If you ever wondered what it would look like if human civilisation had a complete nervous breakdown, well there you go.

Just to add a bit of balance to the Hitchmania, everything you always wanted to know about ‘reality’ television in three easy chunks.

“I’ve been called an orientalist and a neo-con,” the Iranian-Canadian writer, feminist and human rights activist Samira Mohyeddin told me the other day. “Isn’t that funny? Can you believe it?”

Sadly, yes, I can.

Here’s the problem with les enfants terribles: They grow up.

In the eighties, Martin Amis was the caustic golden child of the literary left, a chain-smoking, cliche-loathing prodigy who took time out of satirizing the brute materialism of the Reagan-Thatcher decade to condemn what he called the “mega-death intellectuals.” You remember these guys, don’t you? They were the ones who occupied the Rand Institute, quietly calculating the estimated corpses of a very likely nuclear “exchange” with the Soviet Union. They weighed their options of a “first-strike” against Russia. They rationalized “escalationism” as the only means of ensuring peace. Perhaps most important of all to language worshiper like Amis, they used these terms outside of inverted commas; they spoke of nuclear war unironically because they thought it was a war that could be won by something other than nuclear weapons.

Yes, the left once loved Martin Amis. But no more. Today he rightly calls Islamism a “murderous ideology” (all mega-death, in other words, no intellectuals). Amis deplores Bin Laden almost as much as he does those correct-thinking Londoners who make excuses for him, or elect to do his PR work. This is a surprisingly large segment of the population, mainly because it’s an unsurprisingly large segment of the Guardian editorial board.

I’ve already posted about Nick Cohen’s write-up of the London School of Economics rethink on Putin’s Russia and how it has spawned a new generation of British fellow travelers. Well, now here’s a thorough recounting of Amis holding forth at the Institute of Contemporary Arts against the same mouth-breathing contingent which applies itself toward the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein:

First question: “In view of the fear over Islamism, is it time to bring communism back?” “Er, no”, came the polite answer. “You loon”, the impolite, unexpressed addendum.

It was at this point that TV’s greatest satirist, the shaggy-haired Swift of our age, took his turn to speak.

And what a wonderful turn it was.

“How many members of the Muslim Brotherhood have you actually spoken to in your research?” he pronounced, in the tone of the man who’s sure he’s got a dead cert, TKO, killer question.

“Er, quite a few, actually,” replied Anthony.

Needless to say, Morris was somewhat deflated, as the haymaker he was sure would condemn his opponents to the canvas somehow fell short. But like any true champion, he kept plugging away.

“And you’re saying they’re all murderers,” he jabbed.

“I think Islamists subscribe to a murderous ideology,” parried Amis.

“So you mean they’re all murderers?”

“No, but I believe the ideology they subscribe to is murderous.”

This continued for what seemed like years, until Anthony deftly tagged Amis, and immediately set about the exposed belly of Morris’s argument.

“For example, [insert name of prominent member of MCB, well known to Cif readers] supported Osama bin Laden right up to Sept 11 2001, a period including the Kenyan embassy bombings among others.”

Morris, on the ropes, threw out the last lunge any southpaw can in these situations: “Well we supported Saddam Hussein.”

Defending Islamofascism — It’s a valid term. Here’s why.

Jamie Einstein, 13, a bright Jewish boy with a long pony tail and his wrist in a plaster cast, talked happily about two of his Arab classmates, Moataz and Majd. “My two best friends, one of them is a Muslim and one is a Christian,” he said. “For me it doesn’t matter. What really matters is what they are like.”

The Guardian reports on an educational experiment with mixed schooling in Jerusalem.

There is no suggestion that this is a panacea as the Israel/Palestine conflict is not, at heart, a communal conflict, but one over land and national sovereignty. Education cannot solve these political questions, though the school addresses them openly. However, the necessary two-state solution requires peaceful co-existence to work and this can only be enhanced by projects such as this, even if, at the moment, it is only reaching the children of middle-class professionals.

As my union, the UCU, retreats from the insanity of the boycott resolution, the way forward is surely for educationalists and their organisations to wholeheartedly support long-term educational developments that will augment a process of peaceful self-determination and co-existence, as well as helping to undermine the appeal of atavistic right-wing nationalisms.

