Zionism from an Atheist Jews perspective.

I'm aware that this is boring, but my readership has been down recently, so I may as well just write about politics. In the UK, LibDem MP David Ward has come under scrutiny following comments he made on his website. To quote directly, he said "having visited Auschwitz twice - once with my family and once with local schools - I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza." [source]

There are two caveats, the use of these words on Holocaust Memorial Day are undoubtedly controversial, as is his misguided, but potentially innocent, use of the phrase 'the Jews' instead of 'the Israelis.' Of course, all kinds of self-aggrandising idiots have crawled out of the woodwork to express their disgust and call it racist, including the band-wagon jumping Labour MP Ian Austin who called David Ward "a disgrace" and "racist."

What I am most afraid of here is that any reasonable argument put forward against Israel is labelled anti-Semitic. Any mention of the Holocaust in relation to Israel is automatically labelled as racist, and allows the offended parties to deflect from their often inhumane behaviour. Israel is shaming its own nation through the acts it takes, but at the same time seems to be beyond criticism because of the lingering threat of being branded an anti-Semite. This makes people shirk back in fear legitimate criticisms of the country, and that in itself is wrong.

David Ward has refused to apologise, the first time in living memory that a Lib Dem has stood up for their views and stuck to their principles. We mustn't forget the holocaust, nor the lessons from it, conversely we mustn't use it as a shield to prevent us from seeing what continues to go on in Israel itself. Just because Jews suffered so heavily both historically and during the Holocaust, it shouldn't mean that Israel is allowed to do as it pleases.

More recently, the arch prick Rupert Murdoch has apologised for a cartoon published in his Sundays times magazine which was held as anti -semetic. This is the same Rupert Murdoch who refused to apologise for hacking into celebrities voicemails to get a good story. This is of course not the first time there has been controversy over a cartoon, let's not forget the ridiculous and pointless deaths after the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, so old Scrotum head was probably wise in nullifying the offence through an apology. Anyway, here's a bit of the picture.

[source]

  Although this also had the misfortune to be published on holocaust memorial day (luckily that isn't celebrated in Iran), and the illustrator himself has apologised here over the timing of the publication. I believe it's not anti-Semitic, and it does hint at the terrible things Israel is doing. The cartoon shows the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, building a wall using what appears to be the blood of Palestinians. It carries the strap line: "Will cementing peace continue?" To quote again, the source of this snippet of the cartoon (the full thing is now impossible to find online) says:

"How to draw an Anti-Israel cartoon for a UK paper. It’s very simple really.
1. Draw an Israeli Prime Minister with exaggerated Semitic facial features, especially the nose and lips, covered in Muslim blood.
2. Stick a wall in there somewhere."
There is also a third point which is irrelevant to this discussion so has been ignored, so let's look at these two points.  

First of all those aren't "exaggerated Semitic facial features", that's how the cartoonist draws. In fact, if taken purely at the face, it could easily be Vladimir Putin. In fact, let's have a look at another of his pictures

Add caption [source]

The bizarre, elf-like creature on the left is Putin, while the creature drawn on the right is Syria's genocider-in-chief Assad. It isn't an anti-Semitic picture of Netanyahu.

The second point, that of "stick a wall in there somewhere" is also held as evidence of it being racist. I don't see how. The wall is pretty much unarguable there.Follow this link for the following pictures
and only the most insecure apologist for the Israeli regime would say that acknowledging this wall is racist.

Not a picture, but graphs are the pictures of words.

For Israel, the Holocaust is, obviously, monumentally important, but playing the victim card will only get you so far, and can't be used to distract from things which happen today. When you prop up the Apartheid regime in South Africa, when you do your best to dehumanise and starve the country of Palestine, by brutal military attacks, the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of Palestinian children every year, when you force innocent people to strip for no reason in the name of safety, and ignore recommendations by the U.N., You can't take offence to even the slightest mention of a wall which obviously exists. The holocaust might have  been the worst thing to have ever happened to humanity as a whole, but we should take lessons from it and try to learn from it, not use it as a mask for our own reprehensible behaviour.

Please note, I am well aware of the thousands of Israelis who flee the country to avoid military service, and the many thousands who work there as human rights watchers. Nor am I so naive as to say that Palestine and the rest of the Arab world are blameless here, but that is beside my point. Don't try to deflect your own awful behaviour through something which has happened to you, and don't spring to say that everything is racist just because you can't argue a point coherently.

Published today, but needs an extensive spell and logic check.

My Favourite Stadiums of the world

I love a good stadium, although Christ alone knows why. Here are my favourite 6 I've encountered:

6. Hampden Park in Glasgow, Scotland

[source]

Capacity: 52, 063
This is a big stadium, where I think Rangers used to play until they got done for being a team of tax dodgers. I'm not sure if they still play there. The lesser known light of this is that Queens Park plays there. They play in the Scottish third division, which means, if you turn up, you get a game. We went along, drunk, one time, and it was fun shouting on the sidelines with 48,950 empty seats around you as watch some junkies play soccer.

5. The MCG in Melbourne, Australia

[source]

Capacity: 100, 018
This is such a pretty stadium, and makes me think fond thoughts of Melbourne, which is the most hipster-filled city I've ever seen. A day spent there watching test cricket and getting drunk, is and will always be a joy, good cricket, heavy drinking and good mates. The following sentence is why I like stadiums. Still, not a bad word to say about the place.  

