from the morgue

Tony Bliar

Tony Blair, right now, is cornered.

At the party conference he admitted the evidence of WMDs turned out to be wrong. He offered in his defence:
(a) "The rest of the international community also believed it" - well, that's a surprise, considering they 'believed' it based on your dossier and political pressure from the US. In other words, this doesn't absolve you - it's another thing you must apologise for.
(b) "I believed it to be true." Suuuuuure you did. Tony, we who opposed the war mostly thought you believed it. We were protesting because you were an idiot to believe it. It was a colossal failure of judgement. Sorry, mate.
(c) "I won't apologise for removing Saddam." That's right. Because the entirety of the Iraq issue is WMDs and removing Saddam.

Tony never believed he was going to war for WMDs. He lied about that. Determinedly and baldly lied.

(That's a fact, by the way. It came out in the Hutton report, waaaay back in January, that Downing Street had desperately sought to strengthen the dossier before its release. The process of logic leads from this fact inexorably and inevitably to the conclusion that the UK government were, contrary to their claims, not going to war on the basis of WMDs.

I wrote about this back then, and I still haven't seen it mentioned by anyone but me. The content of the report was of course buried under the spin it got on the left and right in the UK and the US.)

We who opposed the war - also known as "the side that has been proved right", you'll note - had doubts about the WMD intelligence from the start. This led us to to look for the real reason for war. Well, we were right about that as well.

Tony Blair lied to the UK and led this country into the current disaster in Iraq, not to mention adding inestimably to the diplomatic legitimacy of George Bush's squalid little junta. Now he's dissembling and waffling and hiding and confounding and doing everything he possibly can to avoid dealing with what he did.

He's stuck in a corner, slowly and carefully performing a PR-structured focus-grouped media-tested step-by-step U-turn, on a schedule that will get him out of this whole situation in time for a general election next year.

In his situation, he has to lie. If he's honest about Iraq, his whole presidency - whoops! I mean prime ministership - comes crashing down around his ears.

But that's what he deserves: to fall from grace, spectacularly, hugely, humiliatingly, with all his self-delusions laid bare.

He doesn't deserve his position as Prime Minister. He has failed the people of the United Kingdom. Worse than that, he has betrayed them.

I have no sympathy for him. I hope the horrible stress he is under now tears his soul apart.

------------

Of course, he's going to get re-elected. There is no credible alternative.

That's the saddest thing of all.

Crisis on Infinite Me

I was going to have a big rant about Tony Blair. I had it all boiling up in my head and everything. Then I was gonna post about the lovely Ken Loach film Ae Fond Kiss that we just saw. But I'm not gonna post on either topic, because it's even later than it was when I posted that other post just behind this one.

Instead I'm gonna say, go check out Steven Grant's column 'Permanent Damage', a weekly feature on Comic Book Resources and pretty much the best comics-related column you'll probably ever read. He's particularly good on the business of the comics industry, on US television, and on being utterly scathing and insightful about politics in the US in general and the reign of President Hand Puppet in particular. But just read it to ratchet up your coolness factor - after all, comics are the in thing right now, the New York Times has said so - if you can't namecheck Chris Ware, Daniel Clowes, Charles Burns, Joe Sacco and above all Art Spiegelman then you aren't fit to be hip.

Fellow additivericher Pearce, of course, has chosen exactly this moment to denounce comics. Is he way ahead of the curve? Or way behind it? You decide...

Anyway, Steven Grant. If you check out this week's entry and look reeeeal hard, you'll even find an unbilled cameo appearance by me. His response makes it all worthwhile. Hee hee hee.

Hmm, didn't I used to post serious, considered discussions of political issues on this blog once?

I really must go to bed.

This Week: New Thrill!

A comment by the lovely el Rache has prompted me to get off my rear and update my site template. So, a wee tour:

To your right: a recent comments list! (Soon to be populated by the charming bob@y4h00.com offering exciting online gambling opportunities!)

Also to your right: some changes to the links list.