Here’s something for the 9/11 ‘truthers’ who have been trying to spam this site:

Then

I first encountered Māori nationalists in the mid 80s, when Donna Awatere’s Māori Sovereignty roadshow came to town. It is a long time ago, but I recall a clammy, lardy, Pākehā woman in a lime green, lampshade pattern caftan, who would get up on stage and work herself up into a state of hysteria with snot bubbling out of her nose, howling ‘I’m a ray-shist, when I think of doctors and teachers, I think of white doctors and teachers, not Māori doctors and teachers, white dogs and cats, not Māori dogs and cats…’ The comedy warm-up act was followed by Awatere’s lengthy harangue about how shit everyone else in the room was, feminists, anti-racists, socialists–especially those Māori who had anything to do with class-based politics, who were effectively ‘traitors’. Māori social problems were not a function of capitalist society , but rather by inherent traits of Pākehā–and the solution to these problems lay in a return to the values and ways of pre-European Māori society. I left New Zealand shortly after. Donna Awatere ended up an MP for the right-wing ACT New Zealand party in 1996, before being expelled from Parliament in 2004 and convicted on several counts of fraud in 2005. So it goes.

Now

Whether or not there is any basis to the firearms and terrorism charges laid against 17 people in New Zealand this week, the figure apparently in the middle of it all–Tame Iti–is another clown. To give one example, Iti travelled to Fiji to lend his solidarity to the coup led by the racist George Speight, which deposed the multi-racial government of Fiji’s first ever Indo-Fijian Prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry in the name of ‘indigenous rights’, the disenfranchisement of the Indo-Fijian minority … and the advancement of his business interests. The nationalists–petit-bourgeois chauvinists–do not seek to overturn the existing social order. They entrench their power by dividing workers along ‘biologically’ determined lines, setting–in the case of Aotearoa/New Zealand–Māori against Pākehā and diverting them from class struggle and effective political action.

Afterword

There was a time when the response of the SWP to anyone pointing out the communalist character of RESPECT was [in Cardinal Fang voice] you lie! lies! lies! all lies! The special kind of United Front–special because it doesn’t fit the definition of a United Front–is unravelling, with the SWP suddenly noticing that RESPECT is in fact a communalist party. The end of the affair can’t be far off. The little orange explodey sausage for Bethnal Green & Bow reportedly told SWP activists ‘off you go - fuck off, fuck off the lot of you’ last week.

Commenting today on Rowan Williams’ Observer article on abortion, “FeralBlogger” writes…

“One million plus Iraqis dead and Mr Williams expects us to believe he has any morality at all. No wonder we don’t go to Church any more.”

I’d like to think that the author of the comment is being ironic, but with the Grauniad, Observer and Comment is Deranged this may be overly optimistic.

Dr Williams’ article is quite progressive for a catholic Christian, and displays his considerable skill as a moral philosopher. One could argue particular points, but the archbishop’s position on abortion is in my view quite reasonable. This, of course, means that contempt will rain down on him from all sides, such is the nature of the space in which the debate is conducted.

Meanwhile, the man who described The Simpsons as “one of the most subtle pieces of propaganda around in the cause of sense, humility and virtue” continues to sup from the poisoned chalice handed him by Tony Blair. Poor bugger.

Christopher Hitchens talks about his past tour and takes questions at the AAI 07 conference in Washington, D.C.

Part one:

Part two:

Quoting from this video* — starting at 18:18 and ending at 24:48 –

Q. Since the Iraqi war came up, I can’t help asking what your rationale is for the fact, we all agree that Islam is a very dangerous religion, that it’s going to take some time [unintelligible]. I can’t understand why you would defend us going into Iraq rather than Iran, and why you would think that we have any hope in a confrontation in winning without some really horrendous results.

H. Let me see if I understand you, or rather let me be sure if I understand you correctly: are you in favor of a confrontation with the Iranian theocracy?

Q. No, I am not.

H. No, you’re not. I thought not. You’re just using it, okay, as a means of ridiculing the confrontation with Iran. It’s not — you’re saying we went into the wrong country, so you should go neither. Well, I’ve met people like you before; it’s easy to read.

Q. –that was not religious, controlled by a religious figure, and create chaos–

H. Yeah.

Q. –rather than going into one that does have a religious figure. I’m not for either one, but–

H. All right, okay, I know where you’re coming from, as they say. An easy way to tell if someone doesn’t know anything about Iraq at all, is if they’ll say one of two things about Saddam Hussein: one, “Well, okay, he was a bad guy”, then you know right away they don’t know anything about him. No one who knew anything about the Saddam Hussein regime would content themselves with saying that, and second to say he was a secularist. I can tell right away. People have no idea what they’re talking about when they say that.