4. Athletic Park in Wellington, New Zealand

A slightly outdated picture, taken before the advent of colour photography in New Zealand in 2009. [source]

Capacity: 39,000
New Zealand has a lot of earthquakes. When I lived there, I remember being in the bath and an earthquake came and shook all the water out of that bath, leaving me a shivering dry but still soapy. At matches in Athletic Park, if you were on the Millard stand (a rickety stand which shook even in the wind) and a small earthquake came along, it made everyone freak out. It was kind of cool. On this list for that, and because it's now demolished, according to Wikipedia.

3. Redfern Oval in Sydney, Australia

[source]

Capacity: 20,000 (but 0 seats)
The picture above is more recent than when I saw it, it definitely didn't have rails around the edges when I was there. However, it's on this list because it's my old stompin' ground. During university I used to train, and play matches there. A joy, particularly for the experience of being watched during a match by hundred of the local kids and having a chat with the old guys afterwards. It was a great place to watch a match if you weren't playing. If you were playing though, it was a great place to pick up chicks. Although I was stuck in various hateful relationships during my career there, I've always had fond memories of it.

2. Caledonian Stadium in Inverness, Scotland

[source]

Capacity: 7,753
Why? because Inverness is surprisingly ok, if a little isolated. However, it is freezing, it's very northerly, and sits on the coast with arctic winds blowing in. This stadium is right on the most exposed part of the harbour, only half covered by stands, so that on a cold day the wind whips through it like nothing else. Inverness are currently in a position where they can play in Europe next year, and the thought of a team like Barcelona coming over and freezing their nuts off, getting battered by the wind and staying at motels, is a surprisingly good one for me.

1. Hrazdan Stadium in Yerevan, Armenia

[source]

Capacity: 53,849 - 70,000
I went to Armenia when I was working overseas, and can't stop going on about how much I was pleasantly surprised by it. Beautiful woman, nice food, a friendly vibe, and lots of cool things to see and do made it a winner. One of the best things of all though, was this behemoth of a stadium, which we were told has never been full at any event, not when U2 played there, not when they played their first match as an independent country, not when most of the citizens of the city had to shelter there during a war and earthquake. Why is it so big? Why is it multicoloured? why is it tilted like that? We may never know, and that mystery is what makes life worth living.

So there you have it, my half dozen favourite stadiums. The one I want to go to most of all is the famous one in North Korea, Rungnado May Day Stadium in Pyongyang, which fits 150,000 brainwashed people to watch brainwashed people perform for their great leader. I mainly want to go there because North Koreans are insane.(Did he just go there? You bet he did.)

New Orleans Pelicans, a victory.

I've discussed N.B.A. teams logos and names in previous articles. Now I am happy to announce the New Orleans Hornets are to become the New Orleans Pelicans at the start of next year. In my reviews of the logos of the teams, the Hornets came out as a solid choice, and as such it will be missed. However, I think that the naming of the team as the Pelicans is a victory for mankind in general, and basketball specificially. The Pelicans is a terrific name: pelicans are ungainly, awkward and ugly, and yet have a grace and beauty of all birds. They are great at fishing, and interesting enough with their huge bills, but in real life look nothing like the ferocious, ball carrying maniac seen here:

It would choke if you stuffed a ball into its beak,at least if my high-school science projects are anything to go by.

Quite genuinely, and without irony, this is a win on all counts. The only thing which could make me happier is when the Brooklyn Nets change their name to the Vigilantes.

Charisma (The Movie)

Hello all, hope that you are all well, today, a quick movie review, and in essence a follow up to this earlier post, which went through all of the Kiyoshi Kurosawa movies I've seen. I don't want to alarm anyone, but this is a review for another one that I've seen. Today we review: 'Charisma,' another movie starring Kurosawa's bitch, Koji Yakusho. Spoilers kind of follow.

A reasonable movie poster, though not a great one. [source]

The movie has been viewed as a potential sequel to 'Cure.' Though only if the implied ending of Cure is ignored. The finale of Cure shows Koji as a detective and possible a hypnotist / murderer, while at the beginning of Charisma, he is a regular detective. We meet him at the beginning negotiating a hostage situation, which goes wrong, leaving both the hostage and the kidnapper dead. The hostage, referred to as an MP, seems to have a terrible, decaying office block for his office, another trait of Kiyoshi Kurosawa: hideous, dilapidated and claustrophobic building interiors. When put on extended leave for his misconduct, our detective misses his bus home and ends up in a bizarre forest

Artistically sound, though almost completely useless at describing the movie itself. Better. [source]

In this forest there is a bizarre conflict occurring, in which Detective Yabuike comes to take an active part. The forest is decaying: saplings die, seemingly healthy trees fall over at will, and only one tree seems to thrive. This tree is 'charisma' described as a 'monster' and as a 'most compelling tree' - it is tall and spindly, and is created by mutations which mean that its own life depends on it slowly killing the rest of the forest. Three parties in the forest fight over whether to kill or protect this tree, and each of them is allegorical for some aspect of society. The following is my interpretation, which I'm willing to admit is wrong. 

This movie, not to be confused with Charisma Carpenter, a now forgotten 90s lust object. [source]

For Charisma to thrive, it will kill the rest of the forest, and we are told that it has already made all of the forageable foods carcinogenic. What is better, one brilliant, compelling tree or a happy forest? I took this as a view of the Japanese view of society being more important than the individual, and the war within Japanese society between this dichotomy. We can also see a more straightforward ecological message.

