What's the best way to tell whether somebody's a total moron? I mean, a real knuckle-dragging neanderthal - how do you tell if somebody's one of those?
An IQ test? I don't think so. IQ tests are for deciding whether people are good at messing around with numbers. Somebody who isn't good at that isn't a total moron in my book - they just have an excellent excuse not to do maths. When I say 'total moron' I mean somebody who's pig-ignorant enough to make even the most poorly-informed swine look learned and wise. I mean somebody whose very existence is an unnecessary drain in our oxygen supply.
My own 'moron test', as I shall call it, would probably actually pick up people from across the intelligence spectrum. University students are particular susceptible to failure of this particular examination. Being in the upper echelons of education doesn't stop you from being caught in the net trawling the bottom of the cultural intelligence pool.
Regular readers of this blog - if there are such things - will know that this is something of a personal gripe for me. In fact, if you can be bothered to scroll down the list of my previous posts, I recommend that you read the rant on the 'True Lad' phenomenon. It's a sort of introduction to my rabid hatred of everything that lad culture stands for.
Anyway, I digress. If you've made it this far, you'll be anxious - I hope - to find out what, precisely, my moron test entails. It is conducted thus:
- Take one unsuspecting male from the street. This test cannot be performed with women, sadly. I am not suggesting that there aren't a few moronic females out there, obviously - but this test wouldn't be applicable.
- Ask said male what his opinion of feminism is.
- Observe the reaction of said male to said question.
Pretty simple huh? You'll be able to tell the vacuous pillocks from the civilised quite easily. One merely has to listen. Does the specimine guffaw and exclaim that feminism is just 'banter' - it really is quite shocking how that word is abused - and that women should all get back in the kitchen/make a sandwich/do the ironing? If so, then you have a classic moron on your hands. Were you to perform a medical experiment on such a person, and open up their skulls, I am quite convinced that you'd find a gaping vacuum in the brain where normal people experience emotions like empathy, understanding and respect.
If, on the other hand, the questioned male merely responds that it's an interesting idea, or perhaps lists some well-argued points against feminist ideology, or simply proclaims that he doesn't know enough about it to judge, then you can conclude that this one isn't an idiot.
If this isn't quite detailed enough for you, let me give you a bit of guidance - something to help you narrow down your search. I suggest, if you're looking to weed out a few cretins, that you focus mainly on young men. More fruitful habitats for this research might include male-only public schools. In fact, aim as specifically as possible for anybody who looks anything like this.
Obviously I wouldn't conduct this test myself. I wouldn't expect anybody else to either. In fact, I would only encourage you to run the moron test quietly in your own head, when you are next in the company of a bunch of swaggering wannabe alpha males - if you're ever unlucky to find yourself in such a situation.
The golden rule, I think, is quite clear. In short, any male who likes to make jokes about women belonging in the kitchen, knowing their place, being subservient etc. etc. is a braindead, senseless scumbag, an irritating spot on the arse of society and a walking summary of everything that is wrong with the human race.
If it were my decision - and perhaps it's a good job it's not - I would sentence each and every one of these plankton to indeterminate debate in a windowless cell with Richard Dawkins, where release is only possible once the detainee has convinced Dawkins that there is, in fact, a god, and that evolution is a fairy tale with all the empirical grounding of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Only when Dawkins is a die-hard fundementalist Christian may they be set free.
As a piece of public policy, I reckon that would be a good start. In the meantime, I encourage you to silently judge these apes, and afford yourself a feeling of massive superiority as you do it.
Friday, 14 October 2011
Friday, 9 September 2011
Liberal Elite? What Liberal Elite?
Imagine yourself in this scenario: you are a frustrated right-winger, and you're angry that Parliament, the public, the media and, well, anybody else who should be obeying your commands, is doing the exact opposite. You have two realistic options: accept that the public doesn't agree and move on, or keep on fighting to win them over to the God-fearing silent minority.
Neither seems particularly appetising. And this is why so many indignant Tories, Republicans, Mail-readers and so on have found another solution to the problem presented when people inexplicably fail to agree with them: blame the 'liberal elite'. Ah, yes, the liberal elite! Nobody really seems to be sure who they are, though opinion polling would probably reveal the average backbench Conservative politician to believe that it represents a conspiracy on the part of the EU, the BBC and the Guardian in equal measure to take over the country.