Saddam Hussein’s campaign of genocide in Kurdistan was called the Anfal campaign after a sura of the Koran about the spoils you may take from the victim, the devastation that you may inflict on them. It was Saddam Hussein who, sensitive to the charge from Iran that he was a heretic or an unbeliever, put “Allahu Akbar” on the Iraqi flag — that was fifteen years ago — who forced all members of the Baath party in the last ten years to undergo compulsory religious education, who pumped out on radio and TV Baghdad and throughout his embassies around the world, you all saw it, a constant stream of jihadist propaganda, who undermined the secular PLO by paying, paying for the suicide bombers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and paying a bounty for every suicide bomber which we found confirmed in the Iraqi bank records, was the patron of jihadism in the region.

It was well beyond time that he was removed from office in Iraq and I think the Senate did a good thing in 1998, and the House, on the initiative of President Clinton and Vice President Gore to pass the Iraq Liberation Act saying that year that it shall be–

Q. –you’ve not answered my question–

H. I’m coming, I, I’m, I am answering your question, sir.

Q. No, you’re not.

H. Well, wait, I’m denying the assumption of your question that Saddam Hussein was secular, and I’m coming to Iran in a second.

Q. Okay.

H. It was quite right the Senate to pass without a dissenting vote, by the way, the Iraq Liberation Act long before 9/11, and said it shall be the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Now, it seems to me, to come to Iran, that the Iranian theocracy is bent on a course of confrontation with us, it’s resisted enormous bribes and inducements, from the European Union, from the United States, and from the U.N., to allow us to be certain that its nuclear program is not directed at the acquisition of thermonuclear weaponry. There’s a very suspicious course of conduct. And all the evidence for its cheating on this comes, not from the C.I.A., but from the International Atomic Energy Authority, from the European Union, and from others. We have them cold on this point.

Second, they are conducting a campaign of murder and assassination in order to help Syria gain control of Lebanon. No journalist or politician elected in Lebanon can hope to turn on their car in the morning, if they’re opposed to Syrian occupation and the Iranian backing of it, without the risk of murder.

They’re the patrons of Hezbollah. Their agents have been found trying to kill a novelist in London, blowing up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aries, murdering a Canadian journalist of Iranian extraction, and seeking for confrontation also in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that they think they can fight and win a confrontation with secular civilization that they so much despise.

And it seems that the hubris that underlies this ridiculous campaign — after all, thanks to theocracy, Iran is a country where nothing works except the secret police and the nuclear reactors, nothing works. The country is bankrupt. It makes, it exports just what it did at the time of the theocratic revolution: pistachio nuts and rugs — while a secular country like Turkey is practically a member of the European Union and has no oil.

How do they think they can do this? Because they think the Twelfth Imam is coming back. Because they, too, have a messiah. Because they, too, have an apocalyptic sense of the future, and pretty soon a messianic regime is going to get hold of an apocalyptic weapon. The very moment we’ve all been dreading all our lives. That this would happen: a regime that doesn’t understand deterrence, that doesn’t understand self-preservation, that has a religious world view will also have apocalyptic weaponry. Well, are you prepared to wait and see this happen? Or do you think that it would be worth fighting to stop that eventuality? I have no doubt. Anyone who wanted to guess my opinion would be insulting me. (Applause)

I live, I live, I live to fight people like that, and I think the United States military has no higher calling than to destroy the regimes and disperse the armies of governments that threaten us in that way.

And so, I hope very much, that though you, sir, used Iran purely as a means of ridiculing the attempt to liberate Iraq, that you will find that the confrontation is both inescapable and just.

Anfal campaign

Allahu Akbar

Iraq Liberation Act

* (Thanks to John for the transcription).

Bonus Utube here:

Another trade unionist detained by the Iranian state.

Committee in Defense of Mahmoud Salehi

Put yourself in the shoes of these Arizona Paddies:

In a breathtaking abuse of the United States Constitution, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and their increasingly unhinged cat’s paw, special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, used the grand jury to subpoena “all documents related to articles and other content published by Phoenix New Times newspaper in print and on the Phoenix New Times website, regarding Sheriff Joe Arpaio from January 1, 2004 to the present.” Every note, tape, and record from every story written about Sheriff Arpaio by every reporter over a period of years.

