Picture Perfect

I was recently reading The Metro (the fact that this is the best newspaper in the London Underground system is a sad reflection on those using it. To those wondering, yes, the underground has a newspaper, hardly surprising when you consider that the underground is probably more populous at any given point in time of its opening hours than many towns and/or villages. Perhaps even entire countries. But then, that’s coming from someone who thinks London should declare independence from the rest of England and become its own legal state) and came across about 3 inches of news buried away in the depths of the celebrity gossip which has, sadly, become characteristic of British newspapers.

 

 

Putting in place my commuter sneer to scare away those thinking about sitting next to me and possibly disturbing me in some slight way, I discover, to my surprise, Gordon Brown is doing something terribly sneaky and underhanded. Right shock there, I know.

 

 

What he’s doing is something I actually thought of myself after the first week of law lectures on British parliamentary history, and indeed branded it a type of “new politics” as has Gordon Brown. I guarded this political invention well and told no one, but despite my best efforts, Gordon Brown must have nicked it off me using the microscopic neuro-radio transmitter devices which we ingest when drinking ordinary tap water (which I no longer drink. I have also passed magnets up and down my body to scramble any electronic transmitting devices the government has planted into me).

 

 

Anyway. Onwards with what this is.

 

He’s done the logical thing – created an advisory panel of all the parties. Genius! Would have implemented it myself if I could have. However, what makes it so sneaky and underhanded, is not simply the fact that Gordon’s the one doing it and not me, but the reason he’s doing it. As the leaders of every party will now tell you (besides labour) taking away key opposition ministers and enlisting them to work for the government creates a bit of a problem in party structure and organisation. In essence, it destabilises the party. I believe that is the sole reason that Brown has implemented this measure, the fact that something good might come of it is a bonus. Keep in mind this is a man who was promised the post of PM years ago, and should have had it straight after the second election. By destabilising the efforts of his opponents and at the same time strengthening his own party, what chance does the opposition have? Less chance than they ordinarily would have had, of course.

 

 

Anyway.
I was reading the Sunday Times, as is my wont, and was wondering if it is time I moved on without it. I fear it is a paper which is far too conservative in its write-ups, though I agree with many of the views voiced within. It’s just the way they say it. What prompted this uncertainness was the fact that they described the adverts from Bacardi as aimed at “hedonistic youth” and “typically features swim-suited models cavorting on palm-fringed beaches.” Cavorting?! I have seen them sun-bathe, move, walk, stand, dance and swim, but never, never have I seen them cavorting! And anyway, what on earth is wrong with cavorting swim-suited models?! The person writing that needs to be shown what a good time is, I think.

Little to report in real life. I hope to be paid as a "real" journalist shortly. An old friend's (i.e. a friend of old; I don't really know them anymore, last spoke to them 7 years ago) mother passed away. I'm still going to the funeral today, as she kept in touch with my mother, who - understandably - doesnt want to go alone. In matters of the heart, I continue to have little to no interest in anyone. In matters of the soul, I continue to bounce about aimlessly. In matters of the flesh, well. heh heh heh. And lastly, in matters of the work, I continue to not understand that dirty four letter word.

I'm taken with the passion religion inspires, especially in debate.

I once had such a passion myself, but it died when I realised that no one who was willing to debate would never change their mind about the things they debated. For those ccuk'ers, I used to be one of those theo hacks, arguing with 7 people at once and lashing out with bible verses left right and centre in response to various arguments. Many times in those early days I saw fit to "have some fun" - obviously, at everyone else's expense - and often placed people in a theological conundrum, which saw me thrown out the site many times. For those interested, one of my tricks was to challenge those around if they believed in the NT 100%. The inevitable answer was "of course." Thus, my victim was pretty much hooked. I then informed them they'd have to comply with Luke 6:30 which states "Give to all who ask of you, and do not ask for anything in return of the one who takes from you" and demanded bank account numbers, car keys, cheques, cash and other such things, the implication - often voiced by yours truly - was that if they didn't do as I said, they'd be forsaking their own beliefs...So why should someone like me believe in the NT if Christians themselves didn't?

But this isn't what I wanted to discuss.

Christianity and Islam are interesting religions, but I must admit I don't think much of their attempts to explain why they think they're the only true religion, or why members believe in what they do. For Islam, it goes something like this:

Me> So, why do you think Mohummed was true and not a false prophet, as Christians and Jews have said for over a thousands years?
Puzzling response> He was sincere, as one can tell from his actions and words.