(a) Mike Sands is newly blogging, apparently about games

(b) whereas Stephen has been blogging for a rather long time about all sorts of stuff - he's the only person linked to here I don't know in the flesh, but I have it on very good authority that he's a top bloke

(c) in a fit of silliness I changed the name of the link to Matt Mansell & family's blogsite, and it seems kinda wrong now, but I can't be bothered changing it again and rebuilding, sorry Matt I love ya but it's past midnight on a school night

(d) the ever-insightful Rafah Kid Radio has stopped broadcasting BUT it has been replaced by the bigger, brighter and bluer...

(e) Rafah Pundit (linked to down in the increasingly-inappropriately titled "wombling free" section.) One stop for a whole lot of comment and insight on lotsa stuff but particularly on Rafah in Palestine. You'll see stuff here you won't see anywhere else. Highly recommended.

Um, that's all.

Electoral College Hurts My Brain

Some comments on Robin D. Laws' livejournal have started fuzzing up my brain.

The US has an electoral college system, wherein each state can cast a certain number of votes in the Presidential election, from 3 to 20-something (I think). However, each state is run as a mini-election - and in almost all states, the winner in the state election gets all the state's votes in the overall election. That is, it isn't proportional. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate A wins the election 51% to 49%, all 10 votes go to candidate A.

Now this seems absurd and archaic to me.

However, LJ user jbru then said:
"The electoral college, however, is a mechanism by which the individual voter has a greater say in the outcome of the election. See http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm"

Now I'm not sure. Its one of those things where I think I understand the nuances - but I'm not 100% sure I do. Is it in fact the case that when I vote, I want the outcome to be determined by the majority of my fellow voters? Or do I want a system that makes each individual vote more powerful (i.e. more likely to swing an election)?

If anyone's still reading you're clearly interested in either logic puzzles or politics or both. So go read the links, both of them. If you're feeling really motivated you can check the logic of my posts there...

CLIck CONnector

Today's Ron the Body instalment: Cass and Ron are finally hanging out together in the relationship that will define the book. And its happening beautifully. The dialogue between them flowed sweeter than between any characters I've written since In Move. And those characters ended up so completely true in my head they're like parts of me.

If this is a sign of the way things are going in Ron, then I am more confident than ever that this will be The Book.

(Of course, tomorrow I'll probably stall in mid-scene and choke and die and feel blackly despondent in that special melodramatic way we writers have.)

----

I've been going to a lot of parties lately. Morag'n'Bex's flatwarming, Cat's flatwarming, George's farewelling, and the hello and goodbye events marking Kathleen's brief return to this country to re-enrol at Edin Uni. Now she's back on the anthropology beat in Syria, in sunny Damascus, just in time for Israel to carbomb a Hamas leader there! Hurrah the Middle East. Lordy. Hmm. How did I get from parties to assassination in one simple paragraph? Life is incredibly strange sometimes. The parties were great!

----

I have a large backlog of email. Mum, I did get your message about Tongan Ninja. I am surprised you watched Tongan Ninja. But, yay! Now I want to see the documentary...

British Comedy Is Good Right Now

In the wake of The Office we've had such gems as Peep Show, Jam, Nighty Night, The Smoking Room, and my new favourite funnylaughmakingshow Green Wing. The pendulum is swinging back from the States for the first time since the 80s.

These shows are all of a similar mindset - edgey, absurdist, misanthropic, deadpan. It is a new wave, as solid as anything the UK has ever done. They are on the same radar as Fawlty Towers, as Monty Python, as the Goons.

It is a new bright time for comedy, and like any time for comedy, it won't last. They belong unquestionably to right now.

It's finally starting to feel like my generation is taking control.

Two Other Things

Thing Number One: the other night I watched Charlton Heston read the lyrics to Body Count's Cop Killer. (Sorry, Pearce, I didn't record it.) Cross that one off the 'to do' list then.

Thing Number Two: This dude in NYC made a store/cafe/thing. "affordable art + shoestring media + zines & comics + obscure bands.....open wednesday through sunday........noon till dark"
Wellington should have one of these. He goes through the whole process of how he made it happen and its interesting reading. Wellington people - take note. Spread this url around. Maybe someone will take a hint...

The Bypass

Like Chuck, Bradles has suggested to me that I might write a bit about the proposed motorway extension (the "bypass") in my homebase of Wellington, in the context of the upcoming local body election there.

There's a website called Heartbeat that looks at the election with a bypass focus. If you're in Welly, check it out.

