only because it is not broadcast. This is not argument against nude art or even porn (quite the reverse) but if nudity is “normalized” then what’s left? An MRI scan – have you seen Miley Cyrus’s pancreas yet? It is also natural to die from simple infections but we have antibiotics and stuff now. It’s called “Civilization”. So is taking 300 people in a 200 tonne metal bird from Manchester to Philadelphia but somehow Boeing manage it. Actually my last trans-Atlantic was on an A330 but they are much of a muchness. Perhaps that is the point. True genius is to make something amazing mundane. Doesn’t apply to incongruous nudity mind. That is making the amazing mundane.

So, if I may get back to my point. I think there is something very odd about a society were people are afraid to show their “bits” to a doctor in a private space but OK if it is on broadcast media. I mentioned the C4 show started a bit back but just recently ITV have chimed in with Jeremy Kyle’s Emergency Room.

And I thought Jeremy Kyle in and of himself was more than enough grotesquely enlarged bollocks. Truly he is the only pigeon-chested abattoir-creeper who keeps Piers Morgan from the very nadir of the cunt-list.

*No, I am not making the names up. One sounds like something from “Pilgrim’s Progress” and the other like… “Dr Pixie will see you now…”. Arrgh!!! I mean Dr Smith or Dr Jones or Dr Patel… But Dr Pixie? I’d rather see the “Wise Woman” and pay extra for the cackling. Having said that a couple of hours on the flet with Galadriel would about see me right. Insert your own Nenya joke here.

The Other is in The Albert Hall…

Hitler ‘had tiny deformed penis’ as well as just one testicle, historians claim.

Hitler suffered from a condition called hypospadias which left him with an abnormally small manhood, according to historians Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie.

From Telegraph.

Well, that is no excuse for invading Poland, or Holland, Belgium, France (or the rest) or having a bloody good go at England or Russia. So, the defining thingie of the C20th was an insane Austrian’s thingie.

I mean the pivotal moment of C20th revolved around Hitler’s cock.

That about sums up the whole shooting-match of a century of woe.

I have been to Poland several times. Generally not with the Panzers in hand and genocide in mind. Last time I took a bottle of damn fine Welsh Whiskey in my clip. It went down much better than an armoured division. Odd that.

Oh, and I have a respectable penis and the full number of testicles. For the record.

But then I am not Fuhrer of Germany with “issues”. And a very small cock. I mean if it wasn’t for the tens of millions dead I’d be laughing.

A Libertarian doesn’t desire control over others. We are all individuals. Well, Some of us aren’t.

The Daily Fail falls to new heights.

The Daily Mail has uncovered the staggering fact that being in love with who you have sex with increases sexual satisfaction. I really dunno what to say. I will say it anyway.

On the 14th of October this year I will be celebrating my tenth wedding anniversary. Read into that what you will. But I shall tell you what I feel. I do not consider myself heterosexual anymore. You’re married to a woman so what nonce is this! Yeah, a women – singular. Not the three and a half billion or so on this planet. Sex if done well is not about whatever organs. How can it be? I have been to the site of Troy. Wars have been fought over a specific woman. I have flown over the Atlantic for a woman and that is a hilarity if you smoke and can’t for nine hours. I have several boxes of screws. They are replaceable parts and my wife isn’t. That is why she is my wife. Sex without love is a dismal thing (I did it – I know – not rape or anything just essentially a vaginally assisted wank – to quote my brother). This is partly why our societies view rape so harshly whereas we view consensual sex as perhaps the highest form of love despite it being essentially the same physical act. It is partly because loving sex is so gorgeous rape is so vile.

Now I am not arguing here (I know I have gone off message a bit) that casual sex is wrong and should be banned but that it just doesn’t do it for me. I am arguing that a large-scale university study that essentially discovered that sex with someone you love is better is a statement of the bleeding obvious. I know you can prove anything with “studies” but Gods help me! I do hope that someone who is looking at getting their funding extended is going to be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

Otherwise I will re-enter academia with my double whammy of what bears do in the woods and the possible religious feelings of the Pope.

Germans Own Themselves (Or Not).