Of course, this is a laughable proof and it actually pains me that there are people who believe this is an acceptable proof of the Ultimate Truth: one man's alleged sincerity. If sincerity equals truth, which is what was being peddled over here, then every politician worth his salt must be straight as the M1 and honest as God Himself. I have no doubt in my mind that when Tony Blair was making the "let's go to war" speech in the House of Commons, he appeared absolutely sincere. I have little doubt that Blair believed everything he said as the absolute truth at the time he said it. "They have weapons which can hurt us. I think" just wouldn't cut it and as politicians will tell you, no wishy-washyness is acceptible, especially not in the big league (ironically, in the rest of the world, someone who changes their views and opinions with the latest facts and information is considered intellectual, open minded, honest and generally clever. In politics, someone who does that is considered "wishy washy" or a flip-flopper, not strong and a silly centrist). But have you read what he actually said?

"I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.

And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.

I believe we must hold firm.

The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation...."
(to read more, go to "http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916790,00.html")

Compelling stuff! Not only does he have a personal stake in this entire thing, but he begs to move the motion! Not only will the decision made that day affect the UK and Iraq, it'll effect the entire globe! This was no small matter. 

But was one man's sincerity enough to conjure the WMDs in Iraq? No. Was it enough to move nations to war? Yes.
The same can be said of Bush.

The point here is, just because someone believes something is the truth, no matter how much they appear to be sincere about it, no matter what they do in acting on that belief (such as declaring war and sending thousands to an uncertain fate) it doesn't mean it is true. If I was in Blair's shoes, I would also wish to appear as sincere as possible. If I was in Mohummed's shoes, I would want people to believe what I was saying, so would be as sincere as ever I could be...otherwise who would follow me? If no one believed me, I wouldn't be much of a prophet and if God didn't speak to me, I'd be entirely deficient as a seer. That would certainly put a crimp in my plans for domination of lands - if I have no believers in my cause, I have none to fight in my name.

Another typical response is "Mohummed could't read or write, so how else did he get the Koran if not directly from God's hand coming out of a burning bush?"

But let me move on to Christianity.
All but one of my readers are Christian, I'm pretty sure you were all waiting patiently to know what I was going to say about Christianity and either read what I had to say on Islam in agreement, or skipped to this bit anxious to get on with it.

The Christian arguments are somewht similar in their nature.

Me> So, why do you believe in Jesus?
Puzzling response>  "I have faith..."

what follows after those three words varies, perhaps an anecdote of how they came to have their faith (God himself spoke to me. I'm a prohpet) or a pseudo-theological answer (he died for me on the cross to attone for my sins), but it isn't relevant. The fact is, they believe as they do because they just believe. They just have faith.

So, what did they do before they had faith?
They took a step into an intellectual void and simply had faith, thus starting the vicious circle of "how do you know you're right?" - "I just have faith" - "but how do you know?" - "faith" which I so love. 

Whilst there are those who maintain that this is indeed a circular argument, I don't agree. The argument can be attacked thusly:

1) What prompted them to take that first step of faith? If the answer is "faith" then they'd be justly accused of having blind faith - making a move based on motives completely devoid of intellect. "But that's what faith is!" No, it isn't. That's what blind faith is. Faith is when you see X, know X is true and lovely and good and well, then have faith it leads to Y. That applies to anything. For example, you have faith signposts on a new road are correct. You don't KNOW absolutely that they are, you just have faith (others may prefer "presume" but it amounts to the same thing) that they are. But it's not blind faith, because it's based on the fact that signposts are usually correct and have been usually useful to you. Of course, you're aware that people may have tampered with it, such as rotating the sign to point in a different direction from the true destination. But still, you have faith.

In such a context, blind faith would be, perhaps, not to have faith in the signs, because you presume/believe/think/have blind faith that all signs are wrong. Why? Faith. But how do you know they're wrong? You just have faith. Maybe they're not wrong? Maybe not - but you have faith they are. But the signs serve millions of other people without harm! That may also be true, but you have faith they're all wrong and you're right, and the sooner they believe as you do, they'll be better off too. And what are the benefits of believing as you do? You never have to worry about wondering whether or not a sign has been tampered with. You never have to think about it in a real life context...you never have to think. Because you have faith! Who needs intellect anyway? That's useful for things like forwarding the Message of the Road Map over that of the devilish Signposts to others, or gaining a deeper understanding of Road Maps over signposts. But to use it to question and, RoadMap forbid, undermine your faith? No no. Also, not knowing anything about the opposing arguments are virtuous. The less you know and the more you have (blind) faith, the better.