This is the tree that acts as the next charisma tree, it's not as nice. [source]

The three parties who fight over what to do with Charisma are: the government-sponsored tree-planters; the hermit in an abandoned hospital (another great Kurosawa setting); and the biologist who lives with her sister in a fancier house on the edge of the forest. The biologist poisons all of the trees in the forest, hoping to make Charisma thrive, which would allow her to study primitive plant life as though it was free of human intervention. Secondly, the tree planters, working for a seemingly murderous government agency, want to destroy the plant to sell it on, making a profit and allowing the rest of the forest to thrive again. Finally, the young hermit wants to continue admiring 'charisma,' which he believes has special powers. It's hinted that the struggle between these three opposing sides has been ongoing for some time before Yabuike arrives. Before long he has sided with all three parties, and they realise that his final choice is the most important when it comes to the fate of Charisma. He debates the duality of predator and prey, and comes to the conclusion that some trees will be predated and others will be the predators, there is nothing he can do about it. This stoic message was, to me, at odds with his actions, as he tends to and protects Charisma, which he describes as a 'special tree.'

Here, Yabuike msunderstands tree biology. [source]

The movie's conclusion seems to suggest that Yabuike is responsible for the Armageddon brought about when Charisma 2 is destroyed. This would seem to run simultaneously with the similar apocalyptic themes evident at the beginning of Kairo (Pulse). Certainly it seems that if Cure could be seen as the indirect prequel to Charisma, we can easily imagine a world where decisions made in Charisma lead to the events of Pulse. This indirect trilogy would be really entertaining but would leave me a little woozy.

However, Charisma is more than just an intellectual and allegorical exercise, it is atmospheric and intelligent on its own. More importantly, despite hearing that this was one of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's weaker pieces, I enjoyed it much more than say, Retribution or Seance, or even Tokyo Sonata. Added to the appeal of the story, the desolate scenery, the excellent cinematography, and interesting music, there is a heavy sense of very dark comedy, notably through the multiple uses of bear traps on Yabuike.

In conclusion, although the plot seems insane, with a seemingly philosophical treatment of how to deal with a single tree, this movie is much deeper than it should be. It comes recommended if you like thought-provoking concepts within a more straight-forward movie.

That's enough, thanks for reading.

Pimple Terminology

As someone who has been the pawn in an ongoing adolescence for the last, oh, 16 years, I know a thing or two about pimples. Partly its genetics, partly it's poor diet and lifestyle, but from time to time I still can rustle up one or more of these pimples: between the ages of about 12 and 16, I had pretty terrible skin, and am lucky to be left without scars I would have thought, so I know of what I speak. this also makes it annoying that I can't grow a beard to this very day. N.B. Please be aware that I find this disgusting, but can't be bothered to write about less unpleasant things. For the sake of entertainment, I'll rate them all out of 5.

The Facechanger (a.k.a. Day Ruiner) - The perfect storm: it hurts when forming, forms in a terrible place so that you feel it constantly, and is too painful to squeeze so you have to sit it out. If it forms on one of the folds of your cheek, it can effect the way that you talk until it makes its long-awaited exit. Can lay there for weeks at a time. Often thumb-sized. A terror. *****

Pore-tease - Something which you think is going to turn into a Face Changer, but ends up as a regular pimple. **1/2

Colombo -  A pimple of any kind which you think you have got everything out of, but 'one more squeeze' brings forth more from its puss-filled treasure chest. **

Day Long Worry - When you are out for the day, either at work or on holiday, and you can feel a pimple somewhere on your face but can't check a mirror, and can't deal with it, so you have to worry about it all day. Between 0 and **** depending on situation and severity.

Haemophiliac - Any pimple which bleeds profusely, so much so that you fear you may have squeezed an artery so hard it burst. Tends to happen on first dates or job interviews. ***1/2 (bad but can be staunched)

Flirt Stopper - Any pimple which plays on yoru mind to stop hitting on people in bars, shops, or anywhere else that good times are had. ***

Golden Boy - That perfect combination of all pimple elements. A well-formed head, well-defined edges, solid puss that hits the mirror and then heals quickly. A joy. 0 Stars (on the inconvenience scale)

Golden Boy Jr. - Probably better than it's more formed brother. a huge blackhead which is easily squeezed, gives out a huge, waxy deposit to play with, and then leaves an aethestically pleasing hole. A joy (if you suffer from pimples). 0 Stars.

Dreadnought - Something which you feel forming, fearing that it will be a 'Facechanger' but which luckily comes to nothing. *

The Unwanted Houseguest - A possibly-unique-to-me pimple which looks like a small mark, but at any time, I can squeeze an enormous amount of pus from. It's utterly repellent and I've even been to the Drs about. However, it remains invisible unless I am tanned, and I live in Scotland. Problem: solved. Hideous ****

The Lurker - Any pimple which lurks under the skin without forming a head you can squeeze. Severity depends on the size and soreness of the pimple. * - ****

The Zombie - A pimple you think you have dispatched with, but lingers around for up to a week before healing - or worse, reforming because you didn't get all the gunk out of it. ****

The Bulger - Anything which causes a bulge in your face. One particularly shitty one I remember was the size of a malteaser and nearly killed me when I dealt with it. * - ****

Childhood Sweethearts - Two regular pimples which mutate into a monster when they form fully because they are in neighbouring pores. Irritating, particularly if they are the only two pimples you have! * - ***