The liberal elite - variously referred to as the 'liberal establishment', the 'metropolitan elite', 'the leftist media' etcetera etcetera - is to supposedly blame for many of Britain's (and, indeed, America's) woes. Research has shown, for example, that every time an election occurs in Britain, the Conservatives fail to win 50% of the votes. How could this be, it is asked, if not for a liberal conspiracy on the part of thinktank executives, bureaucrats and quango chiefs?
To the coalition of media execs, mainstream politicians, journalists and other assorted extreme leftists, I would add the public. It is their insistence on choosing the 'liberal' media sources as their sources of news, and their mind-boggling desire to vote for parties of the left as well as of the right, that makes the liberal elite so potent. If the people weren't so silly as to agree with them, there wouldn't be a problem.
So, there we have it. There is an explanation after all for people's refusal to agree 100% of the time with the right. It's called free will, and it is a tool of the TUC, climate change freaks and Amnesty International. Glad we got that sorted.
Well, that was an interesting detour from reality and, as it happens, a rather insightful exploration of what happens inside the heads of Britain's most rabid conservatives. But as we return to what some of us under the oppressive rule of these liberal fascists like to call 'the real world', we ought to note a few things.
Let's start with the fact that the establishment is not liberal. The Conservative Party, let us remember, is the one that markets itself as the natural party of government. Ironically, it took the promotion of the Tories' own liberal elite to the top of the party, under the guidance of David Cameron, to restore them to their self-proclaimed home at the heart of the establishment. Before they went into hoodie-hugging liberal mode, they were unelectable - presumably because of the malign influence of Trotskyites in the Met Office beaming communist propaganda into people's brains under the pretence of distributing weather forecasts.
The media is not 'liberal' either. As in most democracies, Britain's media output is not one monolithic block of propaganda. Rather, it represents a wide range of views. And let it be said that the Guardian - aforementioned as part of the world conspiracy to encourage such evils as recycling and health and safety, remember - is significantly less well read than the Daily Mail and the Sun. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the evidence of a sinister Marxist force pulling the strings behind the scenes at the Times, the Telegraph or the Express either.
Which leaves us with a collection of moderately important people - the kind of characters that populate policy forums and government agencies. And they're hardly the illuminati, are they?
This is a classic Marxist trick: when the people who're supposed to agree with you fail to do so, you claim that they're languishing under a 'false consciousness'. Those who tollerate the liberal elite apparently suffer from a similar complex. Those on the right might call it 'Not being a Conservative disorder.' Doctors usually prescribe a dose of the Telegraph in such cases, but where it is more severe they may turn to the Daily Mail or even the ConservativeHome website - though both of these medications can have severe side effects, the most obvious of which are actually becoming a reactionary old git, and starting to agree with Nadine Dorries.
You have been warned.
Neither seems particularly appetising. And this is why so many indignant Tories, Republicans, Mail-readers and so on have found another solution to the problem presented when people inexplicably fail to agree with them: blame the 'liberal elite'. Ah, yes, the liberal elite! Nobody really seems to be sure who they are, though opinion polling would probably reveal the average backbench Conservative politician to believe that it represents a conspiracy on the part of the EU, the BBC and the Guardian in equal measure to take over the country.
The liberal elite - variously referred to as the 'liberal establishment', the 'metropolitan elite', 'the leftist media' etcetera etcetera - is to supposedly blame for many of Britain's (and, indeed, America's) woes. Research has shown, for example, that every time an election occurs in Britain, the Conservatives fail to win 50% of the votes. How could this be, it is asked, if not for a liberal conspiracy on the part of thinktank executives, bureaucrats and quango chiefs?
To the coalition of media execs, mainstream politicians, journalists and other assorted extreme leftists, I would add the public. It is their insistence on choosing the 'liberal' media sources as their sources of news, and their mind-boggling desire to vote for parties of the left as well as of the right, that makes the liberal elite so potent. If the people weren't so silly as to agree with them, there wouldn't be a problem.
So, there we have it. There is an explanation after all for people's refusal to agree 100% of the time with the right. It's called free will, and it is a tool of the TUC, climate change freaks and Amnesty International. Glad we got that sorted.
Well, that was an interesting detour from reality and, as it happens, a rather insightful exploration of what happens inside the heads of Britain's most rabid conservatives. But as we return to what some of us under the oppressive rule of these liberal fascists like to call 'the real world', we ought to note a few things.
