(NB: Almost all of this is directed at conservatives, both c and C)

Two points:

ONE. Smacking children is a bad thing. Does it even work anymore? Given how the EU Charter On Human Rights appears to have become an archetype of the collective unconscious*, can anyone smack a child once it develops a sense of “I” and expect it to not try and sue you? And that’s putting aside that fact that Look! You’re hitting a child! You, that adult of the situation are resorting to physical violence against a small, defenceless, developing proto-person!

Also, stop whining about how it’s The State intruding into people’s personal lives and giving social workers too much power. The State already bans all kinds of things that go on in yr precious Family, like marital rape, incest, and murdering yr daughter for having pre-marital sex. All of these things are outlawed because they do not form part of the society we wish to live in. And yes, smacking children and it working may well fit into the society that you wish we still had, but the point is we don’t, and we can’t keep smacking children in the vague hope that it’ll make that society come back again.

Also, we like it when Social Services intrude. Everyone gets pissed off when things happen and they didn’t intrude. Remember? (correct spellings escape me, so I’m not even going to try citing cases right now)

TWO. People are still defending fox hunting. How do they manage that?? Yeh, it keeps fox populations down, and I get how that’s a good thing, the problem is how it keeps them down. Why is it that hunters say they don’t like the killing, it’s just the poncing around on horseback they like- well just ponce around on horseback you dumb fucks!

The point is that killing things for fun is still considered acceptable, when it shouldn’t be and yes, outlawing it is tantamount to creating a thoughtcrime. Kind of. The fact that people will still be going around killing things, but just not in the large hunts and not in that stupid stupid regalia** , and may have to have a pained expression on their faces and do some Hail Mary’s when it’s all over does seem like it’s telling people how they can think and feel while doing certain things, but then people who kill in self defence aren’t allowed, by society’s conventions, to enjoy that and that’s the way the world should be. This is reflected in that fact that people aren’t allowed to kill other people.

Likewise, there should be a legal precedent for people not happily killing lots of innocent animals because it gives them wood. The fact of the matter is that these two instances are things that I feel society just shouldn’t tolerate, and you can just shut up now if you start whining on about Oh, but I don’t think society should tolerate sadomasochism and gay relationships like you somehow can’t see that those are fucking consensual and the others, by their nature, are not.

*I know all about that. I did an exam on that. I managed to argue that Jung provided the universe of discourse with the most scientific validity according to Rose.
**Is that right?

_chris! // 13:33


Is The Pop World Dyyyyyyyyyyyyyying? /

Why in the whole sick universe would Evanesence be at numer one for four weeks? And why would the only thing that could have knocked it off be the fucking Fast Food Song?? And is this really Delta Fucking Goodrem's second time in the UK Top Ten???

What the fuck happened to the Neighbours Factory Of Pop World Domination?? Do they really think that, after two stealing-yr-boyfriend plots and several years on a fantastically cheap soap that somehow they're still going to convince us that she's a Serious Artist, a songstress who finely hones her craft of honest piano songs of honest emotionsby practising for hours at home every nite??

You're not. You havy ditzy hair and you don't get other people's emotions and the storyline about how great you can sing? Yeh? That was fucking shite, OK?

_chris! // 10:38



Do you think the Conservative Party works hard at this? Do they regularly whack their lower class domestic workers with their heads to ensure they don’t ever have to think about what they’re saying, and stick their fingers in their ears going La la la! I can’t hear you! And if I did it wouldn’t matter because I wouldn’t really bother listening cos I’d be too busy thinking about Thatcher with a strap-on and a breastplate reciting Elizabeth’s Gloriana at the end of my bed! whenever anyone points things out to them?

Today, I have been told that in a perfect, fully-functioning democracy, a political party would be able to form freely (this is good) and raise it’s own funds free from those who support it. Because can’t you see, we need two different kinds of support! It’s not enough to have people in the country who wish that party to represent them in the organs of power, but that party must also serve the purposes of rich people who can afford to donate!

Because that’s how democracy should work. For the rich. And yes, state funding could, potentially, lead to money only going to a certain set of parties who represent a certain spectrum of opinion, but it wouldn’t have to, would it? No, it wouldn’t. And how is that not a good system that in principle and philosophy ensures that poor people matter? Well, we’re not saying it isn’t. What we’re actually saying is that the Conservative Party doesn’t like poor people. Only we don’t even say that. They say that. It’s fantastic- does anyone even need to give them rope any more? Are they fashioning their own makeshift nooses from their precccccccious tights and garters?

_chris! // 14:17


Can We have some clarity and accuracy, please? Can I go around beating up everyone in the MoD until they fucking get this through their thick skulls?

The Iraqi rebels, in 1991, were not waiting for Alliance troops to cross over from Kuwait to bolster their attempts at a popular revolution, but rather hoping the troops on the front line wouldn’t part, that they wouldn’t let Hussein’s army back into Basra, that the helicopters overhead would stop circling, and photographing, but rather fucking protect them, for once.

So some honesty would be nice, although I have no doubt that, if they did let those dirty words cross their hallowed, Royally-appointed lips, all those civil servants would begin convulsing and start uncontrollably informing all present that there was nothing Our Brave Boys could do, as Saddam was controlling them with his big mind control dick.

_chris! // 14:16



I love this thread! Esp the bit here where Nick mentions football law and Haus gets wood and Nick says "No football law!" and Haus says "Yes! Football law!" and won't let go like a wickle wee puppy.

Yeh, I can totally see why I thought the Headsop was an oppresivly over-intelligent arena for discussion.