I'm heartily opposed to the bypass. There are so many reasons why I almost don't know where to start.

I think the biggest thing that gets me is the blindness evident in those demanding such a massive change to the city's infrastructure. To the bypass backers, the only choice is between a Wellington that is backward, clogged and inefficient, and a Wellington that is forward-thinking, free-flowing and efficient.

They seem blind to the fact that a more fundamental choice is embodied in the bypass project - a choice between one kind of Wellington and another.

In my head, from a distance, I understand Wellington in terms of its three streets - Lambton Quay, Courtenay Place, and Cuba Street. They all reach out (more or less) from a central core in Manners Mall. They embody three different aspects of Wellington.

Lambton Quay is the seat of the city's productivity, its economic strength, its political significance. It is, if you'll indulge a clumsy metaphor, the city's mind.

Courtenay Place is the seat of the city's nightlife, its theatres, its nighttime. It is the city's body.

Cuba Street is the seat of the city's creative energy, its endless innovation, its diversity. It is the city's soul.

Wellington is a city with a rare balance, and of a size where that balance is felt. It is a city where that balance is embedded in the streets themselves - these are concrete symbols of what Wellington is. It is the balance that makes Wellingtonians feel at home.

The bypass will impact on Cuba Street. It will carve a symbolic wall through Cuba Street itself and cut it off from the extensions of the Cuba-Street-idea - places like Aro Valley, Brooklyn. It will have a huge effect on the city.

Now, I'm not saying that the bypass will definitely change everything or will definitely be the tipping point. There's no way for us to know that. But it will cause significant change, of that we can be certain. If it comes to pass, Wellington will not feel the same. The balance will be shifted. If worst comes to worst, the balance will be completely upset.

This is, in itself, a huge and important reason to oppose the bypass.

But that's not the reason I'm getting at here.

The reason you should vote anti-bypass councillors is this: those who support the bypass don't understand any of what I've said above.

It isn't even that they do understand but think differently. They simply don't get it.

A city is more than its component parts. A city is also the relationship between everything within it. It is the ideas we hold about it. It is the way we move through it. It is the way we see it when we are part of it. It is the way we remember it when we are on the far side of the globe. A city is a network of ideas, it is an impossibly complex system, it is a bubble always, always bursting.

A city is more than its component parts. This is hard fact. This is how our brains work. This is how we see and believe and know the world. Things connect. This is what it is to be a human being.

Any person who cannot understand that a city is an idea more than a place should not be trusted with its care. Those who support the bypass fail to understand this. Do not support them.

-----------

And on a less cod-lyrical note, what the hell is it with that stupid pro-bypass argument that it will save thousands of work hours each year or whatever, by making sure workers get into work a few minutes earlier each day?

This is *absurd*. It's the dumbest thing I've heard in the whole bypass argument. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Workers who get in a few minutes earlier are gonna spend a few more minutes checking email, having a coffee, going out for lunch, and leaving a few minutes earlier to boot. I mean, hello? Human beings, remember?

-----

And while I think of it - the nicest places I visited in Europe were ones where the inner city was pedestrianised. Some (Montpellier, for example) were almost entirely pedestrian-only in their core. *That* is the way we should be moving. Cities are for people, man.

All Things End

I got an email today from Paradise net, who have been happily sponsoring my Apocalypse website, free, since early 1999. They've decided they don't want to sponsor me anymore and it goes to a pay programme now.

Oh well. The original agreement was for one year. So I got four bonus years. Nothing to complain about there, really.

---------

In other news, Flight canceled after passenger discovers Arabic-style handwriting in magazine.

My Ethical Dilemma - Advice Needed!

I'm gonna post verbatim my contributions to a big thread on RPGnet. Its on a registered-folk only section of the board so I won't link to it. Its fairly long, but I would really appreciate feedback.

--------------------------------
(post #1)
On Saturday afternoons I run a roleplaying club that is focused on recruitment (lately we've been creating 2 new gamers every week, which is pretty damn snazzy).

We meet in a cafe seating area that is located in an internet barn - so there's an island of cafe-style tables, where we hang out mixed in with random cafe people, and surrounding the tables are rows and rows of computers offering internet access. (It's an easyInternet, for those what know the brand.)