Let's start with the fact that the establishment is not liberal. The Conservative Party, let us remember, is the one that markets itself as the natural party of government. Ironically, it took the promotion of the Tories' own liberal elite to the top of the party, under the guidance of David Cameron, to restore them to their self-proclaimed home at the heart of the establishment. Before they went into hoodie-hugging liberal mode, they were unelectable - presumably because of the malign influence of Trotskyites in the Met Office beaming communist propaganda into people's brains under the pretence of distributing weather forecasts.
The media is not 'liberal' either. As in most democracies, Britain's media output is not one monolithic block of propaganda. Rather, it represents a wide range of views. And let it be said that the Guardian - aforementioned as part of the world conspiracy to encourage such evils as recycling and health and safety, remember - is significantly less well read than the Daily Mail and the Sun. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the evidence of a sinister Marxist force pulling the strings behind the scenes at the Times, the Telegraph or the Express either.
Which leaves us with a collection of moderately important people - the kind of characters that populate policy forums and government agencies. And they're hardly the illuminati, are they?
This is a classic Marxist trick: when the people who're supposed to agree with you fail to do so, you claim that they're languishing under a 'false consciousness'. Those who tollerate the liberal elite apparently suffer from a similar complex. Those on the right might call it 'Not being a Conservative disorder.' Doctors usually prescribe a dose of the Telegraph in such cases, but where it is more severe they may turn to the Daily Mail or even the ConservativeHome website - though both of these medications can have severe side effects, the most obvious of which are actually becoming a reactionary old git, and starting to agree with Nadine Dorries.
You have been warned.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Politicians are lying bastards - but aren't we all?
Here's a revolutionary idea: not all politicians are awful human beings. Well, one might argue that all human beings are awful - and yes, we probably are. But politicians are no worse than the rest of us. Like all humans, politicians are essentially over-developed monkeys - selfish, petty, greedy, narrow-minded neanderthals.
This would be an adequate reason to hate everybody. But people seem to reserve their hatred for a specific class of human beings: the political. This has always baffled me, and it probably always will. In my experience, there are several reasons why average Joe Public dislikes politicians, and each of them is thoroughly stupid. Allow me to elaborate:
- They frequently make promises which they do not keep;
- they are only in it for the money;
- they are only in it for the power;
- they abuse taxpayers' money;
- they do not listen to the public.
Just to be clear, let me point out that I'm referring to politicians in democracies here, not dictators and propagandists of oppressive regimes - to whom all of the above probably apply, and probably a whole lot worse. Those who claim that their politicians don't listen to them might have a point if they live in Syria, Zimbabwe or North Korea. But Average Joe Public is neither Syrian, Zimbabwean nor North Korean. Anyway, I digress. This is why, in my mind, all of these opinions are fatuous nonsense.
- Yes, politicians occasionally make promises which they do not or cannot keep, often because of institutional opposition, often because of vested interests, often because at the time it is proposed it seems like a good idea, but later it turns out not to be. Would you vote for a party whose manifesto read: 'Well, we'll try to do this, but we probably won't be able to, because most people don't want it to happen, the rich and powerful won't like it and, to be honest, we don't want to get your hopes up'? I wouldn't. Would Barack Obama have won the 2008 Presidential Election under the slogan 'We probably can, but we can't garuntee it...'? I doubt it. The point is that politicians make promises because people like promises, and that's what happens in a democracy. I would venture that most political parties keep their main promises, or at least try to. Politicians aren't magical faries endowed with the supreme power to arbitrate the laws of the galaxy. People seem to forget this.
- I doubt that, say, the average British MP is in the business for the money. Even the British Prime Minister - and really, I can't think of a tougher job - earns less than some of the bosses of the more important quangos (if there is such a thing as an important quango). Most MPs have the experience, intellect and guile to succeed anywhere. Most could take up much easier, less strenuous and more highly paid jobs as executive directors, lawyers, consultants, advisers and so on, and have a life free of tabloid interference, time away from their loved ones and 8am to 10pm working days. But they choose not to. The elephant in the room here is the expenses 'scandal', and yes, there are also questions to be raised there about taxpayers' money. But expenses systems the world over are abused. Many MPs move away from their families to be available in Parliament, and there must be some system to support them. In any case, the average MP is clearly underpaid when one considers what they might be earning in an equivalent private sector job. Those who opine that the British political system is corrupt may have a point - all political systems are at least a little corrupt. But perhaps they should try living in India or Pakistan, the Ivory Coast or Greece.
