Wednesday, 27 June 2012

As easy as ABC...

For those of you lucky enough to follow me on Twitter or in real life, you will know my views on the postmodern druid that is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Now more than ever the people of Britain need spiritual guidance. We've got gays trying to get married, women talking back and people playing stringed instruments.

Today Dr Williams has made "one of his strongest interventions yet" on the issue of gay marriage. When I read that I was eager with anticipation. "What controversy will Dr Williams be stirring now? How will Iatollah Williams be fanning the flames this time? Will Rowan the Radical whip his church into line and lead the fight against homophobia, or will he come down like a ton of bricks on this sinful behaviour? We will finally know his true opinions!" Here's what he he said:

"Dr Rowan Williams said that the church was still "scratching its head" about its position on same-sex marriage... "Same with same sex marriage, where once more we're used to being alongside people who are gay; many of our friends may be – indeed we may be – wrestling with that issue ourselves, and the church is scratching its head and trying to work out where it is on all that, and what to think about it.
"What's frustrating is that we still have Christian people whose feelings about it are so strong, and sometimes so embarrassed and ashamed and disgusted, that that just sends out a message of unwelcome, of lack of understanding, of lack of patience.""So whatever we think about it, we need, as a church, to be tackling what we feel about it." "
Let's recap. One of Rowan's STRONGEST INTERVENTIONS amounts to saying "we don't know what we think, but whatever we think, we need to....look! A pigeon!" Williams resembles the final months of Gordon Brown, when in interviews he would look like he was thinking "oh just go away! stop asking me difficult questions!" Except both these people are in positions of considerable power and influence and should answer to the people they are supposed to serve.

Again, this is one of his STRONGEST INTERVENTIONS. It couldn't be more vague if he'd let out a protracted hiss before raising his eyebrows and humming pop goes the weasel. This is particularly odd considering the response to the government's gay marriage consultation by the Church of England.

The church, "led" by Williams, believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, should include the possibility of procreation and that the traditional institution of marriage should not be altered in any way. I don't really need to dismantle these arguments. If you're reading this you've probably heard and refuted them before, although I will reassert the point made that the Church of England was founded on redefining marriage. These arguments are essentially the same as those used by the Christian hard right in America, repackaged slightly for the audience of Songs of Praise.

This is pretty much the role of the Church of England in the gay marriage debate. It's the acceptable face of British homophobia. Less offensive and Catholic than the shrill ramblings of largely shunned and ignored morally corrupt paedophile protector Cormac Murphy O'Connor and his successor, career homophobe Vincent Nichols, the C of E, under Williams, makes it acceptable to oppose equal rights. Of course, the fact that gay marriage is not yet a reality means that they're not seen as reactionary outsiders, but what it's important to realise is that this very mild homophobia enables, legitimises and encourages people like Lisa Nolland of Anglican Mainstream saying things like...well, if you don't know already, you'd best click on the link.

Rowan Williams' stance may or may not be out of sync with his church (as we have no idea what he believes) but either way he should surely be providing some leadership on the matter.

I wanted to find a clip of Rowan Williams saying something interesting or controversial, but for those of you who know anything about the man, you will know this is about as likely as the miracles he claims to believe in. After trawling YouTube for longer than I ever thought possible on the subject of a man who I can listen to for approximately 11 seconds before thinking about something else (usually Obi Wan Kenobi or Gandalf) I found a video in which the Doctor is asked how he prays on homosexuality. Before you watch, let's put this in some context. Dr Williams believes that he is the number 2 guy in the correct and true religion. Well, he's never said anything so bold but it's implied by his position. He also believes that there is one true god, who is capable of literally anything, and has a rather important moral code we should be following. Homosexuality is a very contentious issue at the moment, so when Dr Williams prays to the omnipotent and omniscient god, bearing in mind that prayer works and Williams is the second most senior human on earth where God is concerned, you would have thought that if William doesn't know God's views on gays, he would do well to ask him and, if he does, he would pray for God to help the people who've got it wrong to reach the truth. That would make sense, and would really clear a lot of things up. So what does Rowan Williams pray for?



He prays for people on both sides of the debate to give each other a little space. He prays those on the radical (presumably modern, more pro gay) side prioritise the church over gay rights. He prays for a discussion. Oh, and he then admits Christians are actually not that generous.