So far, this is an attack on the first step of blind faith they took, devoid of intellect. Second attack would be on the continuation of blocking out intellect and rationalisation (you may have heard a religious leader speak of "rationalisation" in negative tones). Third, the lack of change in their stance in a system which they now know for sure to have compelled them to make those two moves in the first place.

If a personal anecdote was inserted, it too is easily dismissed, not just because personal experience hardly mounts to proof of truth (interestingly, Jesus/few followers and Mohummed both had entirely personal experiences, away from the prying eyes of multitudes of witnesses...apparantly God didn't want to cause a fuss), but because the supernatural in a natural world was assumed, whilst the natural explanation was completely ruled out and perhaps not even entertained.

Notice also, just because you have blind faith - or even faith- it doesn't make what you believe in true, no matter how hard one shuts their eyes and wishes it to be so. 

So, what do I believe?

I believe in knowledge and understanding as the springboard for faith, as Deuteronomy says "you shall know today that the Lord is your God."

That should really apply to anything - customer/employee x has proven his reliability in the past, so based on that, you may have faith they'll continue as they have done if something changes (e.g. the boss doesnt come in to work for a day, or you have faith a regular, reliable customer won't break a credit agreement and not pay when the time comes). It may even work in relationships.

So, what's the springboard in Judaism? What's the solid platform of fact? What better evidence than eyewitness report...? It is estimated that between 4-6 million people (fairly conservative figures) witnessed the revelation on mount Sinai. They were then instructed, as the bible says, to relate the events to their children and so and so forth, forever. 

Indeed, I have, somewhere, photos of evidence of the Exodus (availible upon demand) - archaeology unearthed (haha) gold chariot wheels in the likeness as described in the bible, broken in the same fashion. They matched chariot wheels found in a tomb back on mainland Egypt, giving estimated dates. This is in addition to inscriptions found on either side of the Red Sea, placed there (so the inscription reads) by Solomon to mark the place of the point of crossing of the CoI - thus confirming too (if there was ever a doubt), the existence of Solomon. The wheels and inscriptions were found along the same route plotted by some famous bloke in the 1970's that he thought the CoI were most likely to take. Oh, also, the part of the sea they were crossing? Sonar revealed the entire sea had massive "cliffs" hundreds and in places, thousands of feet deep, except between the place the plaques were found, which was actually elevated (so it looked to me) above all the rest.

Whilst this latter evidence just confirms those eyewitness reports, all this is nontheless actual, factual hard evidence. It's independent of the argument that "it says so in my holy book" which is entirely unconvincing and doesn't have an iota of "revelation of God was a personal experience. have faith and if youre worthy, youll realise its true."

Now, time for bed, for it is late.

The following post may contain nudity, violence or swearing and is rated 12 in the UK and 13PG in the rest of the world. Viewer discretion is advised. Read on to get to the good stuff.

People are funny.
Often, I'm content to just sit in public places watching people go by, watching them talk to their friends, partners and children. I see what can only be described as the tricks, ploys and bribes used by parents to pacify their wailing children, I notice the way a young couple sit close to each other and say nothing, whilst at the next table or the next chair, a slightly older couple sit apart, perhaps reading seperate books. Familiarity? Nothing new in their relationship? Said it all before? Or is it that the younger couple need the reassurance of their partner's commitment or love, whereas the older couple are already assured of it? 

Perhaps by now an argument between two people disturbs my thoughts, such as the one in Geneva airport, on my way back from France only a short few weeks ago. Ah. This is what I was waiting for...And I wasn't dissapointed.

The scene was entirely comical. I was sitting outside the duty free shop (notice singular, implied specificity by use of "the" - there basically was only one duty free shop) allowing a friend to browse the shop at his whim, whilst I was eating breakfast. To my far left were the gates to the world. On my immediate right, was the gate to France. Aside from that amusing polarity, the argument between husband and wife was brewing nicely. It was taking place in Arabic, between a burqa/niqab/hijab (the last of these terms is generally used incorrectly in this context, but many people understand it to be correct nontheless) clad woman and a greying man. They were speaking an Islamic arabic dialect which I do not speak (indeed, the arabic which I do speak is laughably poor), but I was still able to understand what was being said, for the most part.