Then comes this:

Plainclothes Maricopa County Sheriff’s officers arrested New Times founders, Village Voice Media Executive Editor Michael Lacey and Chairman/CEO Jim Larkin at their homes late Thursday evening for revealing grand jury information in their recent story Grand Jury Targets New Times and Its Readers. Both were taken into custody and have yet to be bailed out. Lacey is believed to be in the 4th Ave. Jail. And there are reports that Larkin was taken to a substation in Mesa.

Followed by this:

At a press conference on Friday afternoon, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced that all charges against New Times, its owners, editors and writers have been dropped — and that special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik has been dismissed.

Said Lacey: “We tried to make a modest stand for our readers, our reporters and our Constitution. Sometimes law enforcement prevails in their view of the constitution, sometimes the Irish prevail in theirs.”

Watch this:

Sign the petition here

And never doubt the importance of free trade unionism and international solidarity.

Where did these links come from? I am delighted to say from the UCU newsletter, a union returning to sanity.

I can’t help but find it more than slightly infuriating, but at least somewhat amusing, that the Canadian politicians those of us on the left count on to have the greatest familiarity with Afghanistan and Canada’s role there also happen  to be among the politicians who most obviously have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about whenever they open their great big yappers.

The most vivid illustration of this pathetic state of affairs comes today from Dawn Black, the New Democratic Party’s defence critic (although Denis Coderre is little better and he should just shut his cakehole). It pains me to say this becausethe NDP’s always been my party,  I like Black personally, some of her strongest supporters are members of my own family, she’s a great MP, a tremendous “constituency politician” and a good person all round.

But this is a disgrace.

The NDP’s plain-and-simple “troops out now” position was embarrassing enough to begin with, and now, in response to an Afghan opinion poll that provides yet another irrefutable confirmation that the NDP’s position represents the exact opposite of what the Afghan people actually want, Black says it just doesn’t match what she’s been hearing out of Afghanistan: “I find some of the numbers quite shocking and surprising,” she said.

Shocking? Surprising?

The only thing really shocking here is the degree to which Black obviously hasn’t been paying attention. If we are to take her statement as sincere at all, and the poll really does contradict what she thought she knew about Afghanistan in the most “shocking and surprising” way, and if it is really all that different from what she’s been hearing, then maybe Black should admit that  she and her party have been listening to the wrong people from the beginning and need to engage in a re-think of the whole thing.

There is something else that’s the tiniest bit shocking about this. If anything, the poll results amount to evidence that provides even less convincing a case that the NDP’s position is groundless and fatuous (i.e. Black should be even less shocked and surprised)  than the evidence that has been painfully obvious and readily available to Ms. Black, the NDP and all the stoppists all along.

This latest poll shows that Afghans believe that things are more or less moving in the right direction, that Canadian troops should not be just pulled out, conditions for Afghan women have vastly improved, President Karzai’s doing a good job, and so on. There is absolutely nothing shocking or surprising about any of this. We knew this long before this poll was released, and the NDP’s senior advisers on the question damn well knew that they were counseling a course of action that the vast majority of Afghans most feared and least wanted.

Almost two years ago, in what was possibly the most extensive public opinion poll conducted in the history of Central Asia, the evidence starkly demonstrated that the NDP position was not just vacuous and shallow but was also clearly unhinged from reality. The poll clearly contradicted just about every piety proclaimed by the Canadian “left” on the Afghanistan question.

That poll showed 88 per cent of the Afghan people opposing the Taliban, and even in the war zone, 81 per cent of the people were against the Taliban, and even American military operations were viewed favourably by 83 per cent of respondents. Around the same time, another public opinion poll showed that 85 per cent of Afghans said living conditions had improved since the Taliban’s rout, 75 per cent said security had improved, and 87 percent said the overthrow of the Taliban was a good thing.

In what should have thoroughly smashed the bigoted “Afghans are irredeemably misogynistic and backward and reactionary and they’re beyond help” line so commonplace among stoppists, the poll found nearly 90 per cent of Afghans said women should be educated and should have the right to vote.

The really infuriating thing about all this is the NDP is holding its own supporters hostage on a fundamental principle, in one of the greatest challenges of our time. The principle is solidarity. The challenge is the struggle against slavery, theocracy, misogyny and fascism.

If I have to choose between my loyalty to the NDP and the far greater and more urgent duty of loyalty to the Afghan people, I know the choice I’m making.

In a heartbeat.