Let's look at this more closely. Hoping only for debate suggests that God doesn't feel that strongly. If god doesn't have a problem with gays, as is surely implied by the fact that Dr Williams is happy for a debate with no obvious preference on either side, then the default position should be to treat people equally. There is no consistency or sense in Williams' view. It's almost like prayer doesn't work, and he's saying what he thinks will upset the fewest people. His vagueries are accepted as he clearly has a difficult job appeasing the bigots in his congregation, and underlying this is a tacit acknowledgement that he can't communicate with god, and that god has no relevance to the real world, which is why the church has to make secular arguments against gay marriage. But Williams is not the leader of a political party, he's the leader of a religion, and if God can't give us certainty, who can? It's also strange that someone who apparently wants debate would avoid debate at all costs by not expressing his view on any subject that appears to fall within his remit.

Williams manages to avoid saying anything specific at all in a way that most politicians would be envious of, but he doesn't even have to face the electorate. He's in a completely risk free position, particularly since he's announced his retirement, but still chooses to avoid the issue entirely. I'm not suggestign Rowan is an imbecile. Unless they do PhDs for beards, I'm assuming he has at least some intelligence (although Nick Griffin graduated from Cambridge. Qualifications aren't everything.), but surely that just makes him even worse, as he fails so spectacularly to deal with one of the most important issues of the day.

I'm not against vague religious beliefs per se. If you decide there probably is an entity we call God, it makes sense that it should be completely unfathomable to a human mind. However, if you're in, or even better head of, a religion like the Church of England, you claim to know enough about God to know specific the moral rules he ascribes as well as specific events he has been involved in and so on. To accept this, as you surely have to to call yourself a Christian, yet be the head of the church and unable to make a single specific statement about the god in question or the moral rules he prescribes, is nothing short of cluelessness or naked careerism.

Here's another example of a heap of impenetrable Williams waffle. About half way through, think to yourself "What is he actually saying?"


Absolutely nothing at all.

Let me be clear. If Rowan Williams thinks civil rights  for gay people are expendable to keep his church together that makes him a homophobe. If, during apartheid in the USA, a non racist preacher maintained that black people should have to sit at the back of the bus in order to keep their congregation together they would rightly be condemned. Yes, it is the same.

Rowan Williams is not a leader. He provides no guidance. He appears to have few beliefs at all about the nature of God or what he demands, yet he can sit idly by as his church attacks equal rights, before issuing vague statements (in the form of a strong intervention) calling for "debate" which he routinely dodges. I don't often look the the Bible for answers, but maybe it can help explain why Rowan Williams was created without a spine.

Monday, 25 June 2012

Don't menshn it.

Have you ever seen an idea so clever and simple that you wish you'd thought of it? Louise Mensch has. Louise Mensch saw Twitter and though "that's brilliant! It's so clever and simple. I wish I could come up with an idea like that". Louise Mensch then thought for hours and hours. After two hours, Louise Mensch still hadn't come up with anything as good as Twitter. "That's it!" Louise Mensch thought, "I will make a version of Twitter, and get rid of everything Louise Mensch doesn't like about it". So Louise Mensch thought about it and decided that to improve Twitter all you need is 40 extra characters, more censorship, make users follow 100 people they have no interest in whatsoever and the name of Louise Mensch emblazoned on every page.

Essentially she has constructed the Twitter of a Menschian dictatorship. After the glorious revolution, when the Mighty Mensch is swept to power on the surge of a popular uprising, the dissenting Tweeters will be sent to camps, know henceforth as Mensch Reeducation Centres, or ReMenschucation Centres, and everyone will, instead use











"Fuck!" Louise Mensch thought, as she woke up from her dream, "I've made a social netwrking site that sounds and looks like a gay hookup site. How do I distinguish it from all the other gay hookup sites....I mean... social networks? I know!" Louise Mesch had an epiphany, "I will include a slogan that shows how it differs from Twitter: Talk on Topic. This gets rid of all that idle chitchat about "stuff", or whatever people talk about these days, and keeps it political. Discipline. That's the one thing missing from Twitter."

Louise Mensch then called her nephew who's currently doing a BTEC in applied ICT, and by the end of the day, Menshn was born.