A notorious German cannibal has described in shockingly graphic detail how he killed and ate his gay lover ‘with his permission’.

Armin Meiwes became one of the most infamous cannibals in history after killing and consuming 43-year-old computer technician Bernd Brandes in 2001.

Is any cannibal not infamous?

‘I decorated the table with nice candles,’ he said. ‘I took out my best dinner service, and fried and [sic - it is from the Mail] piece of rump steak – a piece from his back – made what I call princess potatoes, and sprouts,’ he said, in an unprecedented interview for new documentary ‘Docs: Interview with a Cannibal’.

‘After I prepared my meal, I ate it.

‘The first bite was, of course, very strange. It was a feeling I can’t really describe. I’d spent over 40 years longing for it, dreaming about it.

‘And now I was getting the feeling that I was actually achieving this perfect inner connection through his flesh. The flesh tastes like pork but stronger.

So at least it was civilized cannibalism. I mean a well-set table and all.

Brandes then swallowed 20 sleeping tablets with half a bottle of schnapps before Meiwes cut off his penis ‘with his agreement’, and fried it for them both to eat.
Meiwes later ran a bath for Brandes, and read a Star Trek novel while checking on him every 15 minutes.

He eventually killed Brandes in the early hours of the morning, by stabbing him in the neck and then chopping him into pieces.

It is the Star Trek novel that really gets me.

He put parts of him in the freezer, and buried his head in his garden.

Well that’s OK then. Now there is an issue here. I understand homosexuality but this isn’t it by any ordinary definition so the “eating of the gay lover” is an odd way of putting it? So what is going on? The obvious is to say that both were utterly nucking futz. But why not? I mean if this was with consent then as a libertarian then OK but what is the limit of consent? Anyone who wishes to be eaten (starting with their penis) is by most definitions mental. Now, as a libertarian, this puts me in a quandry. I mean how far does self-ownership go?

I had girlfriend who I didn’t eat (odd that) and she is now a senior lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Lancaster. Her subject is basically philosophy of mental health. We had an argument once (we had a few – I implied she was an ex) over self-ownership and mental illness. I am still not sure. I am seriously conflicted. I mean if you own yourself then like whatever but wanting to be eaten is breathtakingly odd. Is that just wrong?

What “Is-Ought” Problem?

D. Friedman just left a comment at Samizdata making yet again this foolish, anti-real (anti-real: against reality, as one might be anti-State for instance) statement attributed to Hume that “you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’”

Herewith my thought on the subject, lightly edited and tempered with an introduction which might hint at my feelings about it. (I could have added a few more applicable tags to the list just to be snarky, but I was a good girl and refrained. I felt I ought to.)

. . .

Sigh. Listen carefully, class.

You can ONLY “get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’”

Because the very concept of “oughtness” implies some sort of goal or objective or state of affairs or value that you wish to achieve or maintain. And that you hold said goal, etc., is itself a fact.

In order to satisfy that wish, one must act in accordance with a whole bunch of facts of reality, or of what you believe or understand or assume to be the facts of reality.

For instance: I ought to go to the Post Office later. [I want my Christmas cards at least to be postmarked prior to Christmas, and I don't want my insurance payments to be late so I lose my insurance (!). Two FACTS about what I want to achieve (or avoid), and implied fact that the achievements are affected by the realities of the Post Office operations, and of date and time.]

Or: I want to live as God has outlined in the ethical strictures of the Mosaic Code, so I ought to follow those as best I can. (To achieve this involves a whole string of “oughts” and the “is’s” from which they derive.)

Or: I want to live as God wants me to live, so I ought to follow the Mosaic Code, which is, ultimately, the source of our knowledge of Right and Wrong. [N.B. -- Don't get funny ideas, Class. Personally I am an atheist.]

In other words, the very concept of “oughtness” implies the existence of a reason for the “ought.”

