March 28, 2006

Religion: Clerical Errors



Religion has once again shown us it's dark side. There is, in the news, a story about an Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity. This is a very serious offense in Islamic law, and is punishable by death. This man's story is one that begs to be told. He converted, told no one but his own family, who remained Muslim but kept his secret, and for 16 years he led a double life. Then, as happens the world over, he fell out with his family and someone turned him in. He was promptly arrested and the calls from the clerics quickly ensued. Death to the Apostate!!! Death to America!!!

Today, due to a procedural error, he is being released. Of course there was quite a bit of pressure from the Christian world calling for clemency, mercy, and tolerance. But the law is the law..and must be obeyed. His release from custody came about because he was detained for too long a time before charges were brought against him.

I wonder if the prisoners in Guantanimo Bay could use the same sort of justice that this man received from the Afghans? Imagine being held indefinitely without charge. Oh well.

But this man's ordeal is far from over. The clerics will issue a Fatwah against him and, like Salmon Rushdie, he will spend the rest of his life hiding from some mad muslim who is looking for the quick and easy road to paradise.

Ahh religion....you gotta love it.....or else!

One last comment and then I am done for the day. Why is it that Christian martyrs have always seemed willing to die for their faith, and that Mulim martyrs seem positively eager to kill for thiers?

This man, Abdul Rahman, very nearly became a Christian martyr in the classical sense. He is a very brave man indeed. I hope that he will now be whisked away to some friendlier and safer country where he will be able to practice openly the faith he almost died for.

I myself will remain sceptical as ever about religion. But a religion without tolerance is completely unacceptable to me. To be unable to change your mind, or test new philosophies, or just follow your heart without fear of death is intolerable to me. The sooner they change themselves, these closed minded mullahs, so that they can live in the world at peace with the rest of us the better off we all shall be.

March 24, 2006

Personal: FineFeathered Fink


Jane's Mum likes me. She bought me a Cockatiel. I named it Langer. Those of you in Ireland will know what that means. But this little blog isn't about my Langer. It's about trouble.

Even since I was a boy I have been familiar with the term Bad Influence. I was often described as such by teachers, parents of other kids, and even by other kids themselves. But I never really paid it any attention. I never considered that it was true. I have never set out to be a bad influence on anybody...or any thing. But I guess I must be because Jane's Mum was here last night and...here's the story:

Just before Christmas Jane's Mum asked if we would mind her cockatiels while they were away for a fortnights holiday. We quickly said yes. It would be fun. I love animals and so does Jane. These two birds were old timers. One of them could whistle songs and even say a few words. But, although he whistled and serenaded us, he never uttered a word during the time he was with us.

I would wake them every morning with "Hello Boys!" And they would whistle a little. During the day I would find myself talking to them as I wandered in and out of the dining room. I thought it would be funny if I could teach Cress, the one who says a word or two, something new. I never thought it would happen, but I had fun repeating some small phrases and see if I could get him to repeat them. Mostly I said "S'up Bitch?" I thought that would be funny when Shirley, Jane's Mum, took their cover off every morning and said "Morning Boys" if Cress could answer "S'up Bitch?" I also tried a couple of other little phrases but I soon stuck with "S'up Bitch".

So now a few months have passed. Shirley bought me a cockatiel as a reward for taking such good care of her birds, Mustard and Cress. All is well and there was peace in the valley....until last night.

Jane and her Mum both go to meditation on Thursday evenings. So there they are, sitting in the kitchen, having a cup of tea. I walk in to say hello. Jane's Mum looks at me and asks, "What did you teach my bird to say while he was here?"

My heart stopped for a minute. Better confess I told myself. "I just thought it would be funny to teach Cress to say "S'up bitch?", I said. "Did he say it?", I asked.

"No", she said, "He said something else".

"What did he say?", I asked.

She gave me the look that I had seen many times in my youth. The Bad Influence look.

"Cress said", she answered, "Suck my dick Shirley".

Tea came bubbling from my nose. I tried to look as innocent as I could. Then I did the only thing I could think of...I pointed my finger at Jane. Jane was too busy laughing to be upset and she was also spitting tea. Shirley saw right through me..but I maintained my innocence. Luckily she has a sense of humour so I am not in too much trouble.

March 21, 2006

Personal: Man Boobs



What do I and this chap have in common? Some of you might think that he and I share a common name or nickname.Others of you might point out that he and I share a Celtic heritage. Or perhaps we both look good draped in towels. All of these might be true..to some extent..but they are far too obvious.