Louise Mensch was thrilled as 20 million Twitter users migrated to Meschn in the first day. Then she woke up again, and logged in to Menschn to check no-one was saying anything naughty. Since she last logged in an Armenian gentleman had created an account, becoming the first user Louise Mensch did not know personally, and posted a Mensh. Louise Mensch was thrilled. What would it say? "Tall, slim bicurious man seeking similar for good times in N/E England". Louise Mensch was thrilled! "That's not on topic!" she thought, "I can delete it!". She then scanned back through the older posts, checking she hadn't missed anything off topic on her previous visit. "Idle chitchat has no place on Menshn!" Louise Mensch mused. Louise Mensch removed one of her own Menshs from earlier which had seemed political at the time (it was about the Olympics) but with hindsight Louise Mensch realised was probably more sport related. A tingle ran down Louise Mensch's spine to her loins as she deleted the comment.

"There's a lot of off-topic posting going on here" Louise Mensch mused, "With those two, 50% of today's posts have been off topic. I should probably outline some rules". [https://menshn.com/pages/menshn-rules.php] She began to type:

"The first rule of menshn is you do talk about menshn. Please feel free to invite your friends, spread the word, and post about us on Facebook and Twitter."


"No" thought Louise Mensch, "that's too fucking stupid even for me. A Fight Club reference is surely too clichéd and will just make me look like a Tory MP trying to be down with the kids. And asking people to spread the word on Facebook and Twitter is surely an admission of defeat." But then she accidentally published it any way. Louise Mensch continued:

"menshn is for talking on topic. We're passionate about politics and we love debate. But if you harass, spam, clog feeds and so forth, we can delete your account without notice. So be like Fonzy and be cool."

"Hmm" Louise Mensch pondered, "This is terribly written and contains an extremely outdated cultural reference. This just makes me look like a fucking moron. Also, "we can delete your account without notice" makes me sound terrifyingly authoritarian" but then Louise Mensch accidentally published it any way. Louise Mensch contintued:

"you may see content that offends you; people may be horrible to you, defame you, twist your words, post nasty links or pictures, post malware, damage your computer, pretend you wrote a menshn you didn't, imitate you, and any other nasty thing we haven't thought of."

"Wait a second" though Louise Mensch, "warning people about the risks they face in the free forum that is Menshn seems oddly out of sync with my previous obsession with censorship. If people read this, they might assume I only want to delete things that I don't agree with. That doesn't look good at all". Then Louise Mensch accidentally published it any way. Louise Mensch continued:

"See those "rate" buttons by the menshns? If you like a comment, or think it's relevant or cool, please rate it. The points go up in real time, at the top of your screen. The top 5% of best-rated menshners are always seen in a community's stream (although you can block them like anyone else). menshn is designed to reward intelligent chat. You know - we talk on topic."

"Fuck" though Louise Mensch "if I use the word "rate" in the modern sense to mean "approve of", and "cool", won't I just look like a Tory MP trying to be down with the kids? Is there any point rewarding relevance since irrelevant posts will be deleted? If I reiterate my patronising slogan, won't that just annoy people? Is this rule even more poorly written than the others?" but then she accidentally published it any way. Louise Mensch continued:

"menshn can use advertising. We can promote links, and assign you followers or subscribe you to accounts, or promote given menshns. You agree to this by signing up. Hey, right now in version 1.0 we have placed the ability to donate straight to the Obama or Romney campaigns in the relevant chat rooms! Get to it, politicos! (If you want to)."

"Fuck" thought Louise Mensch, "the passage I've just written has so many annoying things I don't know where to begin. Why have I randomly written "hey"? Why have I written "Get to it, politicos!"? The imperative here might freak people out a bit. I know..." thought Louise Mensch, "...to sound less authoritarian I'll add "(If you want to)" on the end..... There, that's better." So Louise Mensch published it. Louise Mensch continued:

"On menshn, your menshns age off after one week and are not stored on our servers, except at our sole discretion."

"Shitting hell" thought Louise Mensch "It will be really annoying if you can't see posts older than one week, and your information being kept based on the arbitrary whims of I, Louise Mensch, sounds scary and authoritarian." Then an incoming Tweet distracted Louise Mensch so she forgot to delete the rule. Louise Mensch continued:

"the standard here is that your menshns will disappear into the ether, and not stick around like..."

"Tortoise's scrotum!", thought Louise Mensch "What sticks around for ages? A metaphor will really make these rules less terrifying and authoritarian. Stick around like...a bad smell? A stick? Siphilis? I know!"

"...Mount Rushmore. You agree to this, and all of the above, by signing up to use menshn. Have fun - talk on topic!"