Sui-Sebum - the feeling you get when you wake up, look in a mirror and have a variety of pimples on you that will prevent you from functioning as an adult, and make you want to kill yourself. ****1/2, or ****** out of 5 if they involve more than one 'Facechanger'

Limple - Pimple on the lip, or on the edge of the lip. Another one which varies depending on severity. A big question though, if it was big, would it be better to pass off as a pimple, or as a coldsore? ***

The Hair Bear (aka the 'Rambo') -Any pimple, large or small, which hangs out within your hairline, watching and waiting. * - ****

A recreation of me, aged 12-16. [source]

In conclusion: My skin was never 'that' bad, but I hope now you can see why people hate people who say 'oh, I never had pimples,' or acne medication adverts that use people who've never had a pimple in their life as the 'before.' Clearasil I'm looking at you.

Top Celebrity run-ins

I've met some celebrities in my time, let me tell you, whether its serving Kate Blanchett at a shitty bar I used to work at, or drinking heavily with Jonny Vegas, and also Gabriella Cilmi, who was sweet - these are my favourites.

6. Michael Carrick 

A bizarre run-in with him on the forefront of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne riverside (referred to as 'harbourside' by locals, despite not having any harbour). He was walking along with a mate and a kid, which might have been his, and stopped to sign a couple of autographs next to the millennium bridge. As he did so, the kid, aged about four, ran head first into a pole, it looked painful but everybody laughed for ages, then he left and walked away.

 

5. Wendell Sailor

More famous in Australia than in the UK, but still an important night. a Group of four friends and I bumped into him in a club, one of the girls there seemed to catch his eye, and he spend the whole night buying us drinks. He came with us to another bar and then left with this girl, before the rest of us went to the casino, where a friend dropped $10,000 Australian. The rest of us earned $100 and treated ourselves to Burgers. Gambling, it's a mugs game. Anyway, the newspaper the next morning (actually probably a few mornings after) was a Sunday supplement piece on Sailor having curbed his childish and philandering ways and being faithful to his wife. He continued to text my friend without her wanting to. 

4. Alan Shearer

 More sport this time, and a run in with Alan Shearer, who was shopping for shirts in an upmarket department store in Newcastle (it was the only place I could buy Coopers beer and it was Australia day, sue me). He touched a shirt, and looked at it, and then walked off, and I thought, that's Alan Shearer... before I realised the awe-struck crowd behind him who when he was out of sight all came and touched the same shirt he had. It was evidently a religious experience for them, and there were at least 7 of them. 

3. Benedict Cumberbatch

 A good one this, he was on a plane with us when I came back from Vienna (which I wouldn't recommend) - he was wearing a stupid fedora on the plane and then tried to barge me out of the way to get to his luggage instead of asking. I made a note from that day that I wasn't a big fan of him - I'd seen him in Atonement before then, but didn't realise he'd become ubiquitous in only five more years. Speaking of which, I got into an argument with Jack Whitehall before he was famous, for pushing my girlfriend at the time out of the way. IT really got my furious.

2. Dwight Yorke

 An unpleasant experience here. I was in Sydney when he was there playing soccer in the A-League, and was famous for partying around. I don't gamble, so was bored and drinking a beer while my friends bankrupted themselves, and I went to investigate a fake waterfall which is in the middle of the casino. I walked behind it, and found a Mr. Dwight Yorke actively fingering a girl, whose back was behind me. I caught his eye as I was backing away, and he flashed me his famous toothy grin. Unpleasant. 

1. Richard Branson

Proud of this one, another airport story, but cooler than Cumberbitch. I went to the toilet in an airport and saw Richard Branson there at a urinal. I took the one a few over from me, and then looked at him and said "so that's why you call it Virgin huh?" he looked frightened, smiled and then left without washing his hands. I was like 19 years old, and should have known better. 

1A. Gerard Depardieu

 I was reminded of this by my brother, and can't believe that I'd forgotten it. We went to Egypt, luckily before the major troubles out there restarted, as a last ever family vacation together. It was a joy, the biggest joy of all though, was going into the Giant Pyramid of Giza. To access the central bit, you need to climb a ladder which is surrounded at all sides by walls and is very tight. We had to pause before we got to go up it because some fat guy couldn't fit into the space surrounding the ladder. Who was it? You ask, full knowing who it was. A red-faced, gigantic Gerard Depardieu. Bizarre circumstances to meet a giant bloke.

 

There you have it, hope this has made your day. I also went to school with a girl who is now famous for rowing the Indian Ocean, and another who became an All Black, but that's less interesting. 

Have a great week crackers.

P

The Dark Knight Returns: a months-too-late review

Spoilers abound:

Despite being a nerd, I'm not that into comic books or comic book movies. I caught Batman Begins on TV one lonely evening, it was fine. I didn't mind the Dark Knight when I went to see it, although people whispering 'Heath Ledger, he's dead now' in the background was annoying. However it was a little humourless, and other than Heath Ledger's performance, wasn't compelling. For these reasons, and the fact that I was living in the third-world at the time, I didn't go out of my way to see the Dark Knight Returns; I watched it a few days ago with some mates (one of whom had bought it on Blu-Ray, AND she's a girl - NERD!) I'd heard it was good. Let's just say that I was surprised.