- No doubt some politicians are in it for the power. I don't believe that a politician with no interest in power would ever succeed, much as no species with no interest in being alive would survive natural selection for very long. Most politicians in Britain, however, wield their power in a way that they hope helps the people who elect them. They have to, otherwise they lose the power. That's how democracy works, you see!
- Politicians probably do occasionally abuse taxpayers' money - and that's obviously wrong. But they also distribute it rather well. And who would you have looking after that money instead? The problem is that as soon as you give somebody that power, they become a politician, and then by definition they are a bastard. So the only solution, one might conclude, is to run a country without taxes, and we can all go back to living in a lawless pre-historic state of anarchy. (Some political theorists actually think this is a good idea - but that's another story.) But really, who would do a better job? These people are elected and they are publicly accountable. Would you trust estate agents with public money? Lawyers? Bankers? Well, the bankers have public money anyway, but that's not the point.
- All democratically elected politicians have to listen to the public at one point or another. To say that they don't do so is mind-blowingly ignorant. I reserve particular contempt for the kind of morons who somehow managed to believe that politicians are too obsessed with focus groups and opinion polls and should follow their convictions more, yet simultaneously moan that politicians are too busy following their own agenda. No party could possibly actually aggregate every single view in the country and apply it to public policy. That would create a bizarre and messy formulation of contradictory policy, to be enacted by those who do not believe in it. It would probably be populist rubbish as well. There are times when politicians must lead their populations. In the 1960s the Labour Government passed a number of liberalising laws that kickstarted the modernising zeitgeist, in the face of many traditional values). Today we can thank those politicians for a society tolerant of homosexuality, and intolerant of racism.
In short, politicians cannot win. If they follow the fickle demands of the public, they are criticised as lacking in values; if they follow their values, they are criticised for ignoring the fickle demands of the public. They recieve no appreciation for what they do right, and are slammed for doing the slightest thing wrong. Britain probably loses out as a result. A great many brilliant minds have probably been driven away from Government as a result of the cynicism - spurred on by the papers - of people who completely fail to understand how much the state does, and what would happen if politicians did not do their jobs.
If somebody completely unacquaninted with the concept of democratic politics, maybe a Martian, were introduced to our system via a typical conversation in a pub, they would be left with the impression that a politician is somebody who deliberately promises things that are completely unattainable, gaining pleasure from their subjects' disappointments, like some sort of malevolent santa who promises a gleeful little girl her own pony, but instead delivers a lump of coal.
In reality, they are fallible creatures whose contributions to our society are almost criminally underappreciated.
This would be an adequate reason to hate everybody. But people seem to reserve their hatred for a specific class of human beings: the political. This has always baffled me, and it probably always will. In my experience, there are several reasons why average Joe Public dislikes politicians, and each of them is thoroughly stupid. Allow me to elaborate:
- They frequently make promises which they do not keep;
- they are only in it for the money;
- they are only in it for the power;
- they abuse taxpayers' money;
- they do not listen to the public.
Just to be clear, let me point out that I'm referring to politicians in democracies here, not dictators and propagandists of oppressive regimes - to whom all of the above probably apply, and probably a whole lot worse. Those who claim that their politicians don't listen to them might have a point if they live in Syria, Zimbabwe or North Korea. But Average Joe Public is neither Syrian, Zimbabwean nor North Korean. Anyway, I digress. This is why, in my mind, all of these opinions are fatuous nonsense.
- Yes, politicians occasionally make promises which they do not or cannot keep, often because of institutional opposition, often because of vested interests, often because at the time it is proposed it seems like a good idea, but later it turns out not to be. Would you vote for a party whose manifesto read: 'Well, we'll try to do this, but we probably won't be able to, because most people don't want it to happen, the rich and powerful won't like it and, to be honest, we don't want to get your hopes up'? I wouldn't. Would Barack Obama have won the 2008 Presidential Election under the slogan 'We probably can, but we can't garuntee it...'? I doubt it. The point is that politicians make promises because people like promises, and that's what happens in a democracy. I would venture that most political parties keep their main promises, or at least try to. Politicians aren't magical faries endowed with the supreme power to arbitrate the laws of the galaxy. People seem to forget this.