The answer is Gynecomastia. This is roughly translated to Man Boobs. There are several causes such as marijuana use, aging, or the unwelcome side-effects of some medications. In my case it could be all of the above. But, until recently, despite my portly form of late, it has never been an issue. But a few weeks ago I noticed that one of my boobies is getting larger than the other. I went to see my main quack this morning and he assured me it wasn't breast cancer (call me paranoid), but just the side effect of my leukaemia chemo-therapy.

I was only slightly reassured by this. Why only one side? Will I have to get a one-titted bra? Will I have to run away and join the circus? Do they still have freak shows in the circus? Are they hiring? These and many other questions raced through my mind as I hurried home to tell Jane. She was cool about the whole thing. Not a jealous bone in her body.

So I thought I'd share the news with all my friends...and you fuckers too!

March 20, 2006

Politics: The Big Sleezy


The picture above (click to enlarge) is of the House of Lords. This is the "upper " house of the British Parliament. The "lower" house is that of the Commons. The House of Lords is populated by Bishops, Aristocrats, and Political Appointees. When a politician is no longer capable of keeping a seat in the "commons", his party can nominate him to the "lords". There they can exert influence till they die. The one thing that they all have in common is that they are members of this house for life. In some cases, like the aristocrats, they are members from birth to death, and their heirs will follow. Born to rule.

There is a bit of a scandal brewing in Britain at the moment that has the ruling party, Labour, spinning out of control. It seems that they have been accused of secretly accepting undeclared loans, and offering the generous souls who have given them this money (around £14,000,000) seats in the upper house. Sort of a reward for services rendered. Of course the Labour Party leaders are quick to deny that the money was at all influential in selecting these donors, and lenders, for these exalted positions in the governing of this sceptered isle.


I guess corruption, especially the political variety, is not exclusive to any particular society. The recent events surrounding Mr. Abrahamoff and his money-ladened influence on the American political system is just another example of creative use of money to ensure desired results. In politics money is power. The politicians need to spend it to win elections. This was the use that Tony Blair assures the British taxpayers the "loaned" money was put to. The fact that niether the chairman or the treasurer of the party knew anything about this money is mere oversight. Mr. Blair denies any notion that this money amounted to a "slush fund". Right.

The thing that really gets me about these people is that they write the rules and then feel completely free to ignore, bend, or even break them. I believe that they are utterly incapable of even conceiving that they can do any wrong.

Maybe they can't.

March 14, 2006

Politics: Counter-Productive Intelligence

Today's little rant is about intelligence...or what passes for it in the corridors of power these days. It has become painfully apparent, to me at least, that much of American (and British) foreign policy amounts to little more that ideological blundering.

In the film Full Metal Jacket there is a scene where a general is explaining the reason for the war in Vietnam. He tells a young marine that "Inside every gook there is an American trying to get out." This is closer to the truth behind American foreign policy than most people would believe. The mere fact that, in order to "help" a third-world country to embrace democracy, it becomes necessary to kill two million of its' people and drop more tons of TNT than all the world's armies did in WWII, should make one begin to question the thinking behind it all. Isn't it a little counter-productive to kill the people you set out to free?

In the Washington Post today I read an article about the President announcing that 85 million dollars is to be spent in promoting democracy in Iran and supporting pro-democracy groups that are already working there. This article goes on to say that the announcement itself is considered counter-productive by those pro-democracy groups in Iran because they will now be seen as agents for the USA.

What are they thinking in Washington and London? Just yesterday British foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced a similar intention to begin broadcasting pro-democracy radio, in Farsi. This is because, as he puts it, "The Iranian people deserve better than their current government". Does this kind of announcement really accomplish anything other than the increased repression of those people you hope to aid? I don't think so.

I am not saying that resources shouldn't be used to promote democracy in countries where it is sorely needed and genuinely called for. Tyrannies of any sort should be actively countered and the oppressed people should encouraged to rise against them. But I do question the thinking behind making these sorts of announcements to the world. Regimes that are openly threatened from without react very strongly to interference within.

I would like to say just one more thing on the matter. Just because there is internal discord in a country, and we don't happen to like the present regime, doesn't necessarily mean that any change would be in our favor. You just have to look at the situation in Iraq to see that. We toppled a regime we didn't like, set the oppressed people free (apart from our own on-going military occupation), and the only allies that we seem to have made are the ones we brought with us and who were summarily dismissed as lackeys by the now-free Iraqis.