So Saturday I was co-GMing with a guy who was running his first game (which he was doing only a month after trying RPGs for the first time) - a fun Mutants and Masterminds thing he'd come up with. As he was doing okay, my mind wandered a little and I glanced over the back of the section wall at a row of computers.

There was this guy there, who looked to be in his early 30s, and he was gazing at and writing messages in a chatroom that was bannered 'juniorteenschatsite' or something.

It was obvious the site was Not For Him.

I didn't know what to do. I didn't, in the end, do anything. To be quite honest, I forgot about him when the 14-year-old-newbie-filled game needed my guidance - he was gone by the time I thought of him again, which was at least an hour later.

I'm thinking back on it now, and wondering if I should have done something, and if so, what?

Erg. *shudder*

(post #2)
I was definitely aware of that possibility, that he was there legitimately. Something in his body language just screamed 'yuk' to me, though.

The easyInternet chain have no onsite staff to bring in.

I'm not naive about this - I know in my head there's a lot of this goes on. But I'd never seen a genuine in-his-habitat pretend-juniorteen before. It was unnerving.

I've just realised, this isn't just idle thought - if he comes back another Saturday, and I see him, I'll be wondering what (if anything) to do.

Pretending to be a teen in a chatsite, that's hardly criminal in and of itself, of course.

Erg. I dunno.

(post #3)
> Innocent until proven guilty, chums.

Absolutely. I've always been harshly critical of this country's tabloid-driven paedophile hysteria.

But I just got bad vibes from this guy. Which ain't worth anything to anyone who doesn't trust the calibration of my vibometer.

(post #4)
There're a lot of voices coming in saying 'its not illegal'. We know this already.

*No-one* is jumping to conclusions here. The actions that have been suggested are of the 'get someone to check things out and make sure they're on the up and up' variety.

The easyInternet site requires registration to contact them. Dumb. So I'm not emailing them for advice as to whether or not its possible to monitor chat logs. And there's no-one on site at the cafe to talk to (only coffee staff and cleaners who know nothing of the internet stuff).

If I see this again, and I'm uncomfortable, I don't see that I can do anything about it. At most, I could go and talk to the person and say 'I noticed you're on a junior teens site and it's making me uncomfortable'. If I don't choose to do that, I sit back and don't think about it.

------

Argh. I don't know. I'm really troubled by the notion of an adult hanging on a teensite in 'disguise'. Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it right or 'acceptable'. (Any more than stupid trolls are right or acceptable.) Social interaction is the way to deal with these sorts of concerns.

I'm twisting in the wind here. I think I need to think carefully about what my obligations are in this situation, in order to be a responsible and reasonable member of society/community.

(post #5)
> The presumption of innocence only applies to the legal system.
> It does not apply to the opinions of private citizens.

FWIW, I'd prefer a world where it did.

(post #6)
Oh man. Can of worms well and truly opened here. Just watch your analogies, guys.

What I saw was a man in his thirties sitting on a computer participating in a chatsite that was specifically, clearly and exclusively targeted at 12 year olds.

What I know is that there are a surprising number of men who visit such chatsites and pretend to be children.

So analogies with anything other than a website that is explicitly for young teens don't hold. And analogies with schoolteachers or school volunteers don't hold either - there's no possibility of deception there.

------------

Now, I know full well that there are legit reasons why he might be on that site. But, as I understand it, the odds of this guy being in that chatroom pretending to be a kid are vastly higher than the odds of him being in there legitimately. I also got the proverbial 'bad feeling' about it.

Where does this leave me? I don't know. While Radical and Cessna are seriously misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position (and quite unpleasantly I might add), I am leaning towards their point of view - that ultimately, it isn't my place to do anything.

All the measures I can think of to intervene are too intrusive. They all get too close to 'guilty until proven innocent' for my taste. I've mentioned before in this thread that the culture in Britain of hysteria about paedophiles disturbs me. This is the microcosmic form of that.

If I believe that we should give people the benefit of the doubt in order to prevent unreasonable suffering by the innocent, then I have to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

That doesn't mean I need to feel entirely comfortable about doing so, of course.

-------

I'm not entirely convinced of this, mind. I also feel that I am part of a community and as such I have a responsibility to look out for trouble and act when I see reason to.