- I doubt that, say, the average British MP is in the business for the money. Even the British Prime Minister - and really, I can't think of a tougher job - earns less than some of the bosses of the more important quangos (if there is such a thing as an important quango). Most MPs have the experience, intellect and guile to succeed anywhere. Most could take up much easier, less strenuous and more highly paid jobs as executive directors, lawyers, consultants, advisers and so on, and have a life free of tabloid interference, time away from their loved ones and 8am to 10pm working days. But they choose not to. The elephant in the room here is the expenses 'scandal', and yes, there are also questions to be raised there about taxpayers' money. But expenses systems the world over are abused. Many MPs move away from their families to be available in Parliament, and there must be some system to support them. In any case, the average MP is clearly underpaid when one considers what they might be earning in an equivalent private sector job. Those who opine that the British political system is corrupt may have a point - all political systems are at least a little corrupt. But perhaps they should try living in India or Pakistan, the Ivory Coast or Greece.
- No doubt some politicians are in it for the power. I don't believe that a politician with no interest in power would ever succeed, much as no species with no interest in being alive would survive natural selection for very long. Most politicians in Britain, however, wield their power in a way that they hope helps the people who elect them. They have to, otherwise they lose the power. That's how democracy works, you see!
- Politicians probably do occasionally abuse taxpayers' money - and that's obviously wrong. But they also distribute it rather well. And who would you have looking after that money instead? The problem is that as soon as you give somebody that power, they become a politician, and then by definition they are a bastard. So the only solution, one might conclude, is to run a country without taxes, and we can all go back to living in a lawless pre-historic state of anarchy. (Some political theorists actually think this is a good idea - but that's another story.) But really, who would do a better job? These people are elected and they are publicly accountable. Would you trust estate agents with public money? Lawyers? Bankers? Well, the bankers have public money anyway, but that's not the point.
- All democratically elected politicians have to listen to the public at one point or another. To say that they don't do so is mind-blowingly ignorant. I reserve particular contempt for the kind of morons who somehow managed to believe that politicians are too obsessed with focus groups and opinion polls and should follow their convictions more, yet simultaneously moan that politicians are too busy following their own agenda. No party could possibly actually aggregate every single view in the country and apply it to public policy. That would create a bizarre and messy formulation of contradictory policy, to be enacted by those who do not believe in it. It would probably be populist rubbish as well. There are times when politicians must lead their populations. In the 1960s the Labour Government passed a number of liberalising laws that kickstarted the modernising zeitgeist, in the face of many traditional values). Today we can thank those politicians for a society tolerant of homosexuality, and intolerant of racism.
In short, politicians cannot win. If they follow the fickle demands of the public, they are criticised as lacking in values; if they follow their values, they are criticised for ignoring the fickle demands of the public. They recieve no appreciation for what they do right, and are slammed for doing the slightest thing wrong. Britain probably loses out as a result. A great many brilliant minds have probably been driven away from Government as a result of the cynicism - spurred on by the papers - of people who completely fail to understand how much the state does, and what would happen if politicians did not do their jobs.
If somebody completely unacquaninted with the concept of democratic politics, maybe a Martian, were introduced to our system via a typical conversation in a pub, they would be left with the impression that a politician is somebody who deliberately promises things that are completely unattainable, gaining pleasure from their subjects' disappointments, like some sort of malevolent santa who promises a gleeful little girl her own pony, but instead delivers a lump of coal.
In reality, they are fallible creatures whose contributions to our society are almost criminally underappreciated.
Monday, 8 August 2011
All this rioting is leaving a twitter taste in my mouth...
Hell hath no fury like an indignant surge of twitter rage. Facebook too. Watching people's reactions in real time on my twitter feed this evening was fascinating - though bear in mind that as twitter feeds go, mine is about as middle class as it gets. Mostly people offered their own solutions, most of which were awful. A few people highlighted the potential causes of the thuggery that seems to be sweeping the nations cities. A token Marxist offered a few rather lame platitudes about police biggotry and oppression - as if looting JJB for a brand new pair of Nikes were the purest embodiment of the workers' struggle against the class system.
My favourite tweets, however, were the ones so patently ridiculous that they made the whole situation seem bizarrely funny. First prize here goes to Alan Sugar - rather scarily, a member of the House of Lords. His Lordship Baron Sugar of Clapham observed that the police were unable to stop the rioting because of 'human rights'. Oh, how the online mob love a good human rights fiasco: 'It's bloody immigrants, y'know! Just cos some of them are foreigners, we're supposed to let them get away with it, bloody yuman rights! It didn't used to be like this, y'know! Bring back hanging! Save the monarchy!' Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.