The husband and wife, already half a corridor away from each other and now raising their voices nicely couldn't decide which gate to go through, their agitation at their inability to read English was only increased as they were very aware of the fact that they were already running very late. They had to choose one gate and stick with it. There was no room for mistakes, it was either one side or the other of the airport. "This one!" the wife maintained; a stream of Arabic I didn't understand followed, but I could imagine the words: "stop being so obstinate, you old goat!" The man looked kind of helpless, I'm guessing his wife knew more English than he, but it wasn't long before he was swearing by none other than the prohpet mohummed that it was the other way. Meanwhile, the wife disappeared to wherever those stairs led, and the husband went in the opposite direction, whilst indulging in the trademark under-the-breath utterances of Arabic cursing. It's a lovely language to curse in even when cursing under one's breath [that part's almost obligatory], but they're best said loudly and better yet, over the words of the person you're swearing at. Indeed, in Israel, Arabic is the language of curses and swearing - there are no swear words in Hebrew, so perhaps that isn't surprising [what is a shocker, is that no swear words have evolved over thousands of years, much to my delight, in fact]. The dirtiest word [well, two words] is "son/daughter of a strange woman," "strange woman" meaning "prostitute." Really, the language is so clean, there isn't even a word for "toilet." It's "house of the throne" - throne, no less! Someone had a sense of humour, no doubt....This is in contrast to Arabic, which has at least 6 different words for "dick" and 4 different words for "whore." From the traditional Arabian nights insults - "elf gamool mel jemel jawa bartek (may you have 1,000 camel fleas in your armpits) to the funny phrases which are funny regardless of which language they're said in ("how much for a night?" Or, in the words of Borat "very nice. I like. How much?") to really descriptive rude phrases I shan't repeat here.

Of course, throughout this whole episode, I was grinning wildly, much to the amusement of another bystander, opposite me, who caught my eye and had a smaller grin which seemed to say "I know why you're grinning, it's funny, but naughty naughty!" But I love too, the European reaction to such loudness, which in itself only lends to the comedy. People around me acted as if they were completely unaware of what was going on; that is the most typical European response: ignore it. Nothing's happening. Don't look and it doesn't exist. Hold your paper higher. 

Brilliant! The most earth shattering event could be taking place in central London, an earthquake, perhaps, and bankers, lawyers and business people everywhere would march right by, briefcases in hand, pausing only to straighten their ties or hair, once clear of the epicentre.

On another note, for some inexplicable reason, I felt the urge to go downstairs and open the fridge, poke around and see what was doing in there. As I went down the stairs, I saw the postman walking up to my front door and as I reached the bottom stair, a whole load of letters came pouring through. Naturally, I went to pick them up...when I saw a little purple envelope, nestled among the larger assorted envelopes and junk mail. Mindful that Steph was sending me a letter, I picked it up. Right away I saw it was from steph (the shape of your sexy lips - I'll know them anywhere - was enough...) The thing that surprised me wasn't the kiss (pshh, to be expected) but the fact that it was sent to "DJ, Lord of the Universe." I've been telling everyone to call me that for years - finally! Some recognition!

I opened it (careful not to rip the kiss that sealed the envelope) and was delighted to see a card as well as a hello kitty page full of writing. What was written more resembled a soft-core porn novel than anything else and I had great fun reading it. I should also probably mention it was pretty much doused in perfume (was it really toilet freshner? I swear I smelt that same smell on someone today... On a side note, my memory of perfume by scent is limited to coco chanel. You'd be surprised how many people actually wear it - and correctly "guessing" the perfume a girl's wearing never fails to pleasantly surprise and impress ;-) [incorrectly guessing makes a fool out of you]).

Here are some of my favourite lines:
"Ooh, remember that time we lay on that grassy knoll?" That was just so Enid Blyton I had to laugh. Another Blyton moment was the use of the word "frolicked."

"...I love you and want you to be the father of my fertilized eggs." That was just so odd, once again, I had to laugh :P

 

But anyway, what am I doing, revealing lover's secrets, eh? Steph, I was half tempted to put it in an envelope and send it back addressed to your parents :P
But I shan't....for now.*

Anyway, for now your letter, card and envelope shall live with Arty's card (Hallmark, I'll have you know!) and Cat's postcard...  

But more importantly, your writing provided a nice sample to be analyzed :p *
You (from what little I remember of this stuff and with help from the internetty) are: outgoing, friendly, impulsive, and emotionally open (all'cos of yourright slant), can handle pressure well ('cos of your moderate pressure with the pen), you're easygoing (cos of your letter size), you're logical as well as intuitive ('cos of some of your connecting letters), once again openess is indicated by your open letters (i.e. your's "o," "a" and other letters that should have a closed top, in fact have an open top). Basically, you're confident and open. Nothing new there.

Anyway, I shall go now. I have to do other stuff. So. Uhh. Take care! Until we speak again lovah stephy-poos ;-) 

 

 

----
*My silence can be bought. Blackmail monies should be sent to the same address. Cash only. No cheques.