Mostly that's simple stuff - if there's a broken bottle in a children's play area, I'll go pick it up.

This is not simple. If I get an idea that something bad is afoot here, I have no way to check it out without overstepping what I feel are appropriate boundaries. So I either discount my feeling or overstep those boundaries.

I'm sticking within the boundaries for now. But I'm not entirely convinced its the right choice. Maybe neither of them are the right choice.

I'd love to see people keep talking about this, because I'm not finding it a simple situation. But please, no snarkiness, and no more dumb analogies.

Intl. Talk Like A Pirate Day

Arr, it were yesterday. Oh well.

[mediawatch] Fundamentally Decent Citizens

So on Wednesday there was a protest at Parliament about the bill to ban fox hunting. Quite apart from the issue at hand, it has been disturbing to see how it was covered.

There has been a lot of comment about the protest. Ten to twenty thousand people were involved and it turned nasty, with some violence and blood flowing. Most importantly (in the eyes of the press) a bunch of protestors breached the House of Commons.

Luckily for all, these protestors were fundamentally decent citizens who have been treated appallingly and are sticking up for themselves. In fact, here are some fawning profiles of these brave citizens.

(Trust me, it was worse in the print media - loads of snazzy photos of handsome young men looking upstanding, with royals in shot if possible.)

Hmm. I seem to detect a slightly different flavour to the coverage of this protest than that accorded a certain other protest in recent memory. That one against the Iraq war?

It almost makes one suspect that, here in the UK, there are unresolved issues of class.

Oh If I Were A Fiver And Sixpence

Oh, if I were a fiver and sixpence
I know just what I'd do
I'd spend and die for a bridie pie
And a custard square or two
(Yes a custard square or two)

Oh if I were a fiver and sixpence
I know just what I'd need
Hire a balladeer to sing everywhere
and be famed in word and deed
(Yes be famed in word and deed)

Oh if I were a fiver and sixpence
I know just what I'd try
I'd buy you out of your finest stout
And I'd drink the bottles dry
(Yes I'd drink the bottles dry)

Oh if I were a fiver and sixpence
I know just where I'd be
I'd face no fuss on a country bus
For I paid my way with me
(Yes I paid my way with me)
For a fiver and sixpence is me

---

No, I don't know what I'm doing either.

I've Got Some Lovely Comments

to some of these last few entries. Check 'em out.

(Getting a comment from my grandmother was a special treat :-)

---

Officemate Lesley came back from maternity leave today. Teresa bounced around a bit more about the wedding. Lesley and Kerry talked creches.

I've long-ago perfected my ignore-all-surroundings skills (essential for my schooling at St Bernards College). My smile-and-nod skills, however, are somewhat rusty right now.

But probably not for long.

Blair on Environment: a welcome surprise

Wow.

Tony Blair has called for the UK to face the reality of human-caused climate change.

This is a huge deal. Governments have traditionally said 'we can't know for sure' - the same magic thinking I ranted about a few posts below, only writ large - out of motivation to avoid doing anything and make hard choices or cross big business. For the British PM to stand up and make such a claim as this will change the rhetoric a great deal.

Cal mentioned that Tony sounds like he is, personally, scared. And I think she's right. That speech came out of his own realisation that his children are screwed if nothing is done.

He's going to be under massive pressure to moderate his position. I hope he stands strong - he's been bloody-minded enough over Iraq, after all. And I don't think he's going to achieve terribly much in concrete terms. He can kiss any Washington influence he actually has goodbye if he tries to make this an issue over there.

But it shifts the balance of power in the public debate, and that is a wonderful thing.

-----

I remember, about a decade ago, I was reading a magazine and I saw a two-page glossy ad spread showing a rainforest. In the corner was a Mobil logo and a blurb about how Mobil was investing seriously in research into new fuel technology "for a greener future".

I remember seeing that and thinking to myself, "we are sooooo fucked."

Bouncing Boss

My lovely boss T got engaged last night!

They went to see the Bourne Supremacy before that. Apparently the movie was quite good.

Congrats T!