First things first: Bane, what the hell? He might have the worst voice of any character ever. He looks like a shoddy Lord Humongous clone, but with the sound of a camp Sean Connery stapled onto it. I actually laughed out loud when he sees the bat signal and says 'IMPOSSIBLE,' which, because of his voice sounds like 'IMPOSSIBUBBLE.' With a deep voice he could have been a little intimidating, but I could only chuckle when he says 'I'm necessary evil' with the voice of a penguin king. It's impossible to take his monologues seriously, and they bring the whole thing screeching to a halt. Let's look at a soon-to-be-banned youtube video (for breaching copyright law probably). Let's youtube:

Other than making Christian Bale's Batman voice only the second stupidest voice in the movie, Bane advocates anarchy, shows that torture to get information is wrong! and makes a brief nod to the occupy movement when they clear out the houses of the rich. Alongside that there are two women interested in Batman, a policeman who plays Robin, and about a million action scenes. Really there are too many action scenes, and they get in the way of the plot, such as it is, and that's something I rarely say.

Most disappointing of all though, is the finale, where Bane is just shot, for some reason, by Catwoman, riding on the batbike. It's stupid, and incredibly anti-climactic. As is the fact that Batman spends most of his time recovering from having a messed up back. There are also probably too many characters fit in briefly between pointless action shots -the scene where they shoot Marion Cotillard's truck takes an eternity - at the expense of, you know, character development: Cotillard and Bale have sex and there is no chemistry because they characters have only talked two or three times before. Also, Micheal Caine sits there crying like a wiener for half of his scenes.

Although there are a few good scenes, such as a few of the fights, and the football stadium, the film is definitely not as good even as the Dark Knight. The conclusion, and Bane himself, are disappointing. Exacerbating this problem is the humourless sincerity of the movie itself - this is pretty dark and humourless for any movie, let alone one adapted from a comic book. Weird, and probably one to miss, even if it's got Marion Cotillard in it.

Scottish Independence: The Definitive Debate

There will be a referendum for Scottish independence in 2014. I am recently returned to Edinburgh, and there are already ads around the city. Independence is a common thing for people to talk about. I, as a British citizen with a Scottish address, get to vote in this referendum. Some would point to my Australian accent that this shouldn’t happen. I would point out to those people one word: Braveheart. Seriously though, I am informed on many of the issues surrounding Scottish independence*, and will vote against it. Here’s why:

Scotland already has a lot of devolved powers given to it by Westminster, which remains the sole arbiter for various other powers. For example, the Scottish Parliament has control over various issues such as health and education, which is why Scottish Students have free university education in Scottish universities. These powers are growing in stature and power, and Scotland's devolution is much more strongly developed than that of Wales or Northern Ireland. This allows Scottish people to be overrepresented politically in the UK (a phenomenon known as the 'West Lothian question'). To illustrate, there is a Scottish Parliament, which can legislate on pre-designed (and ever increasing) areas thanks to Devolution. On top of that, as part of Britain, Scottish people are represented by MPs in Westminster in London. Furthermore, Scotland is represented in the European Council by MEPs. This means that Scottish people have three different types of representation for them: MPs in London, MEPs in Europe and MSPs in Edinburgh. If Scotland gains independence the MSP will take the power of the MPs.

This reduction in representation would make sense if the MSPs had full control over everything. That would make sense for an independent country - but they wouldn’t  – the terms of the treaty mean that even if Scotland gets independence, Scotland will keep the pound, meaning that its economy will still be tied to the Bank of England. Furthermore, it will remain part of the Commonwealth, retaining the British Royal Family. Already this prevents Scotland from setting, for example, its own interest rates, and ties them into the monarchy – who are considerable landowners in Scotland (Balmoral is one of the more famous of the highlands properties, as well as other places the crown owns throughout the country, notably Holyrood castle, which overlooks the new Scottish parliament building). In effect this would mean that its independence is limited already – should a country borrow anothers royal family? Shouldn’t a country be able to do with its money as it wants? Go all or nothing with independence- if that doesn’t work, go for more developed devolution without the petty act of declaring independence like an ungrateful pet.

This is my next point – There are tangible benefits to being in the UK for Scotland. ~Being part of the United Kingdom has allowed Scotland to thrive in a way that it wouldn't have had it not been a member. For example, its part in the industrial revolution and in the Empire (later Commonwealth) were important and lucrative for Scotland and the Scottish diaspora. While this may be morally reprehensible to today's eyes, it has been a huge financial boon to Scotland, and is one of the reasons why Edinburgh and Glasgow are as wealthy and beautiful as they are. This wouldn’t have happened had Scotland and England not been tied together. Also, today Scotland is able to put great influence into Westminster, for example recent Prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both Scottish – you could argue that for its population, Scotland has a disproportionate influence in London.

A little known fact is that (until 2010 at least) Edinburgh was the second largest economic centre in Europe, although it was dwarfed by the leader in this race: London. But why is that? Is it because the Edinburgh and London markets are intrinsically linked? Yes. There are benefits to being in a union with England and Wales which any idiot could see. Independence for Scotland would also mean greater fiscal responsibility, something which it has shown an ineptitude for even within a devolved government.

Would an independent Scotland have been able to fund a bail-out of RBS during the credit crunch? Not without great difficulty. Would a country responsible for its own finances have £431m to spend on a parliament building? Would a country which is financially responsible for its own actions continue pumping money into the ever-more-expensive, but ever-less-expansive Edinburgh tram, which is now 5 years overdue and 3 times its budget? No, it wouldn’t have. I think that in these cases a more prudent Scotland would be good, but Scottish nationalists are looking a gift horse in the mouth when refusing the safety net of a joint British economy.

