The Taunting of Floridian 123

Just because I'm looking for a distraction from doing some actual work, here's a random fucking idiot from CiF.*

Background: Charlie Brooker wrote about the 'Ground Zero Mosque' nutters , in which he pointed out that it's not a mosque and not at Ground Zero, although oddly he didn't do the obvious and make it clear that there shouldn't be a problem if it was either or both of those things, as it would be rather like saying that Oscar Romero is the same as Alexander VI. Anyway, here's a particularly cretinous comment from some stupid bloody wingnut.

First of all that building was close enough to have the falling landing gear of the plane Muhammad Atta was on damage it. Secondly, they said they will hold Friday nite prayers in it so of course it's a mosque. This is not about religious freedom. It's about LOCATION. Do you think the Russians would be happy about a mosque being built in Beslan near the school where over two hundred kids were raped and shot in the back by terrorists? One more thing, I seem to remember a super mosque that was supposed to be built in London just in time for the olympics. The people protested about it and now the mosque isn't being built. Rather hypocritical of you isn't it?

The governor of New York wants to meet with them to suggest an alternative site but they flat out refuse to even consider it. Their present position is "We are going to cram this peace loving, bridge building mosque down the throats of you Americans whether you like it or not."

So, let the taunting commence!

First of all that building was close enough to have the falling landing gear of the plane Muhammad Atta was on damage it.

You're saying that these terrorists were willing to risk damage to one of their own buildings*? How evil is that! Like TOTALLY evil. We're through the looking glass here, sheeple!

Secondly, they said they will hold Friday nite prayers in it so of course it's a mosque.

Or, is it a cultural centre with a prayer room in it?

This is not about religious freedom.

Or, is it? Because it kind of sounds like you're saying that people can't use their own building to worship in their own way and use that building to promote understandings between other people exercising their religious freedom in the way they want to. So, it kind of is about religious freedom really, isn't it? Just a little bit? Maybe?

It's about LOCATION.

Hmm, don't know about you, but if I was trying to think of anywhere for people to build some hope and understanding between faiths, somewhere near an awful reminder of what happens when people have an intolerant attitude towards others might be, oh I dunno, the perfect place to put it?

Do you think the Russians would be happy about a mosque being built in Beslan near the school where over two hundred kids were raped and shot in the back by terrorists?

Hey, Floridian, have a look at this:

Here are some Terrorists:


And here are some Muslims:

P.S. Islam is the second largest religion in North Ossetia-Alania, an independent republic within the Russian Federation, not actually in Russia. But wait, you don't want the great US of A to be judged by the standards of the RUSSIANS, do you, Floridian? Why do you HATE AMERICA?

One more thing, I seem to remember a super mosque that was supposed to be built in London just in time for the olympics. The people protested about it and now the mosque isn't being built.Rather hypocritical of you isn't it?

I have to admit, I'd never heard of this story, but then I don't live in that London, and anyway it does seem a tad racist to assume that Charlie Brooker would have opposed the Mosque because he is British. Presumably the Muslims who wanted to build the thing in the first place were British as were the community groups that opposed it. Not sure this is actually hypocritical in any way at all. Hang on a sec...
Nope, doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps hypocrisy doesn't mean what you think it means?

The governor of New York wants to meet with them to suggest an alternative site but they flat out refuse to even consider it.

What, you mean they don't see why they should move from their own building just because some hysterical racists are shouting at them? They won't back down from a project whose explicit point is to combat idiotic ideas like yours? I wonder why ever not?

Their present position is "We are going to cram this peace loving, bridge building mosque down the throats of you Americans whether you like it or not."

Or, 'we're not going to let a bunch of hysterical racists stop us'? Sounds kind of, you know, courageous to me. Also, Veiled Penis Reference, too.

But anyway, in conclusion Floridian, you thought building a mosque was insensitive? Check THIS out.
----------------------------------
*It's OK to read CiF if it's for Charlie Brooker, it's like eating a sandwich whilst you're walking.

**I just found Floridian 123's dictionary. I see the problem, because under 'Mooslem' it just says 'See terrists'

My Evil Terrorist Ways

A long time ago, in a blog far far away, I speculated that under current anti-terror legislation I might be considered a terrorist.

I'm having to revisit that issue again with the new anti-terror code that we are reportedly to be shortly subjected to.

The Guardian says that this code would 'alienate most muslims', but since it apparently defines as an extremist

They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

then this atheist here would be one too.

I am therefore a clear and present danger to HMG, apparently. Presumably only made worse if this happens:

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values.