I would like to think that our foreign policy should be more in keeping with Teddy Roosevelt's idea that we should "Walk softly and carry a big stick". Not barge our way in like Bozo the Clown honking our horns and ringing our bells and stamping our big clown feet all over the people that we are supposedly trying to help.

March 13, 2006

Politics: Ban Prohibition!!



Remember this guy? Every time I tell people, in Europe, that I grew up in Indiana they invariably ask the same question: Where is that? I tell them it is near Chicago. Then they all say the same thing: aha Al Capone!

Today I would like to say a few things about Prohibition. This is because currently there is a lot of talk about Online Gambling ...or more precisely the banning of it. Several bills have been put before Congress that would prohibit online gambling. The arguments used to promote these bills are very similar to those used against the production and consumption of alcohol in the early part of the last century.

One argument is that gambling, like alcohol, is addictive. People will gamble away their pay checks, rents will not be paid, children will become neglected or corrupted, families will be undermined, and life as we know it will be destroyed. So the obvious solution is to ban this nefarious activity altogether.

At least that is the argument for the ban. I don't agree with this argument. When the same arguments were used, with great success, against alcohol there were some very terrible consequences. The ban enabled criminal gangs to organize on a scale that no one could have imagined. Corruption spread into communities, law enforcement, politics both local and national, and the production and consumption of alcohol continued unabated. The corruption that was allowed to flourish then endures to this day.

While the self-righteous scramble for the moral high-ground believing that they are protecting us simple folk from ourselves, more pragmatic demons are also hard at work. Offshore and unregulated establishments become the base of operations for the entrepreneurs both legitimate and criminal. Money will flow out of the country like alcohol once flowed in.


But you can be sure of one thing: Gambling will continue...ban or no ban.

The government is quite capable of regulating online gambling in the same way it regulates any other large industry. Driving this industry offshore or underground will not be beneficial to society.

But I'll give you odds that the self-appointed guardians of our moral welfare will continue to interfere with our right to enjoy ourselves. Any takers?

March 12, 2006

Personal: Looney Toons and Link


The other night Jane and I were dining with friends when the subject turned to Looney Toons and such. I love Looney Toons. Daffy, Bugs, Sylvester, Tweety Pie and, of course, Elmer Fudd. All these wonderful and delerious characters filled my Saturday mornings with uncontrolable laughter when I was young...and they still do. I see reflections of Looney Toons all around me.

You might notice a new style to this blog. I have borrowed a new template and I have added a new link. The new link is to another blog page of mine. I have decided to post a few writings there. So feel free to have a gander at some not-so-good poetry and an essay or two

March 08, 2006

Personal: Sorry about the bad taste


First of all I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to anyone out there who found that the subject of my last blog left them with a bad taste in their mouth. It was not my intention to embarras or to shock or be distasteful. I was merely musing on nicknames. I will try to give Pete and Mrs. Tiggywinkle no more exposure on my blogging than is absolutely neccessary. Some things are better left to the imagination.

**************************
A funny thing happened the other night. My doorbell went so I left my flat, on the ground floor, and answered the front door. It was the police!
"Mr.M.....?", they asked.
"Oh shit", I thought. What could this be?
"We're here for your son."
"I don't have a son.", I told them. "I think you must be mistaken."
"We're here for S....".
"No S.... here", says I.
Then it dawned on me what was happening. New tenants had moved into the top floor flat. A father and son. The son is in his early 20's and the father is about my age. They and I share a Celtic name. This name is spelled in various ways depending on what part of the British Isles you are from. Their name and mine sound the same but are spelled differently. These names are tribal and predate all written history. So, anyway, I sent them to the flat upstairs. Not long afterwards they left.
The funny thing is this: That was the first time ever in my life that the police had come to my door looking for a person named M..... and it wasn't me!!!
I am getting old.

March 06, 2006

Personal: Nicknames


I hate nicknames. I never had one when I was a kid and I don't have one now. "Lafindboy" is a nom de plume...not a nickname. But we all seem to give certain parts of our bodies nicknames. Today's blog is about that.

I call mine "Pete". I think this is because "Peter" was one of the acceptable nicknames for the penis. We never heard the words "Penis" or "Vagina" when I was a kid. I always thought that they were purely medical terms.