Milestone

Finished part one (first four chapters) of Ron today. Hurrah. That clocks in at somewhere around 30,000 to 35,000 words. In the first draft of Ron, part one was about 5,000 words. I knew I was doing a second draft before finishing the first one for a reason - the whole piece was being thrown out of whack by the too-short opening.

Anyway, there are four parts, plus 'bonus' chapters between the parts. If this wordcount is any guide, I'm gonna hit (4x30k + 3x7k=141k) about 140,000 words for the first completed manuscript.

Just like In Move.

And just like Fell Legacy.

Hmmm. There seems to be a pattern forming here.

------------

In other news, I seem to be entering the category of published RPG writery guy.

Appearing in next month's Signs & Portents is 'Breakdown Control', a crazy game setting thing written for Gar Hanrahan's OGL Horror. It's a good piece. I'm proud of it. I tried to make it something that Warren Ellis (careful - Warren's site isn't worksafe) would look at and say: "This is good." I think I managed a "this doesn't suck," which is good enough for me.

Here's the blurb for those to lazy to click:

"Breakdown Control – A violent world of brutal terror opens up in this new campaign toolkit for OGL Horror. One minute you are nobody special, then you receive a briefcase and inside a cellphone is ringing. Well, are you going to answer it? Of course you are."

If that doesn't seem like my writing, you're right. But it does the job well enough. No-one's gonna buy it for the OGL Horror stuff - it has a Paranoia XP adventure within and that's gonna be the big drawcard, methinks.

But my article's gonna be the best thing in it.

(I have to say that.)

Two Years Ago

I got on a plane and flew out of New Zealand for the first time.

One year ago I convinced a bunch of people to stand in the rain on a freezing Wellington evening to commemorate this fact.

Something to do with the then-current fad for flashmobbing, as I recall.

Silly buggers. But I love them for it.

(pic after the cut)

Unsurprisingly, I can't identify everyone in this photo. Help, anyone?

MMR and autism

In the papers today, the Lancet's report on the MMR-Autism link. Or absence of link, actually.

The huge public suspicion of these innoculations is driven by the human tendency for magic thinking. This can cause real problems, undermining the health of whole populations. And the only way out is not to provide more evidence, but to properly educate people as to what the evidence demonstrates and how science actually works.

Here's the problem in action, the reaction of Bill Welsh of Scotland's Action Against Autism pressure parents group, to the news that the Lancet study found no convincing evidence of a link between MMR and autism:

"They may have found evidence that did show a link, but they did not find it convincing . It is just clever language and we have had enough of it. What parents want to know is what causes autism, not what does not cause it."

Someone needs to take this guy aside and explain that:
(1) unconvincing evidence is not evidence
(2) that sort of clever language is needed to talk about the process of science, which operates with precision
(3) it is impossible to demonstrate what causes something - science works by ruling out things that are not causes, and saying what's left is the most likely explanation.

I suspect someone's already tried to do this, of course. Probably their clever language was dismissed in short order. Clever language can't stand in the way of magic, after all.

Cesspit

American election politics is a cesspit.

We know this.

What frustrates me is that the cesspit is dominating the election. Which is the point, of course.

In some sense, the election could be decided by whether swing voters believe Kerry won his purple hearts in Vietnam fraudulently, or Bush concealed his failure to meet his national guard obligations. In frikkin' Vietnam.

Yep, this sure is the most important issue on the US plate today.

----

Shot around on an outside hoop in glorious sunshine yesterday. Damn, that felt good.

Aaaargh.

Lord Butler, yesterday:

"Although none of us on the committee doubted or doubt today the prime minister's and the government's good faith in concluding that Saddam Hussein had concealed stocks of chemical and biological weapons - that was a view shared by most other countries and indeed by [chief weapons inspector] Dr Hans Blix - the government's dossier in September 2002 did not make clear that the intelligence underlying those conclusions was very thin."

Also: "The link between the Iraq regime and the spread of international terrorism was really not one supported by the intelligence."

Translation: yes, Tony believed it, but the evidence wasn't really there. And the Iraq - Al Qaeda thing wasn't there either.

Just like the anti-war left's been bloody saying all along.

And yet the Butler report, like the Hutton report before it, have somehow become weapons for the pro-war faction. Aaaargh. War with Eastasia, etc.

From Guardian print edition, my favourite:
"We did not of course say that no one was to blame for the shortcomings. At the press conference, I said that no individual was to blame."