_chris! // 12:22



There was something telling about tabloid culture in the newsagents today. TheMirror and The Sun appear to have come from different universes. While TM triumphently declares WAR? NON, and goes on to explain how the French have threatened to veto if America gets it’s 9 votes, thus scuppering the war, TS prclaims WAR IN 10 DAYS, and goes on to explain how, after getting 9 votes, America’s gonna shout “Let’s roll!” and presumably just drive tanks over Baghdad like it’s the West Bank.

Looking at these two, next to each other, I have decided that they make a depressing metaphor for this whole debate. After last year’s State Of The Union address, it took about three quarters of the whole universe approximatly 18 seconds to divied into two camps, and leave everyone else in the middle going “Well... “. And absolutly no one’s buged since.

Like the whole thing about lessons from history (and it’s not really a “thing”, it’s just something I shout at the TV, and every time I mention it to people, I get a “Oh... yeh”, kinda like they’re agreeing with me, kinda like I’ve opened their eyes to a new way of look at the world, and kinda like I do that sort of thing all the time and they don’t really care anymore), this whole situation has way too many interpretations, too many theories and explanations and certainties and, in the end, it’s just too fucking messy, even before the bombing starts. And so, as it’s both right and wrong at the same time, like Schrodinger’s Cat and George Bush’s IRA, let’s just fucking do it democratically, eh?

I see you’re two-thirds majority in the Commons, and raise it my two-thirds majority in the real world...

_chris! // 19:31



How do people* get Hain's tax proposals so fucking wrong?? Reading what he said, it seems like he was floating a system where the new tax band would cover a lessening of the tax burden on middle- and working-class payers.

How did The Sun pull hating that out of it's arse? This is hardly "taking money from Sun readers and giving it to Guardian readers"**, and if anything it's the other way around - if you take his deffinition of a Guradian reader, anyway. This bizzare duality seems to be something the Right - I think the opponents of this scheme have earned themselves this stupid, lazy, reductive tag by being so dmn stupid, lazy and reductive - is well versed in, after it's years of practising voting for Thatcher, some how thinking voting for an insanely pro-big business fucknut who seems intent on crushing everything, everywhere, ever with the aim of getting stuff cheap is some how a vote for an entirely different form of capitalism built on local inititives and personal enterprise. That these two views are entirely irreconcilable doesn't seem to factor into the thinking of anyone I talk to about this- a state no odubt facilitated by the way their party's name means The Not Changing Party.

As far as I can see, the tax regime I'm inferring from Hain's speech would be one that indicated a fair and equitable society, where people give things back and take pride and all those other disgusting namby liberal things that would be fine in a utopia but tuh! God knows we don't live in one of those...

And so instead we get lazy people who jut open their mouths and crap falls out demanding promises of no tax rises ever***, and the entire universe going "But taxes pay for things. We need things, and we need these things fairly" before having it countered with "I hardly call 97% fair!" as if we'd said 97%. Had we said 97%? No. Had someone else said 97%? Yes. Does this mean we said 97%? Really?

*Yeh, I know he's not people, he's Julie Burchill in drag, but still...
**Because the NHS has managers, and the manager's posts are advertised in the Guardian, it apparently follows that the Guardian is leeching all of our taxes. I know.
***The Sun, incidently, reported how terrible it was that Hain was stabbing Blair in the back by making him promise the media - they said the media, not me - that there would be no more tax rises. But it was The Sun who made him say that, not some benign force of print, and why the fuck were the rises only a good thing if Hian has scuppered them, but woudl ahve been bad if he hadn't??

_chris! // 22:17


I've stayed away from commenting on ME press, mostly because I don't have acess to a lot of it (although the enermous piles of teaching, pharamacutical and psychological journals that litter my house would probablly yelid some, I'd imagine) and I always feel like I'm intruding where I don't belong, because I know I don't Know.

this is surpremly fucking irritating. While she makes the incredable observation that if placed on a desert island an alcoholic would no longer drink alcohol while a cancer patient would die of cancer, and we can pretty much see the (five year old's) line of logic here, and she does indeed show that sex addicts probablly need to show will power and oh look! an incentive to show will power fucking produces shows of will power, where the fuck is the evidence that if you threatened ME sufferers with death they'd do laps??

I for one am rather pleased that, yet again, she's managed to ally herself with the Daily Mail. Anyone else surprised?

_chris! // 12:25


Also, why is it that at one in the morning, after advising us all about strong language, BB4 STILL dips sound if naughty words are said.

Fuckssake, they seem determined to make the programme as unwatchable as possible.

_chris! // 12:07


No, really, Orwell would be dead against taxing the rich /

I had a lot to say, but I can't remember it, can't find links, want to sleep.

I don't know if I'm going to both writting big floppy paper things all summer now. I have a lot of books to read.

I don'tunderstand the logic of the BB4 producers in their removal of another housemate. Surely we don't need and extra one, not a numerical balancing. Weird. Plus Cameron will go crispy in South Africa, having managed to go all red in Hertfordshire...

I've seen three seconds of the new housemate, but was relived to discover that he's already made Tania cry by saying she ate like a pig. I love that guy. Tho it would still have made more sense to give us their first evictee.

I'm sorry. My brain is lazy.

_chris! // 12:03


This site is powered by Blogger. Deal with it.

chris is here! rock magicalaqua, barbelith, notopia, holy roman empire, flux, rizla, flyboy, the independent, randomenss, dead dog, suds, home cinema, upsideclown, careless talk costs lives, deva, auto ego fellation, The Adventures Of Perkin Warbeck, captain fez, kookymojo, slave labor graphics, ninjas, top shelf comics, medialens, the guardian, mister disco, fantagraphics books, shortfatdyke, tomatoes might fly, grammarporn, Loz, plums, youth club tape club, Hello Kitty vibrators, eye rainbow dinosaur, Janina, Unskinny Bop and all the other Barbebloggers like a hurricane!
The Sky