No surprise, then, that the King of right-wing blogging, the aptly named Paul Staines - who goes by the name of Guido Fawkes - was eager to get in there too. Besides the irony of a blogger going by the name of one of the most famous criminals London has ever known condemning the violence, it's all rather disturbing. In his analysis, the rioting was a result of 'political correctness'.
It genuinely amazes me that people manage to think this. How do their brains manufacture such utter, utter shite? Do they really believe that, were it not for us being so nice to all those nasty youths and foreigners, they'd all be at home sipping tea and reading Enid Blyton stories? Do they really believe that it's our liberal elite to blame for trying to stamp out police racism? These people live in a fairy land where our police are pussyfooting around, asking the looters to fill in surveys on whether they feel that they've been treated without discrimination and supplying them with refreshments lest they get hungry.
Such was the diagnosis offered by twitter anyway. As if to add a bit of colour to it all, Piers Morgan, no doubt calling upon all his panic-mongering experience from his tenure at the Mirror, could be heard to emit unhelpful shreiks of desperation - 'SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING' - like an old woman watching her beloved rhodedendrons being trampled on by a feckless youth.
Bad news the rioting may be for ordinary Londoners, and even worse for shopkeepers and the families of police officers out on the street tonight, no doubt, but the Daily Mail will be loving it. Indeed, one of its more odious columnists - and really, by the Mail's standards, that description is quite something - Melanie Phillips, has already reacted. She too opts for the 'political correctness' disagnosis, but not before she somehow manages to cast the people nicking TVs and tracksuits as radical left-wing revolutionaries, aiming to bring down the capitalist system. She might be right, you know: 'mandems of the world, unite!' has a real ring to it.
Thankfully, however, both Dave and Boris will be back in the capital by tomorrow. And we all know what this means. We can relax again, knowing that our streets are safe. All that will be required, we hope, is a bit of friendly advice from the PM, and we can go on with life as normal. I can picture it now:
'Look, chaps, I know you're a bit upset about things, but this rioting stuff... well, it's not on. I know what it's like - Gideon and I were quite the rascals in our Bullingdon days - but you can't go smashing up other people's property for no good reason. We're doing a good enough job of ruining life for small businesses anyway. Now what do you say to a pot of earl grey and a bit of hopscotch?'
And to think we were starting to get worried.
My favourite tweets, however, were the ones so patently ridiculous that they made the whole situation seem bizarrely funny. First prize here goes to Alan Sugar - rather scarily, a member of the House of Lords. His Lordship Baron Sugar of Clapham observed that the police were unable to stop the rioting because of 'human rights'. Oh, how the online mob love a good human rights fiasco: 'It's bloody immigrants, y'know! Just cos some of them are foreigners, we're supposed to let them get away with it, bloody yuman rights! It didn't used to be like this, y'know! Bring back hanging! Save the monarchy!' Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.
No surprise, then, that the King of right-wing blogging, the aptly named Paul Staines - who goes by the name of Guido Fawkes - was eager to get in there too. Besides the irony of a blogger going by the name of one of the most famous criminals London has ever known condemning the violence, it's all rather disturbing. In his analysis, the rioting was a result of 'political correctness'.
It genuinely amazes me that people manage to think this. How do their brains manufacture such utter, utter shite? Do they really believe that, were it not for us being so nice to all those nasty youths and foreigners, they'd all be at home sipping tea and reading Enid Blyton stories? Do they really believe that it's our liberal elite to blame for trying to stamp out police racism? These people live in a fairy land where our police are pussyfooting around, asking the looters to fill in surveys on whether they feel that they've been treated without discrimination and supplying them with refreshments lest they get hungry.
Such was the diagnosis offered by twitter anyway. As if to add a bit of colour to it all, Piers Morgan, no doubt calling upon all his panic-mongering experience from his tenure at the Mirror, could be heard to emit unhelpful shreiks of desperation - 'SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING' - like an old woman watching her beloved rhodedendrons being trampled on by a feckless youth.
Bad news the rioting may be for ordinary Londoners, and even worse for shopkeepers and the families of police officers out on the street tonight, no doubt, but the Daily Mail will be loving it. Indeed, one of its more odious columnists - and really, by the Mail's standards, that description is quite something - Melanie Phillips, has already reacted. She too opts for the 'political correctness' disagnosis, but not before she somehow manages to cast the people nicking TVs and tracksuits as radical left-wing revolutionaries, aiming to bring down the capitalist system. She might be right, you know: 'mandems of the world, unite!' has a real ring to it.