Oh! Silly us for being confused and not challenging all the pro-war pundits who misrepresented your meaning! Such a pity you didn't feel the need to step up and clarify your position until now, huh?

Pretty much everything the anti-war left said about Iraq has come to pass. The fact that this isn't recognised just shows how much traction the pro-war caricature of the anti-war position has gained. And it makes me mad. (Cue Twisted Sister riff.*)

*I admit it, when I first saw the video to 'we're not gonna take it', I was scared by it. But won over. Strangely, a career in glam metal didn't follow, but such are life's mysteries.

That Point Where

they just get you your latte when you come in the door - that's where I'm at with a couple of the cafes around the place. Pretty cool. Neither one holds a candle to my beloved Eva Dixons (RIP), of course, but they're not bad places to hang out and write.

I'm doing that thing of 'one hour every day' and its sort of working. Its a bit slower than I'd like but I'm writing Ron longhand and there are no worktables at home, so I can only work on it out of the house. There are plenty of other things to occupy me in the counter-hours, anyway.

I've retooled my website. I'll launch it soon when I have a bit more content in hand. It has a key position in The Plan.

I'm hearing enthusiastic noises about a couple of game magazine articles, but I'll reserve my happiness until I receive a cheque or I see my name in print. Preferably both.

I'm shying away from the world at large a little at the moment. The horror of what happened in Russia is something I've only slowly walked up to, days afterward. More storms and freaky weather all over the world indicate climate change isn't slowing down. And I don't want to think about what it means that Bush is currently holding an electoral lead in the US. It is all a bit much right now.

Some stuff I want to draw attention to:

kids from the Rocinho favela in Brazil photograph their world - linked to by my host David.

Jenni's entry on body image - and the comments that follow. "It gets me down that some of my friends can't also be happy with their bodies. I don't see them as bodies, I see them as beautiful girls." When we look at body image we can see how, in a mediated society driven by consumerism, feedback loops can fundamentally distort our notions of what is proper for humanity. This is going to be a bigger and bigger battleground in the coming years. No Logo and Supersize Me are the groundwork of a massive argument to come.

(I might note that Supersize Me is having an effect on people far larger than I expected - I mean, surely everyone knows already that eating only McDonalds supercombo meals is going to be bad? I've realised that the genius of Spurlock's doco is simply that it demonstrates the relationship between what we eat and how healthy we are. It is a relationship that we know intellectually - but the fact is that human behaviour just doesn't think that's enough sometimes. Through this doco we can understand the relationship viscerally, and the two together are much more powerful than one alone. It doesn't matter that none of us eat McD's and only McD's - its real influence is helping us realise that what we eat really does matter, just like our pesky book-learnin' keeps telling us.)

Talking about big documentaries, the inimitable dreadbeard points out the elephant in the living room re: Fahrenheit 9/11:
"In my opinion, Fahrenheit 9-11 is directed explicitly to the American non-voting poor, aimed at explaining what is going on to them and why they should not allow Bush to be re-elected. The entire manner of the film is structured as a conversation to these people from one of tehir own, saying the President is an incompetent liar serving the interests of his friends the wealthy elite who is willing to lie and manipulate you and send you off to fight and die in service of his agenda. The opinion of any other demographic is irrelevant."

I'm kinda wondering how we all managed to miss that.

Ron excerpt

[Cass talks about her grandmother]

Judith, though, was worth it. Story: she was out for a walk one night and came across this kid spraypainting some anti-Thatcher graffiti on a council wall. "I told him, you, I said, sharpish. Give that here, I said." And she would have too in that nails-hard voice you just wouldn't ever want to cross. And she took the spraycan from the kid and slapped his arm and then she fucking rattled it - "They make a little rattle" - and she sprayed in an apostrophe. Christ knows what the kid thought. I checked it out the next day and sure enough, 'Thatcher's Britain is HELL'. Fuck I laughed.

Am I A Man Of Principle?

Because I thought I was.

But I have no Homicide: Life on the Street on DVD.

Nor any Freaks & Geeks.

Not even any Twin Peaks.

And yet I seem to have three seasons of Dawson's Creek on DVD.

This is a sobering moment for me.