Frankly I don't know if I hold 'shared British values' or not (cue joke about queueing or something). I certainly don't hold with 28, 42 or 90 day detention without charge, or nuclear weapons renewal, or invading foreign countries, or lying to parliament, or privatising national assets, or attacking workers whilst bailing out capital, or the monarchy, or first-past-the-post parliamentary systems, or neoliberalism, or an economy divided between finance and arms production and dealing, or a third runway at Heathrow, or the existence of a capitalist class and a bourgeoisie, or cutting funding for academic research to pay for an overblown sports day, or blaming asylum seekers and refugees for social problems, or dispensing mob justice on suspected 'peedos', or Hollyoaks, or Radio 4 'sitcoms' or Woman's Hour, or the deification of Princess Di, or lapdancing, or completely disproportionate pseudo-moral 'outrage' aimed at public servants and DJs, or whipping up fear about innoculations against childhood diseases, or an nunelected House of Lords, or that football is 'the beautiful game,' or that polygon counts are enough to make me want to buy a console, or that Tom Sharpe is witty, or the return of capital punishment, or that Jeremy Paxman is a particularly good journalist, or that Julia Hartley Brewer isn't a complete fucking moron, or selling arms to the Israeli government, or supporting dictators who boil their opponents alive, or that feminism's gone too far...

I mean, I could go on, but I wouldn't want to bore you.

I searched the interweb for what these shared values might be. The Graun offered me one potential answer:

These include the tradition of free speech; the contested view that Britain was founded on freedom, democracy and liberty; and the contribution of different communities to building a modern, successful country.

So it's a combination of wishful historical thinking and vagueness. That's nice. If these are what we're expected to adhere to, then sorry, but I don't.

Free speech is, thankfully, restricted in cases where it is intended to cause or constitute racial harrassment, and somewhat more controversially where it may "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety". I don't believe in unconditional freedom of speech and neither does the government.

I also don't believe that Britain was founded on freedom, democracy and liberty. The country was founded on conquest, empire and the gradual and grudging extent of the franchise from monarchy to nobility to capitalist to bougeoisie to men and to women. Liberty in Britain has for most of its existence meant liberty to exploit others.

The last 'value' is of course so vague it could mean absolutely anything. What's a modern country? How is it more modern than other countries? Is Iran less modern than us because of its Islamic character? Is it as modern as us because they can launch a satelite? Still it seems to be vaguely about being co-operative and obviously that's hard to disagree with. It's just that it is also almost entirely meaningless, so it's hard to support as well.

Frankly, as an internationalist, I would consider any values that should be shared amongst the British people as values that the whole world could or should share. I don't see why my values should have to be so parochial as to be British.

Hence, I'm an extremist and a terrorist. Such is the way of the world...

Jonathan Freedland: Pillock

A quite astonishingly patronising pillock at that. Today's CiF fartpiece in the Graun:

As British Jews come under attack, the liberal left must not remain silent
It should be perfectly possible to condemn Israel's brutal
action in Gaza while taking a stand against antisemitism

No shit, really?

To be fair we were just waiting for him to turn up before we got started. I mean, in no way are the people involved in the PSC or Stop The War likely to be involved with the UAF as well. Gods no.

Let's have a look at what he's got to say, shall we (humour me a moment).

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 2001 and July 7 2005, a noble impulse seized the British liberal left. Politicians, commentators and activists united to say to their fellow citizens that, no matter how outraged they felt at the loss of civilian life they had just witnessed, they should under no circumstances take out that anger on the Muslim community. Progressive voices insisted that Muslims were not to be branded as guilty by association, just because the killers of 9/11 and 7/7 had been Muslims and had claimed to act in the name of all Muslims.

Yes, some people stated the bleeding obvious. Other people didn't. But tell you what, why don't you get on with the backslapping? I mean, what bad things have the liberal left ever done? They've never tried to justify a manifestly illegal and immoral war or anything after all...

Anyway, back to Jonathan:

Blah blah blah blah bet you can see where this is going blah blah blah

Ah yes, here we are:

It's worth stating the obvious - that Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7, that Israel is not al-Qaida - and noting that the silence has not been absolute. In a very welcome move, a group of leading Muslims wrote an open letter condemning apparent Gaza-related attacks on Jews. Meanwhile, Labour's Denis MacShane, in a passionate article for Progress magazine, urged those on the left not "to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews".

The silence has not been absolute? Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7? Well, the death toll was slightly higher for 9/11, I'll grant you that. Although notably the office workers of the WTC had not spent the last 2 years cut off from jobs, food, water, electricity and their own country; neither had they been herded into refugee camps for 50 years. But to suggest that Cast Lead was not as bad as 7/7? There's a word for this: Chauvinism.

And 'silence not absolute'? Seriously? When every demo I've been on has been attended by speakers pointing out that the protests are not anti-semitic and/or 'Jews for Peace'? What, did he take a wrong turn in the TARDIS and end up in a parallel world this morning?

According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, the four weeks after Cast Lead began saw an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier. It reports 250 incidents - nearly 10 a day - the highest number since it began its work 25 years ago. Among them are attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, "This is for Gaza", as they punched and kicked him to the ground.
Blood-curding graffiti has appeared in Jewish areas across the country, slogans ranging from "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz." Jewish schools have been advised to be on high alert against attack. Most now have security guards on the door; some have a police presence.

Hmm. Leaving aside the Community Security Trust issue, let's mention the unmentionable: it turns out that despite the valiant efforts of the liberal left and their battalions, the last few years haven't been rosy for Muslims in Britan. We even have a new adjective to describe it: Islamophobia. Of course, the liberal left also gave us a new adjective of their own: Islamofascism.