Thankfully, however, both Dave and Boris will be back in the capital by tomorrow. And we all know what this means. We can relax again, knowing that our streets are safe. All that will be required, we hope, is a bit of friendly advice from the PM, and we can go on with life as normal. I can picture it now:
'Look, chaps, I know you're a bit upset about things, but this rioting stuff... well, it's not on. I know what it's like - Gideon and I were quite the rascals in our Bullingdon days - but you can't go smashing up other people's property for no good reason. We're doing a good enough job of ruining life for small businesses anyway. Now what do you say to a pot of earl grey and a bit of hopscotch?'
And to think we were starting to get worried.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Facebook pages, WKD and truelad: why the apocolypse can't come soon enough.
Two points. 1) Some people are awful, I mean really, really mind-bogglingly, brain-achingly awful; and 2) the best place to find these people is on the internet.
The best place, specifically, is facebook. Let me give you an example. 53,325 people - and really, I use the word 'people' with a little hesitance - on facebook 'like' a page entitled 'Dumping your girlfriend at a funeral because she's already upset anyway'. Ha bloody ha. Hilarious. I'd advise that anybody not satisfied with the whole 'some people are awful' hypothesis visits this particular page. That's if you can call it a page. Personally I'd prefer to label it a petri-dish, since it's populated exclusively by malignant bacteria. And even that's being a little harsh to e-coli.
Witness these cretins offer their own, even more side-splittingly funny alternatives. Witness these mindless peons lining up to declare what a phenomenally entertaining concept dumping somebody at a funeral really is. Two of my favourite - or, perhaps, least favourite - contributions are:'To the LAD in the middle of town today who, when his missus bent over to look in one of her shopping bags, gave her an absolute cracker of a wedgie in full view of everyone, then high fived his mate afterwards while his missus was trying to slap him. LAD.'
'A LAD i play rugby with has been away for 2 and half months on an exchange with a South African team. His girlfriend earlier wrote on Facebook 'Can't wait to see Steve, only 2 weeks :D'. He replied 5 minutes later with 'This is a bit gay. However, i do expect a lovely blowjob when i return.' His comment had been liked 8 times within 2 minutes! ToThePointLAD'
Both of these stories were met with numerous thumbs up from brainless plankton across the country. What lads these protagonists must be, humiliating their partners! What oustanding contributions to society they make! What shining beacons of humanity! In short, truelad is a community for people whose own insecurities lead them to enjoy the victimizing of women. I know, I know - I have no 'sense of humour'. Well, I suppose I can live with that.
What I cannot live with, however, is having this miserable, pathetic, nauseating culture thrown in my face when I sit down to try to watch an innocuous American sitcom. Yes, marketing executives across the country have decided that the way to fill ad breaks is to flood them with attemps to appease these neanderthals. The principle offender, in my opinion, is WKD, whose 'Have you got a WKD side?' (Read: are you a lobotomised luddite?) campaign makes me feel nauseous. Here are a couple by way of example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGCax1MQi_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeJ84jqLhrE&feature=related
Is this supposed to be persuasive? Are people supposed to sit up and think 'Wow! I wish I was one of those fat, lazy, disgusting, miserable excuses for human beings!'? I can only assume so.
To wrap up what I can't disguise as anything more than a rant, let me say this: if this is the future of comedy, and if this is what tomorrow's generation regards to be entertainment, I'd rather not be here at all.
I haven't got a WKD side, but I suppose that's just because I'm boring. What a 'shit lad' I really am.
The best place, specifically, is facebook. Let me give you an example. 53,325 people - and really, I use the word 'people' with a little hesitance - on facebook 'like' a page entitled 'Dumping your girlfriend at a funeral because she's already upset anyway'. Ha bloody ha. Hilarious. I'd advise that anybody not satisfied with the whole 'some people are awful' hypothesis visits this particular page. That's if you can call it a page. Personally I'd prefer to label it a petri-dish, since it's populated exclusively by malignant bacteria. And even that's being a little harsh to e-coli.
Witness these cretins offer their own, even more side-splittingly funny alternatives. Witness these mindless peons lining up to declare what a phenomenally entertaining concept dumping somebody at a funeral really is. Two of my favourite - or, perhaps, least favourite - contributions are:'To the LAD in the middle of town today who, when his missus bent over to look in one of her shopping bags, gave her an absolute cracker of a wedgie in full view of everyone, then high fived his mate afterwards while his missus was trying to slap him. LAD.'