We very very very commonly say “I ought to do X” with no explanation of why that is. This is either because in context the reason for the “ought” is clear: I ought to go to the P.O. today [because it's important that I get certain stuff mailed today], or because at some level we will feel unsatisfied (“uneasy” in von Mises’ terms) if we don’t do it, though we may not be able quite to articulate this. “I ought not to hang up on this Yay-Hoo.” (Why not? Because one doesn’t hang up on people, even Yay-hoos. Why not? Because….)

One is wrong to conclude from this that “ought” is a free-floating thing, with no criteria (except perhaps feelings — “sentiment”) to go by as to whether one has complied with it.

Now.

I do not know of my own knowledge whether Mr. Hume actually made the oh-so-often-stated claim, let alone why he did so (in what spirit) if indeed he did so. So I decline to argue against Mr. Hume per se, but rather against the claim. However, there is a half-baked conception of what “ought” means that does unmoor the idea from any fact or presumed “fact” except that of its existence, which is totally independent of anything else: No criteria given as to WHY one “ought.” “Ought” is just Out There, free-floating, no reason why one OUGHT to obey “ought” except the existence of the putative “ought” itself. “Why ought I to…?” has no answer, by this conception of “ought.”

This is pure Platonism. This free-floating “ought” exists out there in the Universe and we Ought to obey it because we should; or, you might say, “Because we OUGHT to obey it.”

“Since when isn’t because a reason?” as the mother, at the end of her rope, says to her recalcitrant child in the old joke.

Such a thing is, of course, a pure fantasy, regardless of how one arrives at it.

And one notices that it is this DEFINITION of “ought” that makes it underivable from facts.

It makes of “oughtness” a mirage, something that can never be reached (intellectually understood) because it only gives the appearance of something real, of the lake in the middle of the desert, of the puddle down the highway on a bright sunny day after a month of drouth.

This is the nature of Plato’s putative Forms. They can never be connected to reality, because all the connections have been abstracted away. It is like cutting the bridge over the chasm and then saying it is impossible to get to the other side — impossible in principle. It is this metaphysical theory that in general supports both subjectivism and intricism. (Story for another time.)

Such an “ought” does not mean anything like what people mean when they use the word, except when they are conducting an (acknowledged or tacit) debate, or trying to philosophize.

Hit the Mohorovičić discontinuity…

… and keep on digging.

Well you do if you are the Daily Fail. This is a screen cap from their frontpage. You might find the juxtaposition of stories interesting…

mail

Now the Mail has a bit of history on this. The “Femail” sidebar is almost entirely about female ‘slebs and who is looking fat or not looking fat, who has a great physique and who doesn’t yet much of the editorial on the left is tirades about all of this sort of thing causing eating disorders and rapes and all manner of horrors.

The Mail’s editorial team either has a sense of irony beyond me or is totally deranged. Possibly both.

Anyway I hope Rihanna paid 5p for her placky-bags. You know to keep George Monbiot happy and Mail readers masturbating enough to generate some form of renewable energy. Or something. God knows! I don’t.

Computers in this house…

I did a little audit this morning. My wife and I have approximately 6 desktop machines in various states of repair (got to get onto those), three laptops, two Kindles, two smartphones (which are computers essentially), a ZX Spectrum in Gateshead, a camera with GPS (very handy – where did I take that picture? – well it tells me to arc-seconds – Jebus wept). Just the laptops would make Alan Turing weep tears of blood. I suspect I am not unusual here. I have a plan. I can get Lenovo to supply me (and I have sold my soul to ‘em – I’m typing on a Thinkpad by them) which is to get a trio of Lenovo Intel Core 2 Duos for GBP89.99 a throw and do some Folding at Home. Or maybe something else. There was (is?) an outfit sponsored by Oxford Uni (the other place) and IBM for something similar but I is buggered if I can recall the name. Having said that if I can cure cancer in my shed (for that is where they shall reside) then I shall be proud. If you can recall the name please let me know for the screensaver is much cooler. And I used to have it installed before Thalia went TU (that’s a tech term BTW). I did work my way through the Muses (and me with a comprehensive edumaction!). Some I sold or gave away. Some did go twat-wise (another techie term). I love the things. They make me, me.