"Jesus fucking donkey bollocks" thought Louise Mensch, "by saying "Talk on topic" I sound like a mother telling her naughty child to behave at school, which will surely patronise and annoy my intelligent target market. Ah! If I add "have fun" the problem will be solved."

Louise Mensch looked back through her list of rules.

"Fuck" thought Louise Mensch, "I've built a website based on the notion of intelligent debate, yet I've just constructed the most patronising and condescending collection of rules, and written them for eight year olds. You've really screwed this one up, Louise Mensch. Anyone would think you're just an attention-seeking imbecile looking to make a quick buck of the social networking boom when actually you don't have a single fucking clue about how to go about making one. It looks like a school project and will probably be used by no-one other than people you personally know, and will become the butt of jokes for years to come. Google, you know, that massive corporation full of technology experts, has failed to create a social networking site, so I, Louise Mensch, with my rudimentary understanding of technology, will surely fail even more miserably, particularly as I'm a Tory MP who everyone "intelligent" absolutely fucking hates" Then she thought "fuck it, I don't want a whole afternoon's work to go to waste" and published it any way.

Sunday, 13 May 2012

Going off on a tangent: H&M do a h&mmy job of photoshopping


You may have noticed the H&M bikini adverts popping up on bus shelters around Sheffield,
(the worst offender, and the subject of this blog, available here, I recommend you look at the full screen version to get the full effect. I would have inserted the actual picture here but that would require me to download it to my computer first, and I don't think my graphics card is good enough.) and, presumably, the rest of the country. They’re easy to spot because you may have mistaken them for a heavily waxed David Dickinson, and they're accompanied by a realisation that we're already in a dystopian future. Airbrushed images are nothing new. We see them everywhere. But what’s exceptional about this series of ads is how hilariously bad they are.

For starters, it’s a really tacky, over the top photoshop job. The poor woman’s face is a different colour from the rest of her body. Maybe she left a facepack on in the tanning salon. The combination of her outrageously bronzed, almost varnished mahogany skin, and her wafer thin arms and neck give her the look of a cocktail sausage with a couple of extra sticks in. Her plastic-looking hair hangs limp and rigid as a nun’s wimple. She doesn’t have breasts. Instead, Patrick Stewart and Mohammed Al Fayed, wearing pink face masks like a tsars outbreak at gay pride, lurk round her chest. Not a single crease, wrinkle or fold is visible in her skin giving her the appearance of a waxwork made of Botox, and even her ribcage has been eerily removed. Maybe she’s in to auto-cunnilingus, or maybe they let George Lucas do the retouching. Her left hand fails to make an impact on her leg. Bizarrely, for a woman apparently seated in water, she shows no signs of being wet, neither on her swimwear or body. Her eerily white nose looks like one of Michael Jackson’s cast-offs. Even her belly button is reduced to a smooth dent, the unnatural white ring around it looking like she laid down on a frosted doughnut she didn't know what to do with. And she really shouldn’t have let someone slap her side with sun lotion on their hand.

I’m not against people looking nice, and obviously clothing shops aren’t going to hang their child-made rags on trolls, but is it really aspirational to look like you’ve been grown in a Petri dish? The Frankenstinian lovechild of Dale Winton, some silicone and a culture of E coli. It must be a depressing state of affairs for the model in question, if indeed there ever was such a person, or if they just took a photo of Andy Serkis in a blue onesie and built the picture around it. A model’s only job is to look nice, and if you fail in this so resoundingly that the photographer has to use state-of-the-art software to make you unrecognisable just so your visage is tolerable, it’s a pretty dismal state of affairs. And if this picture is an improvement on what she actually looks like, she must have looked fucking horrible in the first place. The only thing that poster is any good for is a public information warning about skin cancer. And they didn't even remember to remove the camel toe.


UPDATE
http://www.thelocal.se/40758/20120510/
In a rare "I told you so" moment, I am pleased to announce that H&M have apologised for this advert as it's been criticized for promoting skin cancer. They said of the model: "she is Brazilian, which means that she has a darker skin tone than most Europeans", which still begs the question as to why they decided to artificially slide her down six spaces on the Dulux colour chart from "soft pine" to "leather Wotsit". They haven't apologised for promoting anorexia, but we can count our blessings.

Thursday, 26 April 2012

A boring thing I wrote on the EU with no wit or enthusiasm.