 

A regular argument made by pro-Scots is that the money from the North Sea oil wasn’t given back directly to the Scots, but rather given to the British coffers and returned proportionally by population. They argue that this wasn’t fair, and certainly there are grounds to argue that (although it has increased profits and made particularly Aberdeen a much nicer place than it would have been had no oil been found) – ironically, now that the reserves are (potentially) drying up, and revenue from them is going down, the income would decrease just as Scotland gets the whole control of them.Graphs for the income from North Sea Oil are found here.

Without the oil money coming in, an independent Scotland would fend for itself with ever rising unemployment and drug problems, and a decreasing income from oil. This is particularly true when you consider that growth in other Scottish products, most notably whiskey is on the increase too. The increased demand worldwide for Scottish whiskey should also be a boon to the Scottish economy; however, the largest whiskey producers in Scotland are run out of London, with an obvious knock on effect if that continued.  

A common argument put forward by many (no source, but people I've talked to) is that per capita, Scotland doesn’t pay its way. This is untrue and had been particularly untrue since the discovery of the North sea oil, graphs suggesting this are here. This argument, that Scotland should be ejected from the UK because it isn’t worthwhile having them there, are ridiculous in the extreme and to be ignored. It is easier to find reasons that

Other than oil, banking and whiskey, tourism is a huge part of the Scottish economy. This can be seen during the Edinburgh festival, at new year, or throughout the summer, when nary a Scottish voice can be heard. Similarly, the Highlands is notable for its lack of cars from the UK driving around, and many of the most famous golf courses teem with foreign tourists. Loch Ness is nothing but Taiwanese tourists.  

This is good, but an important piece of information is that many of the tourists are from elsewhere in the UK, particularly England. This coincides with a strong anti-English feeling and sentiment which is being played on already in ads and in public discourse. I see this referendum not as a chance to assert a national authority (while maintaining another countries monarchy and central bank) but as a chance to ‘stick it to the English.’ This is at best, narrow-minded, and at worst, not moving on from things which happened centuries ago: look to the shouts of ‘wanker’ during Flower of Scotland, the national anthem; how will the many English and others feel in Edinburgh, now a multicultural bastion, if this underlying sense of 'other' continues through to independence?Almost definitely, this will lead to hostility and bitterness on both sides of the fence.

I’m not saying that these concerns and memories of past mistreatment aren’t without merit, but it is important for a country to become a nation on its own terms, and not merely to spite the master country. This is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of the English seem utterly indifferent to the Scottish, leading to a little brother big brother mentality which is laughable for Scotland, a country of great culture, history and beauty. For the sake of partiality I’d also like to put on record that I think that Jersualem is one of my least favourite songs of all time. It would be a shame for the Country of Robert Burns, Walter Scott, to start as a nation out of spite, and potentially burn any bridges through a shower of wannabe Braveheart nonsense. I’m not saying that the treatment of Scotland historically isn’t important, but this should be done objectively, especially as the two have been in a treaty binding the country since 1707.

At present there is a political disenfranchisement in Scotland – There is a Conservative and Lib Dem government throughout the UK, but only 1 Conservative MP In Scotland- meaning that the will of a nation isn’t reflected well. This is a point, but powers remain for MSPs to take over, and the breaking of a bond would also be detrimental for England and Wales, who would likely be subject to a bone-crushing Conservative government for the rest of time. There is political disenfranchisement in Scotland, but this will change next election. The fact that an election didn’t go their way isn’t enough to rescind the significant powers that Scottish parliament has, with the comfort net of being part of a country that will help to pay for its failed tram lines and parliaments. The UK as a whole benefits from this, as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are both evidence of Scottish importance (no matter what your view of them) to a British parliamentary system. (Brown, Blair both Scottish, which would probably lead to England and Wales having a Conservative government for the foreseeable future (for those not familiar with politics, Labour and conservative are both awful choices, but Conservative is far worse)

My final point is this: this whole issue will be decided by referendum next year. In an unusual move, people aged 16 and over are allowed to cast their vote. Some would argue that this is because Alex Salmond realises that people aged 16 and 18 are the most likely to vote for independence. This seems a little like manipulating the boundaries of voting to increase your power, something which a good democrat shouldn't have to do. I am not a fan of referendums anyway, the Referendum on changes to voting system a couple of years ago, or the numerous ones I participated in in Australia, and without getting into it, are at best a snapshot of those who turn up to vote in elections. and I argue that this form of direct democracy is inherently flawed, even before you get 16-year-olds along to vote. There’s a reason that 16 year olds don’t vote in elections: They’re largely idiots. The same is true of people aged over l8 - a referendum is a way for politicians to pass the buck onto its largely ill-informed, often wilfully ignorant populace. I despise the fact that I can research statistics and figures, make an informed choice, and still be outvoted by a bunch of people who have watched Braveheart twice. This is, I believe, a decision for the people to make during elections, and not on a glorified Newspaper dial-up poll.