No! They made me glorious. I got a Speccy thirty-ish years back. That was wonderful. Computers had been things that Bond Girls tended and I was playing Manic Miner. Wow! I learned BASIC and Pascal and Fortran on the little beast hooked-up to a 14″ Ferguson B&W TV and a tape-recorder from Dixons. It was well cool. When I went to University in 1992 I had to learn to program to drive a robot around. I excelled. I knew what I was doing. I had written the thankfully forgotten game “Orc fighter” so I knew my stuff. My classmates were astonished but I had that key advantage. I had a Lego robot whizzing around. That was cool and people say physics is dull? Not for me. That was much more fun than Swift’s juvenalia or Thackeray’s senilia. It was like stuff, cool stuff. OK, some of the labs were dull. I could live another thousand years without attempting the Guoy method for measuring magnetic susceptibility again. That was bloody dreadful. It really was but there are always bones in the sweetest fish. And building a pico-Tesla magnetometer and knowing exactly who of the lecturers was turning up tardy to the car park was more than a compensation. That cost roughly 5 quid (not of my money). But if Dr Kent was late, I knew. Bloody Hellskis that was sensitive. My lab partner once approached it with a screwdriver and it went FSD. Cheers Rachel. Not only did she dump me for a twat from Macclesfield (of all places!) but she all but knackered my magnetometer.

Nice machines at the Uni of Nottingham – 386DX40s (this was ’92 to ’95) with more interfaces than you could shake a stick at. We also had BBC-Bs for data logging.

I grew up with computers. They are me. People ask me “Why?” and I can’t answer because I just know the answer. They are me. I am nearly 42 (the answer) but I have been surrounded by computers since I was a kid. Since I first played with a Commodore PET and fell in love. I drew a picture of a Chieftain tank in ASCII. I was that sad and have only become sadder.

Weird isn’t it? I am looking down at my Kindle Fire HDX which is a computer only not in name. It cost less (no adjustment for inflation) than my ZX Spectrum did in the ’80s. Wow. I mean Wowsers! That was thirty years ago. I had just spent an hour (just an hour – this isn’t chemistry which is glorified faffing if you ask me) fixing it up despite the ‘structions in very obscure English. Oh, China! “Please to be appointing the USB port”. AKA “plug it in”. I know computers and I am wired on them. From Augsta Ada and Babbage’s cogs to Win 10 count me in. That is why I give ‘em names. My first PC was Urania. I am typing on Athina. (and yes the translit is more accurate than Athena – I know my Greek – physics.). The Kindle is Loki BTW. I’m gonna rebuild Urania as Urania III. I have a weakness for classical female names. Who doesn’t? These things are to us what steam engines were to George Stephenson (who lived walking distance from where I grew-up. They are to me what jet engines were to Clarence L “Kelly” Johnson. Except he was a genius. Bugger.

Hell, but I can program a RS-232 interface in machine code (I could anyway, once). And I could make that little Lego thing do St Vitus’s dance. I just love these things.

I adore them. They are not means of communication. That is a horrid myth. I didn’t do an A-Level in maths but I had an Amiga and I programmed fractals on it out of Sci Am. I taught myself maths. One BSc in Physics and a (fully funded) MSc in Astrophysics later and I think I proved myself. Now I mooch in Ruby and stuff. But seriously mooch. I get to be a proper programmer then bread and cheese will end-up on the table.

10 PRINT “Nick is Great”
20 GOTO 10

I have moved on a bit since then. And I am not blowing my own horn (it would put my back out) but celebrating the sheer fact that I was fortunate to be born in an age and a place where these things I quite simply cannot imagine my life without existed. I couldn’t have invented them but can I use them – yes! Aeroplanes and computers. How the devil did humanity manage for fifty thousand years without them.

I also want to build a Tesla coil. Just for the hell of it. And if it kills squirrels then like whatever. The cat is way too smart to get in the way.