It’s only through studying the European Union that the absurdity of many eurosceptics’ positions has become apparent to me. An instinctive pro-European, I’ve never seen much allure in the idea that the more independence our arbitrarily-defined nation state possesses the better. More can be achieved as part of a whole, resources can be pooled, neighbouring countries can stop pointing guns at each other, and point them at some other common enemy, perhaps a country where the people have a different skin colour or religion. However, recently my concerns have become more codified.
My account of polling day for the local elections last year, on this very blog, included a description of a three hour conversation I held with a man running to be a councillor for UKIP. Quite why a party concerned primarily with the UK’s position within the EU contests local elections is another issue, but part way through the conversation he described the beauty of capitalism in that it is a self-adjusting and extremely complex and intricate system of resource allocation. It struck me odd then, as now, that someone would support the free movement of resources in almost every area, and demand the government simply allow capitalism to mould society as demand dictates, yet hold such opposition to the free movement of labour in the form of relaxed borders and immigration. Presumably in a capitalist world, the free movement of labour is crucial if it is to be optimally efficient.
This being said, I take more issue with the criticisms of the EU itself. It’s absolutely true that the European Union has a democratic deficit. There is only one directly elected body, the European Parliament, which has little power, comparable in terms of its scrutinising and legislation-delaying role to the British House of Lords, a fact which is often trumpeted by eurosceptics explain why the EU is unaccountable. But what these critics fail to acknowledge is the correlation between the amount of power an organisation has and the amount of democratic legitimacy it requires. No one would seriously suggest, I assume, that every time an international treaty is formed, it should require an elected international assembly between the relevant countries, and it’s important to remember that this is how the EU was formed and developed: by individual treaties. It’s wrong to view it as a static organisation that was designed with the powers it currently has, as well as the lack of democratic accountability it currently has. The EU is a continuing project and has been changing and developing for the last fifty years. The democratic deficit is something that, if eurosceptics would shut up and let the EU carry on changing rather than blocking every new treaty or constitution, will be addressed in time. It’s not sensible to argue for more democracy in the EU without also believing it should have sufficient power to warrant elections and democratic accountability. The way the EU has developed has led to the current state of a slightly higher power to accountability ratio than would be ideal, but this should change in time.
Both the Lisbon Treaty and the failed constitution of 2004 (both opposed by eurosceptics) wanted more powers to the European Parliament, to match the EU’s increasing legislative role. It is, of course, true that the EU is getting more say over more aspects of our lives, and as a result should be accountable to the European people, so why eurosceptics would oppose these moves is uncertain.
And at the other end of the spectrum, eurosceptics believe countries are losing their independence, which would surely be more so if there was a stronger supranationalist parliament, rather than the current reliance on intergovernmental institutions. The areas of the EU in which countries retain most of their independence are the Council of Ministers and the European Council, which are the negotiating forums of representatives of member governments who act in the interests of their people. On major treaties and so-called “higher” policy areas such as defence and foreign policy, member states exercise a veto, so no country is expected to sign up to things it disagrees with. For people who object to the removal of power from nation states, these appear to be pretty good measure to ensure sovereignty is retained. It’s impossible to have an EU that’s both perfectly democratic, and gives paramount importance to national governments.
So what frustrates me most about the eurosceptics is wanting to attack, on the one hand, the lack of independence of member states, and when the intergovernmental negotiating forums are mentioned as an answer to this, they change their focus to democratic accountability, which they opposed the improvement of in the form of opposition to any new treaty that comes from Brussels, and fail to realise that there’s no use in having a democratically elected parliament if it has no powers.
This circular logic is not grounded in reason, but in a deep protectionism and a general dislike for the idea of their country being a part of a whole rather than an end in itself. It’s a position born out of nationalism, and nationalism alone.

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Gay Conversion

You probably heard of this story in the Guardian today ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/christian-anti-gay-ads-buses about a Christian group (http://www.core-issues.org/) advertising gay conversion on buses. (You may have also seen the amazing cartoon I did on it, below)

Anyway, I decided to write them an email: 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I recently became aware of your organisation as I was investigating people who deal with issues of realigning sexual orientation.

At present I am a heterosexual man, but have many homosexual friends, from whom I sometimes feel excluded when we socialise.

I would appreciate if you could advise me, from your expertise in the area, on how best to gain homosexual feelings. I am not saying I would like to become a homosexual permanently, but I would at least like to try bisexuality for a time, and was wondering if you could give me some guidance on how to go about this.

Thank you for your time,



Awaiting response. Will update.