Is this the worst town in Britain? People at Channel 4 certainly seem to think so, as they used the photo above to illustrate a story on the C4 news site, which states that Middlesbrough–home of the Parmo, sweary Tin Tin, the transporter bridge, Wilf Manion, the great Brian Clough and observer of the Transit of Venus, Jim Cook–’tops [their] worst town poll’. There’s a slight problem though. The photo is of a street in Stockton, which did not make the 20 ‘worst’ towns–looks good though doesn’t it? Aye, it’s all grim oop North, where there are no apple-cheeked blonde children frolicking on the village green while their parents sip latte-cinos.

Anyone for a ride on my giant electric pig? Calls cost £1.00 per minute; calls from mobiles and some networks may be higher.

Thanks: SP

Update: The Lonely Planet Bluelist has named the North-East as one of the World’s top 30 holiday spots:

[T]he North- East is the ‘most exciting, beautiful and friendly region in the whole of England’.

The guide states: ‘The regeneration of this once depressed – and depressing – area has been most obvious in the regional capital, Newcastle, and its Tyneside neighbour, Gateshead.’

Visitors are also in for a treat from the rugged scenery but those who hunger for more ‘contemporary attractions’ should ‘check out the new art gallery in Middlesbrough or the renovated quayside in Hartlepool’, it says.

Middlesbrough was named as the worst place to live in Britain in a survey for Channel 4’s Location, Location, Location earlier this week.

Hartlepool came in at No.20 on the blacklist based on crime rates, drug and health problems, standards of education and environment.

Wherever I read today, I’m given the impression that James Watson’s latest racist outburst is due a substantial response.

Bollocks to that. Does Watson deserve our attention just because he’s a Nobel laureate? Wisdom does not always come with intellectual ability, and neither, always, does academic rigour. I would give no more time to Watson’s cantankerous utterances on social issues than I would to BNP press releases issued in the name of Nick Griffin*.

* Griffin, in case you didn’t know, was educated at a well-known institution in East Anglia.

A new essay by Hitchens now available here.

How a shared tradition of ideas and values—not bloodlines—can be a force for liberty

Update: Audio interview with Christopher Hitchens (’about the last few columns he’s penned’ — and some other stuff, e.g. Trotsky) from Wednesday Oct 17, 2007… about ten minutes in length.

I always used to wake up in the morning to the Today Programme on Radio 4. Thought for the Day was the spur that got me out of bed and heading for the bathroom. I have kicked the habit now and so I missed a contribution that may have postponed my shower. It was Madeleine Bunting, pure Maddy at her inspiring best, defending faith.

To place faith and reason in opposition is false … faith is vital: whenever we get in a car, a train or an airplane, we are expressing our faith in the responsibility and expertise of other people … Any difficult decision - having a baby, making a long term commitment to a partner - is about faith …

Inevitably, she brought in a familiar theme,

Other cultures understand how human beings need faith and how to strengthen it, but our culture I believe, having lost much of its religious faith, has lost its insight into the nature of faith altogether…

and so on, and on …

She concluded:

We need, I think, to re-examine our prejudices and resurrect the idea of faithfulness. There are important values embedded in this word: ‘a faithful account’ is accurate and true; ‘in good faith’ is about a promise; ‘to keep faith’ is to keep that promise. These principles of constancy, integrity and commitment are how we build the faith of others- our children, partners, colleagues, friends - in ourselves just as, in turn, they build our faith in them. Faith is how we accept what is beyond our control, and recognise each other’s freedom. How we relate to each other must be full of faithfulness if we are to create communities, a society. Faithfulness is about living with trust and confidence instead of anxiety, fearfulness, suspicion and cynicism.

There is a slight problem with all this guff - language. The same word can have different meanings and Bunting managed to use the word ‘faith’ in every sense except ‘belief’, its religious form. She was talking about trust, loyalty and truth. Are we really prejudiced against trust, loyalty and truth? Do they require resurrection? If so where did they go? Is Christopher Hitchens writing books about the need for distrust, untruth, and disloyalty?

In these senses, faith and reason are certainly not opposed, they are contingent on each other, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. Trust, loyalty and truth are based on analysis, judgement, affection and experience. However, when, for example, the religious ask us to have faith, they mean us to suspend judgement and embrace belief. It is not the same thing at all. Sorry Maddy, but you have to do better than the use of slippery euphemisms to shake my faith - in a liberal, secular society.

Hat tip Will

A reader writes:

Can I Just Say…

Do you want to see a picture which screams smug, self-satisfied, southern, wing-nut and/or cunt? Meet Phil Spencer, presenter of one of those shite property programmes–Location Location Location.