I’ll keep the computers away. This will be purely analogue. Of course many will object to me “wasting ‘tricity” but fuck ‘em. My follow-up will be an Alcubierre Drive. Now that is a bit of a tough call. I mean I’d have to create negative mass for a kick-off. But Barnard’s Star in hours… Kicks HS2 into a most cocked hat. It is a fucking railway. 200 years after Brunel and the politcos haven’t got over it (one was run-over at Rainhill). And don’t talk to me about Skylon A1 or C2. Just don’t. They want to spent ten times the amount on a Stephenson gauge railroad but can’t fund a variable cycle aerospace plane. That fucker could get from Bristol Internal Spaceport (how cool is that?) to Sydney in four hours. And that is on an arctic great circle so as to not piss the Russians off but at that height and speed it ain’t MH17 is it? So fuck ‘em.

I’m a techno-fetishist. I make no apologies. Fuck railways (other than to tie Corbyn to the tracks and ride a shitty commuter train over his beardy commie corpse, back and forth) and build Skylon. But do any of our PPE elites have the imagination? No. Oh, fuck no! Wall, stand against and I’ll get the rifle.

Quote of the Day, June 26, 2015

Loyalty to bad commitments leads to moral incoherence.

–David Horowitz, “The Two Christophers”

Theresa May but I wouldn’t…

PEOPLE who use a swivel chair to make themselves dizzy face up to three years in prison.

The Psychoactive Substances Bill, announced in the Queen’s Speech, also bans hanging upside down off a bed until your head goes funny, pushing your knuckles into your eyelids to create a psychedelic lightshow and fevers above 39 degrees centigrade [312K - I think in Kelvin - N].

Home secretary Theresa May said: “Maybe you and your so-called friends think it’s funny to spin around on a chair and then stagger across the office like a moron before collapsing headfirst into a really expensive printer and breaking your nose and losing three of your teeth.

“But all you’re doing is setting yourself up for a life of heroin and really manky toilets and no job and therefore no office chair to spin around on like a total maniac.

“You probably think I’m a killjoy but I speak from experience. I tried to spin on my office chair once but I absolutely whacked my knee on the desk. Not only did it hurt like a bastard, it changed me. I hate everyone now.”

May also said that anyone lying on their arm until it goes dead then using it to pretend someone else is touching their genitals will be classed as a sex offender.

Not to put too fine a point on it the Children’s Crusade contra “legal highs” (much like the conflation of tax ‘avoidance’ and tax ‘evasion’ or various ‘hate speech’ stuff is truly Orwellian) and appalling. Let’s call a spade a manually operated earth removal tool here. Yes, people die from ‘legal highs’ but that is because of the eternal game of cat and mouse of drug legislation. I don’t do drugs. Not because the School Nurse in Chief tells me not to but because due to legislation which means I’d be buying God alone knows what from a dodgy geezer in a pub car park.

Of course the fact that people are taking Heaven knows what means there are more deaths. The fact that Chinese ‘chemists’ are knocking out even more bizarre substances to avoid the laws will mean people die. Solution: an enabling act. That’s May’s thought. Mine is legalise the lot and tax and regulate so just like booze and fags you know what you are getting. I mean I used to smoke a bit of weed or resin but now it’s all ‘bang for buck’ skunk which is nasty stuff. That is a direct effect of government.

But you see the problem? The tighter government cracks down due to drug related deaths the more they increase laws as users migrate to more dubious substances. Much the same happened in the USA during prohibition when a nation of beer drinkers switched to spirits. I mean what was the point of smuggling beer in from Canada when you could smuggle whisky at ten times the blast for volume?

Of course the more the steel-heels crush us and the more we get riskier the more the call goes out to get ever more Draconian. It doesn’t work – it is a tango of death. It is evil and it is wrong. The Tories (increasingly occasionally) talk of ‘individual responsibility’ but then add yet another set of training wheels on the bicycle. Well folks, I have been able to ride a bicycle unaided for maybe 35 years.

I am 41 years old and am approximately all in one piece. So Mrs May can go fuck herself with (obviously) a state-approved dildo. Let us be. Not only is that the path of freedom but it actually reduces the ‘externalities’ but of course it would take pointless work away from the (un)civil servants and the rozzers who might then have more time to investigate rapes, murders and burglaries and stuff like what is supposed to be their job.

Just a thought.