Most couples have terms of edearment for their respective organs. At the present time "Pete" is enamoured of a certain "Mrs Tiggywinkle". Good luck to the little chap I say...and to the little chapette.

We often speak of these particular organs in the third person, as if they had lives of their own. I have grown rather fond of "Pete" over the years. Of course, like most best friends, he has occasionaly let me down but I don't beat him up about it.


Women also have nicknames for their little best friends. These are not the crude and vulgar names that puerile low-lifes use in what passes for manly conversation. They are often affectionate and humorous and very personal. I love "Mrs Tiggwinkle" and I can honestly say I have met no other "Mrs Tiggywinkle's" on my lifes journey.

One thing, here in England, that struck me as particularly sweet was the first time I ever heard a woman refer to hers as her "Front Bottom". Not so much a nickname as a geographical location. This term was probably handed down from Victorian days and has become an acceptable and proper way for a lady to refer to her private parts. Those were the days. I am sure that, in their private moments, even the Victorians had their secret nicknames for their little treasures.

So, in closing, I would just like to say adieu to all those Willies, Dicks, Langers, One-Eyed Trouser Snakes, Big Drippers, Lap Lizards and Tiny Tims out there. And an ever friendlier good-bye to all those Pussies, Beavers, Cooches, Jelly Rolls and Nookies.

If anyone is offended by today's little ramble well all I can say is this: Don't get your nickers in a twist.

March 05, 2006

Personal: Illusions

Click on image to enlarge

Today I am taking some time off from ranting about politics and religion. Even though these things seem to be more closely related than I consider healthy, I will abstain from commenting. Except for this: President Bush has explained, as part of his reasoning for the invasion of Iraq, that he was on a "...mission from God". Right. Now Prime Minister Tony Blair has expounded that only God is able to judge his decision to accompany Mr. Bush on the same invasion. Is this not the cornerstone of Theocracy? Where are the people in this set-up? The voters who elected these two pompous zealots into power seem to be absent from their reasoning. Aren't the people, in a democracy, supposed to be the judges of their servants? Anyone with a used-car salesman's sense of honesty and a carnival barkers love of rhetoric can set up as an evangilest and spread the word about his "personal saviour". That is the nature of religion in modern America. But I am deeply disapointed that a politician here in Britain is using the same "divine" excuses for his own actions.

But enough about all that.

You may have noticed the pic at the top of this page. I was browsing optical illusions the other day and thought I'd share a few with you all. I find these things highly amusing. I love to think that my eyes see one thing and my brain sees another. Cool. Of course these illusions are just the result of synapses firing in the brain and creating something that isn't there. Oops..we're treading very close to religion again...sorry.

Can you see the spinning cylinders? Look closely..very closely. You are feeling sleepy...very sleepy. You know someone in England and you want to give them something. A house, a car, a boat, a weekend at the Playboy Mansion....NO...Wake Up!! I was only kidding. I don't want a fucking boat!

For those of you of a certain generation, who prefer their optical illusions in living colour..try this one. Of course, when I was much younger and even more stupid, I saw shit like this all the time. A few mushrooms, a little peyote button or two...or just some of my sisters lasagna would induce this sort thing. Not a particularly healthy experience while driving cross-country.

Well that's about it for today.

March 03, 2006

Politics: sitting upright reading the news


Browsing the news from USA this morning. The Bush administration is arguing that prisoners at Guantanimo are exempt from legislation proposed by Sen. McCain. This legislation would make torture illegal. Of course the Bush people reserve the right to torture anybody they like in their private prisons. They also sub-contract torture to foriegn governments who have no McCain style legislation.

I believe that the founding fathers must be turning in their graves.


In another article it appears that a senate committee has rejected a bi-partisan proposal for an independant office to oversee the enforcement of congressional ethics. In 2004 over 3 billion dollars was spent by corporations and other groups lobbying public officials. Why would they want this money to stop flowing into their pockets. Money is power after all.




Finally I would just like everyone to know that my back is killing me. The old sciatica is back with a vengeance. It has been quite some time since I suffered from an attck of this sort. I suppose that I must have let my posture slip and now I am paying the price. All those times I heard those stupid words: "Sit up straight!" I rebelled against sitting up straight. I went out of my way to slouch. I slouched everywhere..even standing up I slouched. Now I am paying the price. No more slouching for me...but the couch is so comfortable and slouch friendly..I am going to sit upright, feet flat on the floor, and flip Mr. Backpain the bird.

I think I'll start tomorrow......first thing.