He is the twat behind this deliberate “let’s ‘create a storm’ around a bog standard ‘it’s-grim-up-North’ wankfest, so beloved of London based media hoors. And I do not care, if it’s all based on official data–it is rank, prejudice-reaffirming crapola, the quality of which is demonstrated by the fact that they can’t even spot that ‘Boro is a town and not a ‘city’ (I also seriously doubt if the picture in the link is a Middlesbrough Street).

All of this, of course, is from an idle, fuck-faced parasite whose business does not have an office north of leafy Knutsford.

However be in no doubt as to what this really is about–hence my irritation. It is about poverty–that’s right poverty not location–that’s what determines quality of life in this context. The data they misuse are things like mortality rates, take up of disability benefits etc, most, if not all of which, are standard and well known, indices of deprivation.

So what a fucking fantastic idea; lets get a Chelsea based contributor to lussoluxury.com to make lite-entertainment about where most human suffering is concentrated (including it must be said a couple of deprived London Boroughs).

You don’t need to watch to confirm this assessment, here is his fuckwit of a co-presenter, Kirstie Allsopp:

What I want more than anything is to champion, not condemn, the places on the worst list as there are some real diamonds in the rough.

Oh yeah, precisely how–a roughoslummery.com alternative to the above?

Patronising, two-faced, mendacious cow. “Diamonds in the rough”? I care nothing for your Sex in the City derived fantasies and can assure you that we neither need, nor want, you as a champion.

Fuck off and die slowly you well matched pair of wankstains.

Channel 4 give your head(s) a shake.

Parmo! Parmo! Parmo!

Today, there is welcome news that Nouri al-Maliki has committed himself to prevent attacks by Kurdish rebel elements over the Turkish border.

Iraq itself has suffered from cross border attacks over the past four years, either by non-state actors moving across the Saudi Arabian or Syrian border, or from state-sanctioned forces from the Iranian regime. It is therefore perfectly correct that Iraq should ensure that such attacks on Turkey stop immediately as a matter of principle, quite apart from the practical consideration that a Turkish response to prevent such attacks would endanger one of the few successes in Iraq.

A comparison can be made with the Palestinian Authority, which while under the control of Hamas continued to launch rocket attacks against Israel. No real undertaking to prevent such attacks was made, indeed Hamas was actively behind such attacks, and Israel therefore saw a legitimate reason for militarily intervening in Gaza to prevent further attacks. Iraq is therefore correct to make the move to prevent further attacks on Turkey. So long as the Iraqi government is making strenuous attempts to control such violence, non-violent mechanisms should be used to discuss disputes between what are essentially two democratic governments.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University hosted a debate between writer Christopher Hitchens and Oxford University professor Alister McGrath on the role of religious belief in the modern world. The debate was held on October 11, 2007 in Gaston Hall, in Georgetown University’s Healy Hall. (1 hr 40 min 35 sec).

Heston Blumenthal’s new Chicken tikka masala recipe is so complex most average mortals will starve before completing it, and that’s assuming they obtain the logistical help of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Heston turns his attention to Chicken tikka masala. The search starts at his local curry house in Cookham, Berkshire, but soon takes him to Delhi where he tries to unravel the complicated roots of this dish. On returning to his restaurant in Bray, Heston tries to build his own tandoor but soon realises that most people aren’t able to dig a five-foot-deep hole in the ground and line it with fire bricks. So, he comes up with a more accessible solution - a barbecue, but with a few bespoke alterations.

In Cambridge, Heston puts a chicken breast through a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan to see how a marinade affects the meat as he tries to create the perfect sauce.

Coulter’s website got hacked — it was down for a while (not long enough tho’ but).

However - look here

Use Of ‘N-Word’ May End Porn Star’s Career

I’ve just received a heavy-hearted email circular from Hadi Butimar, brother of one of the two Kurdish journalists on death row in Iran. The message does not concern Hiwa Butimar and his co-condemned Adnan Hassanpour so much as Hiwa’s father.

On 12 October Mr Ali Butimar died, we are told, of a broken heart shortly after a prison visit during which father and son were separated by a thick glass partition, and had to speak through a phone line. Maybe this is common practice in other countries, but it doesn’t make it any less barbaric.

Meanwhile, Turkish military forces are massing along the border with Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iran and Turkey continue their shelling of Kurdish villages.