Furthermore, Holyrood is currently has a majority party by the Scottish Nationalist Party, The SNP, run by the very clever and capable Alex Salmond. A shrewd manoeverer, he will do whatever he can to ensure Scotlands indepdence, despite the SNP having no real policies of its own outside of independence. It has promised an independent utopia that will be at once low-regulation and low-tax to the right, and a strong welfare state to the left. These are incompatible with the declining income of Scottish oil. More importantly, SNP has a troubled history: in 2004 it proposed an independent Scotland should use the Euro, and before the banking crisis,  - they have no real notions of what Scotland and Scottish people are like, or of any of the real exigencies that will arise when and if Scotland was to becoem independent - questions like, what would happen to the Scottish people serving on the armed forces for Britain? What would happen to the Nuclear submarines stationed in scotland? How could you disentangle 300 years of shared law and economics to form a distinctly seperate legal entity? How would the country really be independent if it keeps the British queen and the British pound?

On top of that,  everything Britain has achieved since the union, good and bad, has been together: the trappings and benefits of colonialism, of the industrial revolution, of global conflicts, particularly the Second World Wars. Importantly, the SNP protested against the conscription of Scottish soldiers during the Second World War, something they don't tell you in those terrible propaganda ads  which will air until the referendum is done. How anyone who thinks they are progressive and encouraging self-determination while intending to break the worlds strongest and longest lasting political alliances is beyond me, and how anyone can follow a party without policies which is heavily bankrolled by the Souter family and Rupert Murdoch and call themselves a liberal is as well. Its use of the terms 'National Movement' to describe its aimscertainly brings a chill to my spine, and should send a similar tremor down the spines of all those who though not Scottish, choose to stay there for its tolerance and liberal attitude, and who remembers or has learned what those words mean when combined throughout Europe. 

In conclusion: There are objective and subjective reasons for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom - but it boils down to the fact that there shouldn’t be a reason to break up a union which both sides benefit from. This is particularly true as Scotland has so many powers given to it already without the need to declare independence. I’m going to vote against it. However, I think it will pass after a long and potentially bitter battle, only to have the woad-wearing idiots have their dreams crushed when they realise that life on your own is more difficult, and that without the English to blame, there is no one but yourself. 

* This will refer to 'Scottish' and 'English,' rather than 'England, Wales, and Northern Ireland' -  why? because the UK is primarily England's work, and Northern Ireland and Wales don't count because they are nothing. There I said it.

P.S. this needs proof reading and extra references added to it, but I'll get there.

Guilty Pleasures (Movies)

I’ve been away for a fair while, and have only just seen the music video for Gangnam style. It’s pretty funny, but once is enough. I’ve also been listening to Ween, like a common 16-year-old. These two things have got me thinking about my favourite ‘guilty pleasures’ – specifically movies. I would count 'Mad Max 2', 'The Castle', and 'Idiocracy' as guilty pleasures, but I can argue that they are all genuinely good. The following though, I can't convince myself that these are high art, but I do like them. Here are five guilty pleasure movies, in chronological order. 

1. Hausu [1977]

Plot In One Sentence: In this demented horror-comedy, a group of seven friends go to visit one of their grandmas (and her cat) – turns out she (and her cat) are a witch or vampire or something!

A surprisingly sane picture, the eponymous 'House' is on the top left. [source]

Why Is It So Good / Bad? Made to appeal to a youth market, this follows a group of girls, each with their own distinct characteristic (e.g. one is sweet, one is hungry, one likes to fight), who are killed in some of the most bizarre deaths of all time. To illustrate, one is eaten by a piano, while another is smothered by sentient mattresses. The tone is uneven, the plot nonsensical, there are myriad insane scenes, cuts, and musical cues, and their teacher gets turned into bananas - but it’s hilarious and stupid at the same time. Almost unwatchable sober, but a great movie to watch drunk. 

Best Scene(s): The girls get on the train, where they discuss the past and have a collective flashback which should advance the plot but which they talk and gossip over. Another highlight is the athletic girl, for no reason whatsoever, gets rid of most of her clothes to fight the ghost. The undoubted highlight is when the cat sings the theme tune, which had been repeated throughout the movie. 

2. G.I. Samurai – [1979]            

Plot In One Sentence: A small modern military force travels back to Samurai time for some reason and pits modern military might against huge samurai armies.

Imagine walking your dog and coming across the filming of this. [source]

Why Is It So Good / Bad? Have you, like me, ever wondered if, like, twenty guys with guns, a tank and a helicopter could defeat a samurai army of thousands? Well Wonder no more! It’s a pretty good action movie, but its central premise is never explained, it’s overlong, and it’s almost entirely humourless which means that the scenes between the battles drag considerably. The main battle, after the group is betrayed by their allies, is an incredible, realistic depiction of how modern technology would compete against huge samurai armies. Also, Sonny Chiba (their leader) is the boss.

Best Scene: The main battle is a highlight, a half hour, serious depiction of warfare between a small modern battalion and a huge samurai army. The highlight of this is the cunning tactics which the samurai army use, particularly to overcome a helicopter. Surprisingly awesome- a nerds wet dream.

3. Road House [1989]

Plot In One Sentence: Patrick Swayze is a ripped, world-famous bouncer, recently out of prison; he is recruited to help bring peace to a rough, rural bar in some dive town, but finds more than he bargained for.

This poster even references 'Dirty Dancing,' making it the most '80s poster ever. [source]

Why Is It So Good / Bad? Possibly the worst idea for a movie ever made, and also probably the most latently homosexual (check out the disdain Swayze shows when he interrupts a couple having sex in the stockroom.) The whole conceit is ridiculous even before you add the insanely over-the-top bad guy, who wants a monopoly on the tiny town. It’s far too long and the romance between Swayze and the girl is basically stapled on. However any movie which has such a thing as a 'world famous bouncer' is beyond awesome.

Best Scene: Swayze’s first appearance in the bar, when he stops someone having heterosexual sex. Actually it’s when he rips out the guys throat (something he'd promised never to do again) after the immortal threat ‘I used to fuck guys like you in prison.’ Terrible. 

4. Shanghai Noon [2000]

Plot In One Sentence: Jackie Chan kicks ass and Owen Wilson cracks wise as they team up in the Wild West to save a princess and gather a scroll (or something.)

In this surprisingly difficult movie to get pictures for, Jackie fights using a horseshoe. [source]

Why Is It So Good / Bad? Other than perhaps 'Zoolander,' this is Owen Wilson at his funniest, and Jackie Chan seems to be having a good time too. It’s got everything: Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson crackin’ wise, some casual racism, Lucy Liu and a red-hot Red-Indian chick. There’s also some good fight scenes, drug taking, and at least two particularly evil bad guys. The problem, it’s pretty crappy, and doesn’t really sound as good as I just made it. 

Best Scene best scene: Owen and Jackie in the bath together playing drinking games and mucking about, predating Brokeback Mountain by a good few years. Also, Owen Wilson saying 'I don't know Karate, but I do know Kerazy' in the most high pitched voice ever.

5. Ong Bak [2003]

Plot In One Sentence: A Thai boxer from the sticks is tasked with bringing back the head of a valuable statue stolen by a guy who has a stoma and speaks with a larynx microphone.

Tony Jaa fights a Japanese guy, as well as Burmese, Australians, Americans and Thais. It's very multicultural. [source]

Why Is It So Good / Bad? Tony Jaa, the lead, is an incredible athlete, and I was actually going to do an ‘in praise of’ of this, but it’s just a bit too stupid. The girl is incredibly annoying, and the bald guy from Tony Jaa's village brings things to a stop every time he is on screen. Also, it starts so slowly that you wonder if there will ever be any joy in your life ever again. However, when the action starts it's amazing. The fight scenes are incredibly skillful and brutal and some other scenes showcase his athletic ability (namely the sprint through the crowded street). The climactic fights first in the garage, then in the cave is breath-taking, as is the extended scene in the Bangkok fight club where he is pitted against: a giant Australian; a speedy Japanese guy with an Afro; and a gay fella in a bandanna. All the action is Jaw-dropping, back-breaking and incredibly impressive stuff. Which makes the drag of the non-fighting stuff all the more irrelevant: particularly the tuk-tuk chase scene. 

Best Scene: the utterly irrelevant first 40 minutes before the action starts, or conversely, the insane, brutal fight with the Burmese guy at the end, especially the finishing move, which has to be seen to be believed (hint, hint)

 

 In conclusion: I stand by these, though I'm sure I could make more lists like it if possible. Just bubbling under, 'They Live', which I would have written about if I had the inclination. The fight scene alone makes this worth whatever money you pay for it. Have a friggin' great weekend.

Pascal.

The Harem Team

Hello everyone and happy new year! And welcome back to me- hopefully I’ll have a little more time to do some writing here now. Anyway, one of the more popular articles that I wrote last year was this one, about people I find attractive. This discussion continued with a friend of mine, who despite being whiter than I am, has converted to Islam. He lives in Indonesia where the interpretation there allows you four wives. I told some other friends this, and it led to a discussion on who we would most want on our harem team. The discussion went on for an age, but here are my 4. N.B. no one from the original list is allowed on; no one who isn’t famous either, and also no one who is a cartoon character – these last two criteria prevent my cousin’s attractive friend from being picked, and also Jasmine from Aladdin, who is a spicy dish.

1. Sabrina Houssami

There were certainly better pictures of her, but I chose this because I have no idea what's going on here. [source]

A former Miss Australia of Lebanese origin, and more importantly a babe. Tall, exotic and slender, she’s a beauty of some renown. Also, a close friend of mine went to school with her, and says that she is - and I quote -  "not a dick," which is better than nothing I suppose.

2. Nadezhda Tolokonnikova

No source.

I thought I was alone in this crush until at least two of my friends mentioned the 'hot one from Pussy Riot'. An internet search, as ever, opened my eyes further. She's exotic and pretty (at least before time in a gulag), principled, and now thanks to a prison sentence, a little dangerous. Ideal. Also, she’s tall. Sold. Also, she shouldn't be in jail anyway, she's got a kid.

3. Liz Cambage

Speaking of tall, let’s lob someone 6 foot 8 on the list. She seems pretty enough, and from an interview I saw of her after that game where she did a dunk seems pretty funny too. I also like the fact that she's a giant: perhaps I just want to be the little spoon. Also, I’ve just realised that I’ve chosen two Australian women to be forced into my harem, I’m not sure this is going to work out.

4. Salma Hayek

Wow. Boobs. [source]

Probably the most long-lasting lust-crush I've ever had. A serious babe, no doubt about it, and she’s still screaming hot at like 50. I’m not sure of her exact genetic mix, but it’s a good one. If only she'd been in more than two good movies. Still, it works.

In conclusion. No time for messing around with blondes, redheads, Asian chicks today – it appears that I sympathise with Shakespeare’s quest for his dark woman. I'm aware that this is a creepy article, but boobs means searches, and searches means hits for me. Hope everyone is having a great 2013 so far!

P