While on the subject of limericks…

by george s, 19 August 2007

Christopher Higeons

A writer called Christopher Higeons
Was scornful of all world religions.
On seeing the Bible
He was frequently liable
To chuck it at stray passing pigeons.

from The AA Book of Limericks

1.
Aberystwyth

There was a young man of Aberystwyth
Who needed some mates to get pystwyth
But he failed in the end
For the lack of a friend
And a pencil to make a shortlystwyth

2.
Cardiff

There was a young fellow of Cardiff
Whose penis would only get hard if
Wanked off by the entire
Treorchy Male Choir
On their annual visit to Cardiff

Mugged by reality

by Scoop Shachtman, 19 August 2007

Andrew Anthony describes his own response to the attacks on September the 11th 2001.

From where I came from, the United States was always the culprit. There was Vietnam, Chile and the dreadful support for repressive and often debauched regimes right across Latin America, Africa and Asia. I was a veteran of CND anti-cruise missile marches in the 1980s. I had gone to Nicaragua to defend the Sandinista cause against American imperialism. America was the bad guy, right? America was always the bad guy.

Clearly some basic moral calculations needed to be performed. Which vision of the world represented more closely my own liberal outlook? The cosmopolitan city of New York, a multi-racial city of opportunity, a town where anyone on earth could arrive and thrive, exuberant, cultured, diverse, a place I had visited and loved for its liberty and energy and excitement? Or the people who attacked it, those arid minds who wanted to remove women from sight, kill homosexuals, banish music, destroy art, the demolishers of the Bamiyan Buddhas who aimed to terrorise everyone they could into submission to the will of their vengeful God? It was, as they say, a no-brainer, or should have been.

But was there not also an obligation to ask if this heinous crime was more complex than it first appeared? That was the progressive instinct: don’t be fooled by the mass media, which we all knew was a propaganda industry, look behind the scenes, examine the bigger picture, think about the context, study history. And so if you wanted to consider yourself a member of the thinking classes, it was not enough to recoil in horror, you also had to take into account America’s own score sheet in matters of cold blood. ‘It’s terrible,’ was the often heard formulation, ‘but….’ Did I think there was a but? And if there was a but, could it be any kind of justification for what had taken place? And if it wasn’t a justification, what was the point of the but? Was it there to show one’s even-handedness and sense of fair play? Or purely for decoration? I knew right from the first second where my emotional sympathies were located but what was my intellectual position?

What helped guide me to the answer was the alternative analysis, the ‘It’s terrible, but’ in which the ‘It’s terrible’ was the decorative part of the equation. A number of commentaries that articulated this response quickly began to appear in different newspapers. Perhaps the most indignant came, with impressive alacrity, on 13 September in my daily newspaper, the voice of liberal Britain, the Guardian. ‘Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington,’ wrote Seumas Milne, ‘it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don’t get it… Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent.’

One doesn’t need to work for a newspaper - though it probably helps - to realise that Milne was underselling his own speed of analytical thought. To get his piece published on the 13th meant that he would have needed to have completed it by around 6pm or 7pm on the 12th. Allowing for its considered tone, which must have been the product of several hours of sober reflection, it would be fair to assume that he would have begun writing it, at the latest, at around 2pm. In other words, at about 9am New York time. That left the Americans a whole 24 hours to absorb the shock, deal with the grief and then move on to some cold, hard self-criticism. And they flunked it.

Milne’s savaging of American self-absorption was the most conspicuous example of an attitude that could be heard in plenty of sophisticated conversations, or should I say conversations between sophisticated people, and read in a number of left or liberal publications.

Re-reading the Milne piece again, all these years later, it seems even more repugnant than it initially felt. Like Andrew, it was one of the components of the aftershock of the 911 attack that bumped me out of an intellectual rut that many on the self-brainwashing liberal left are fruitlessly trundling along to this day.

The revolution is here, and Hari is its chronicler

by Jura Watchmaker, 19 August 2007

I read Johann Hari’s latest Indescribable article on the the tail end of a heavy Salvia Divinorum and whisky session, and suddenly found myself wrenched from psychedelic reality to a fantastic, Alician land of make-believe. No dragons here, but legions of environmentalists aggressively committed to non-violence.

“I hope you appreciate how I manage to keep under control my deep desire to kick your fucking head in,” says full-time protester Gemima Fyckwitte-Smythe, 20.

Marquees, windmills, compost crappers, the Glastonbury spirit, and switched-on scientists with bouncing toddlers saying, well, basically, we’re all up shit creek, and it’s all your fault.

And the Hari is there, in his leaking tent, as he is at all the epoch-making events of contemporary human history.

Hail the Hari, a hero for our troubled times!