Hmm. Anyway, Jonathan's still bleating:

Blah blah blah I have no sense of my own ridiculousness blah blah blah I get given money for this blah blah blah

At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."

You're right! He's a racist! You've got the smoking gun here Jonathan, I can't believe he compared the sealed off Gaza Strip, which Israel controls all access to, enters with their military at a whim, commits massacres at a whim, etc etc, to a ghetto! And there was one of those semi-mythical Star of David/Swastika placards! Oh noes! They probably want to take Ehud Olmert to Nuremburg and hang him in a bunker or something! On no account must the uniqueness of the holocaust be threatened. On no account must people be tempted to draw parallels with previous events. If you do, you might as well be burning down a synagogue, because we all know that the Israeli government and All Teh Jews are not separate people.*

Blah blah Christ this guy can go on blah blah blah blah is he being paid by the word blah blah blah please just make it stop blah blah blah

I know that some will say that even raising this is an attempt to divert attention from the real and larger issue, Israel's brutality in Gaza and the colossal number of civilian deaths that entailed. I won't accept that. Regular readers know that I denounced Cast Lead from the beginning. But I shouldn't have to say that. These two matters are separate. It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel's current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it's about time liberals and the left said so.

Oh, good. Jonathan's capable of telling the difference between Teh Jews and Teh Israeli Government. But no one else is, and unless you YES YOU say that you do in a loud voice at all times, day and night, as opposed to what the Palestinian solidarity movement has been doing, i.e. putting it in leaflets, papers, rallies, marches and speeches, then you are personally responsible for any anti-Semitic violence meted out in Britain.

Luckily, Jonathan's decided to save the day now, so let's all get behind him. Actually, thinking about it, he seems like precisely the sort of person I want to go round telling anti-Semitic thugs his position on Operation Cast Lead.

I have to ask, who exactly does he think he's speaking for?

*For the record, as I have said before, I don't think that the Nazis are a good comparison for Israel. I think Apartheid South Africa fits the bill better. But people are bound to draw comparisons between aspects of Nazi treatment of Jews and Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Because sometimes they're unavoidable.

Bad Vibes: Most Quotable Book Evar

J lent me Luke Haines' memoir Bad Vibes: Britpop and My Part in its Downfall yesterday.

Absolutely top class, an outstanding Hainesian pearl of venom dropped into almost every sentence. I include below a few choice ones.

On being thrown out of art college:

I am thrown out - asked to leave as I have 'a bad attitude to further education'. Not true. I have a great attitude.

On being dubbed the Saviour of Rock:

Why would I want to save rock? The damn thing has been stumbling around like a wounded donkey since 1981. The only thing I want to do with rock is kick the fucker to death and put it out of its misery.

On James Banbury*:

I have trouble getting down to a few of the low notes. The Cellist demonstrates that he can reach them and kindly offers his services. 'Hey, tough guy, bit keen aren't you? says Phil to the swot, visibly irritated.
I'm watching you, I think to myself. I'm watching.

On James Banbury again:

The Cellist reveals himself to be something of a bon viveur in search of an onion pastry called pissal-adiere. As a non viveur, I find his quest rather disappointing on any number of levels.

On Alan McGee:

'You. You're Tom Verlaine.' He is of course referring to the buzz-saw blitzkrieg maverick lead guitarist of seminal symbolist New York City art rockers Television. Maybe some people would be happy with this introduction. Not I. I am a stickler for manners and would have preferred a 'How do you do?' or even a simple 'Hello.' The 80s were plagued by these small-time indie Svengalis, wannabe Brian Epsteins or mini-Malcolms. Forever proclaiming some poor bugger to be a genius. Of course hype is fundamental to pop music. But it often says more about the hyper than the hyped. The start of the cursed holy bestowals.
'You. You're Tom Verlaine,' it says, utterly unbecoming. I fix the fool with a dead-eyed stare. Say nothing, say nothing. You, Alan McGee, will pay for this transgression. You will pay.

On the music press:

The first music press front covers of the year are traditionally a bold prediction of who is going to dazzle like no one else has dazzled before, reaping unimaginable rewards for themselves, and for the rest of us change the way we perceive the dimensions of time and space. For their first issue of the year NME stick Elastica on the front cover. During the first week of the new year Blobby is still number one. Time and space remain unaltered.

The full verdict on Chris Evans is probably a bit long to include here, but it does include the phrases 'the only thing I want right now is for the lifeblood to drain out of you' and 'jumped-up kissogram-turned-light-entertainment-colossus'.

On fans' criticism:

The 'spare' guitarist is crestfallen.
'It's the fans,' I console, 'who can be the harshest of critics. John Lennon found that out.'

Anyway, there's plenty more, but you'll have to buy it to get it.

To finish up, in a kind of lazy tribute, here's some relevant material. It's a bit Jillian Becker for my liking, but still worth seeing.















*Thanks to J for showing me this also.