Chuckles – the gift that keeps on taking…

So, Prince Charles has been to Washington DC (as have I) but whilst I flew steerage in an American Airlines A330 (and had to change at Philly – the most confusing airport this side of Mars) he went in style. He went on a chartered A320 configured as a private jet that costs GBP250,000 a hop. Or approx. 800 times what I paid (hard to say exactly – there were several hops on that hoilday which included Key West). Well, I guess it evens out because he got to meet Obama and I trogged the Smithsonians until my feet hurt – badly. He got a gong for his tireless crusades (or whatever) on the environment. He almost certainly clocked more CO2 than I can manage in a fecking lifetime. And then he delivers a lecture on the environment… Because the A320 normally carries just over about 160 passengers and not just a dickhead and his moll.

But that’s OK because it is only the little people who deserve to be taxed out of the air and not the nobs and he is a nob in every sense.

Frosty the imam.

It is a winter wonderland outside my window in Cheshire. Apparently so it is in parts of Saudi Arabia. This is rather unusual there…

Here’s a picture

You see how unusual this is? No Brit or Canuck or Swede etc would give their snow personage a hot coffee. So are the Saudis all enjoying the novelty of snow? Yes and indeed no.

There has been a terrible moral outrage about building snowmen (and indeed snow camels – Allah knows about snow-women with snow tits and icicle nipples) and at least one imam has got his pantyhose in a twizzle

But with photos of snowpeople and snow camels popping up everywhere, Munajjid made it clear that Islamic teachings strictly prohibit the practice.

Asked whether the unusually snowy winter in Saudi Arabia meant that parents could build snowmen with their children, Munajjid delivered the bad news.

“It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun,” Munajjid wrote on his Web site, according to Reuters.

He is also available for children’s parties. I hear his, “Death to all Zionazi Imperialists” act is a side-splitter (possibly literally).

***

“We have snow for fleeting days, maybe even hours, and there is always someone who wants to rob us of the joy and the fun,” wrote a blogger identified by Gulf News as Mishaal. “It seems that the only thing left for us is to sit down and drink coffee.”

***

But Munajjid has his supporters.

“It [building snowmen] is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” wrote one person, according to Reuters.

I don’t know where to start…

The first point is to acknowledge this is not a “funny”. Oh, it is easy to laugh. But depriving folk of “play” and “fun” (and how often does a significant snowfall happen in Saudia Arabia?) is horrendous. What is humanity without play and fun? The imam also mentions the creation of images of critters (recall the snow-camels of horror?)

I will tell you what such a life is like. It is Hell on Earth. It is also a complete technological stagnation. I love the society (imperfect though it is) but whist I find in this day and age opposition to gay marriage (say) a bit odd I find opposition to building snow-crits is so far beyond belief as to defy… Well, I dunno but it is but it defies it. Building a snowman is the most innocent thing imaginable (and if we get a bit more snow I’ll build one myself and send a selfie to this “cleric”.)

And it matters. It really does. The more absurd a cultural argument is then in a very real way the more it matters. And not least if it is taken as ridiculous. “Imitating the infidels”? By building a fucking snowman? You wait until said cleric gets the selfie of me drinking single-malt whilst being bummed by a ladyboy who is smoking crack. I mean if building a fucking snowman is strictly verboten why not go the whole hog?

I have to add I have never had dirty thoughts in front of a snow-person – but then you knew that. “Mr NickM was apprehended for a public-order offence at 11-45am whilst he attempted to…”. Gods sakes! Mr Frosty was unavailable to comment but a puddle shall appear in Stockport Magistrates Court.

I though do hate the cultural shuttering. Some think this attempt at cultural monolithism is a strength of the Islamists and they couldn’t be more wrong. Ludicrous defence is a sign of weakness.

Banning fun is ultimately self-defeating.

The best snowman I ever built was as a kid and it was when I was a kid. My brother and me built a huge effigy of a Franz-Ferdinand (one of the Holy Roman Emperors) in the back garden. I have no idea why but it was fun. Which was the point.

H/T Dick

PS the imam also regards gingerbread men as evil.

%d bloggers like this: