NOTE TO ALL THE BATON BOYS
We're uncensored for a while (so chrish can post without whining about being removed even though hilarious and the rest of you can post even more about cars and sport than ever before)

Lamb Bhunas

There have been a number of things I’ve wanted to write something about on here, most notably the anti–war march — particularly Ken’s very punchy speech and Jesse Jackson’s dumb speech and the congestion charge (which seems to be working). However I’m off on holiday early tomorrow morning so I’ve been busting a gut this week to get all my work into satisfactory order before I depart (with a brief interlude last night to drink all the guest bitters available at the local Wetherspoons). Anyway, over the next couple of weeks it’s going to be up to you boys to keep this place going. Don’t drop the baton now.

Ha, ha.

Madness

Following on from Tucola's bit about the mentally unstable American, the telegraph published this today: "A year ago, in a very similar case, a pardon was granted to a murderer in Georgia, Alexander E. Williams IV, who had been diagnosed as suffering from "chronic paranoid delusions". He believed that the actress Sigourney Weaver was God and that she spoke to him. It was the same issue as with Singleton: whether Williams should be forcibly given drugs to make him "synthetically sane". In his case, however, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles chose mercy and decided to change his sentence from death to life imprisonment. That was the last we ever heard of Williams. So I telephoned Georgia yesterday to find out how he was. He is dead, having recently committed suicide in prison." Hmmm.

Quote of the Day

"If he's guilty of anything, it's just being a bit dopey" - Ex-Aussie wicketkeeper Ian Healy gets to the heart of the Shane Warne controversy. (From the "Fiver", Guardian Unlimited Football)

So between 50 and 75% of men who are married or in committed relationships have affairs (women slightly less)? Slags.

How do you like this from the New York Times?

“The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled yesterday that officials in Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic medication to make him sane enough to execute. Without the drugs, the prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, could not be put to death under a United States Supreme Court decision that prohibits the execution of the insane.

Yesterday’s 6–to–5 decision is the first by a federal appeals court to allow such an execution.

“Singleton presents the court with a choice between involuntary medication followed by an execution and no medication followed by psychosis and imprisonment,” Judge Roger L. Wollman wrote for the majority in ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Judge Wollman said the first choice was the better one, at least when the drugs were generally beneficial to the prisoner. He said courts did not need to consider the ultimate result of medicating the prisoner. “Eligibility for execution is the only unwanted consequence of the medication”, he wrote”.

The UN

The New York Times about why France should be replaced with India on the UN Security Council. You could argue that the time is ripe for the composition of the Security Council to be totally revisited. The way it’s going, what will probably happen is that we will bin the Security Council and the UN entirely.

This is good about why diamonds are “intrinsically worthless stones whose popularity and value are a recent creation, the result of a concerted marketing efffort by a monopolist cartel”. It talks about how De Beers have been incredibly clever in manipulating the female psyche through product placement in films and advertising to force blokes to shell out 15% of their annual income on a rock should they ever wish to get hitched. However, good luck in explaining any of this to your bird.

Shit, maybe the French are right, after all.

Look a likes

I didn't get a picture, but it wouldn't have done it justice anyway. I was at a swanky reception - the birthday of Lucia's boss, the general counsel of a Spanish bank - and we were surrounded by top brass. (It was a couple of weeks ago, but I just remembered this minute.) One of the directors of the legal department was a younger, Spanish John Hopkins.

I'm not just saying facially - although he and Hoppo are as alike as two eggs - the guy moved like Hoppo, dressed in a very traditional English style, had the same facial expressions as Hoppo and even did the hands outstretched shrugging. It was truly truly uncanny, and I kept expecting him to pull out a pipe and ask me who owned a lamp. (In fact I didn't speak to him - I was concerned he might ask for a contribution to the fricking boat-house sauna fund.)

I think another thing that winds Europeans up and engenders anti–American sentiment is the link between international politics and influence and personal arrogance and self–aggrandisment that is the result of American patriotism. OK, so all nations are not equal. However, all men are. That’s why it galls to read American writing which in essence tells us that our opinions don’t matter, as if the particular American doing the writing is personally responsible for the pre–eminent position of America in international affairs. This sort of bullying nationalism is obnoxious — being told by someone that “my country can kick your country’s ass, so I don’t care what you think”.

This is interesting about the roll of Switzerland.

This is interesting also about the role of France.

I agree with this on the role of the UN. America does not need the UN to go to war. A telling point is that the author describes the United Nations as “united by a consensual delusion that all nations are equal”. It is the underlying inequality of nations that is what gets everyone’s goat in Europe and creates that kind of ineffectual, spluttering anti–Americanism. France et al don’t like the feeling that world events are moving precipitously forward and their role is marginal.

Just came across this about the possibility of Blair facing a war crimes trial for a war on Iraq. Seems ridiculous.

Trying to nail down a nagging doubt

I’m trying to put my finger on why I feel a nagging concern about the war on Iraq and the role of America in international affairs generally, despite coming from a basically conservative, pro–American stance.

In the Matthew Parris piece in the Times linked below, Parris makes the point that many objections to war on Iraq made by “doves” are ill–conceived and that one of the few real objections is that a successful war on Iraq will be the beginning of a new American imperialism. Having thought about it, I am starting to see this as the problem. I don’t support evil regimes or terrorists and recognise the need for nations to do whatever is necessary to secure themselves against either of these, whether within the framework of the UN or outside it. International law has never required all war to be mandated by the UN — we didn’t need a second UN Resolution authorising the use of force in the Falklands after Argentina ignored Resolution 502 which called for immediate withdrawal of Argentine forces and for a diplomatic solution to be sought.

So basically, so far, I support the American approach on this. However, perhaps the reason I also have a slight instinctive problem with America is reflected in this passage from President Bush’s State of the Union Address — “Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people”. Is it that I resent the fact that President Bush can make statements of that nature, while the course of every other nation on the planet depends upon the decisions of America?

It’s a good thing that big, powerful America is around to sort out the evil regimes and evil–doers of the world. My concern is that I am not American. Ultimately, America does not care about me or my country. The primary concern of any nation is with its own citizens and interests. Which is quite right. But the worry is that the wider this kind of American quasi–imperial influence spreads, the more the world is in danger of being run (even more) for the benefit of the one super–power. And depending upon the policies of the government of that super–power, for the benefit of particular groups and entities within that super–power. So I’m starting to think that my concern stems from a fear of the concentration of so much power in one place. There’s a natural instinct to Fight the Power. Who do I trust? Me, that’s who. And if the shape of the world is being determined by and for someone else, I, and Britain, and Europe are going to feel a little nervous.

Having said all that, the site where I picked up the Parris link sums the importance of fears of empire in the face of the larger threat — “Well, that’s something to worry about. But it’s not as bad as, say, smallpox”. If the show is not going to be run by me, I am confident that I am more likely to keep the way of life to which I have become accustomed as a resident of an outlying province in the American Empire than as a resident of an embattled enclave in some kind of Mad Max version of international politics where WMD–toting despots and terrorists are allowed to go unchecked. But, as a proud citizen of a once–great nation, it’ll just take me a while to be grateful.

What if...

I'm a bit shaken at the moment by a thought that occurred to me last night. I was reading a piece about the "Adlai Stevenson Photos" of Cuba - when the then Sec of State pulled out the A2 photos of the soviet missiles, but what got me thinking was how close the United States and USSR came to engaging in nuclear war.

Now regardless of whether Kim Jong-Il and (much less likely) Saddam has nuclear weapons, a lot of others do - including Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. How close could these countries get to using these things? Everyone writes this stuff off, but the Kashmir situation last year was pretty scary.

A lorry carrying 40 tons of glue has crashed on the M25 yesterday spilling part of its load. Police are advising drivers to stick to their lanes [via tumblage].

This older article from the Times on objections to a war on Iraq is interesting also.

Jack Straw in the Times on Iraq.

Scooby Who?

Was in the missus' local, the Westbourne, on Sunday night when I realised we were sharing a (small) table with Freddy Prinze Junior. And no-one but me had spotted him. And I never see celebrities. Ever. (Well apart from Michaela Strachan in the same pub a few months ago - but she was looking well rough, so doesn't count.) Freddy likes to think he's famous for such movies as "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scooby Doo". He's actually more famous for being married to (grrrrr) Buffy. Whose real name rhymes with 'Stella'. Which is coincidentally what I was drinking at the time. But I opted not to point out the cockney rhyming potential of his wife's name to Mr Prinze Junior. ps These poncey West London pubs are a far cry from the "Oarsman" in Dalston, where the only celebrities you'd be likely to meet (and beat at pool) would be the Time Bandits...

Oh, and I triumphantly saw out the entire month of January without touching the booze. Had a tentative couple of pints over the weekend, but no real inclination to drink. Wonder how long that will last?

Spent the whole weekend participating in a workshop led by Phillip Zarrilli, based on the South Indian art of Kalarippayattu. Most of the time was spent introducing some of the forms, but the context of the workshop was the application of the art to theatre and how the skills might be employed in performance. It got me thinking. Interesting to spend a block of time just moving the body. Redirected my mind towards some martial arts ideas, which I haven’t visited for a while. Still not exactly sure where I come out on all this — need some time to assimilate.