'A LAD i play rugby with has been away for 2 and half months on an exchange with a South African team. His girlfriend earlier wrote on Facebook 'Can't wait to see Steve, only 2 weeks :D'. He replied 5 minutes later with 'This is a bit gay. However, i do expect a lovely blowjob when i return.' His comment had been liked 8 times within 2 minutes! ToThePointLAD'
Both of these stories were met with numerous thumbs up from brainless plankton across the country. What lads these protagonists must be, humiliating their partners! What oustanding contributions to society they make! What shining beacons of humanity! In short, truelad is a community for people whose own insecurities lead them to enjoy the victimizing of women. I know, I know - I have no 'sense of humour'. Well, I suppose I can live with that.
What I cannot live with, however, is having this miserable, pathetic, nauseating culture thrown in my face when I sit down to try to watch an innocuous American sitcom. Yes, marketing executives across the country have decided that the way to fill ad breaks is to flood them with attemps to appease these neanderthals. The principle offender, in my opinion, is WKD, whose 'Have you got a WKD side?' (Read: are you a lobotomised luddite?) campaign makes me feel nauseous. Here are a couple by way of example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGCax1MQi_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeJ84jqLhrE&feature=related
Is this supposed to be persuasive? Are people supposed to sit up and think 'Wow! I wish I was one of those fat, lazy, disgusting, miserable excuses for human beings!'? I can only assume so.
To wrap up what I can't disguise as anything more than a rant, let me say this: if this is the future of comedy, and if this is what tomorrow's generation regards to be entertainment, I'd rather not be here at all.
I haven't got a WKD side, but I suppose that's just because I'm boring. What a 'shit lad' I really am.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Murdochvision
In case you've been living in a nuclear bunker for the last few days, and somehow you've managed to miss what is now being referred to rather inelegantly as News Of The World-gate, here's a brief synopsis of one of the the most important series of events in the history of the British press:
In the last 48 hours it has become clear that the News of the World - which was, in any case, both read and written by all sorts of scum - was even more of a moral vacuum than we previously thought. So-called 'journalists' working at the paper were authorized by former editor Rebekah Brooks to hack in to the voicemails of all various undeserving victims: Amanda Dowler, the families of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, dead British servicemen and victims of the 7/7 bombings. In Amanda Dowler's case, tampering with voicemail messages led her family to believe that she might still be alive after her kidnapping.
Shockingly, Paul McMullen, a former editor at NotW, has seen fit to describe all this 'not a big deal'.
For some time the police have been half-heartedly investigating claims of phone-hacking at News of the World, though the fact that the Met were happy to sell information to the newspaper on several occasions ought to explain pathetic attitude of Britain's largest police service to the investigation of such crimes. The political sphere too, with one or two exceptions, has been rather quiet. It turns out, you see, that our Dear Leader, moral head of the nation David Cameron, is actually pretty friendly with Rebekah Brooks and her deputy at the time of the Dowler hacking, Andy Coulson - a man with moral credentials comparable with those of Josef Goebels. Indeed, the PM even saw fit to hire Andy Coulson, in spite of existing evidence that he had presided over phone-hacking at NotW, as his chief propagandist and general minister for truth.
I don't wish to go in to how revolting the actions of NotW minions were, nor to lament the jaw-dropping decisions of the Prime Minister to employ Andy Coulson and cosy up to Rebekah Brooks. Those conclusions are self-evident. Rather, I want to highlight the fact that the company responsible for all of this, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, is about to take over the largest private sector media organisation in Britain, BSkyB.
Rather conveniently, David Cameron has thus far managed to protect the interests of Murdoch's Sky bid - and in return he has recieved almost embarassingly slavish support from the Murdoch press. In addition to his working with Andy Coulson and socialising with Rebekah Brooks, Cameron has occasionally wined and dined with the News Corp's beloved fuhrer. So why wouldn't he want to ensure that Murdoch's quest for further media lebensraum is met with appeasement? The only cabinet member willing to stand up to News Corp's annexation of Sky was Vince Cable, and when it became clear that he was no pushover, Cameron simply gave the job of deciding whether Murdoch's media reich might be extended to Jeremy Hunt, who would probably let Rupert Murdoch take over the civil service, the BBC and the British Monarchy if he felt that it would improve his job prospects.
The debate on whether Murdoch should be allowed to take over BSkyB rests upon whether he is deemed to be a 'fit and proper' person to hold such a role. Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron have obviously come to the conclusion that he is - although any impartial observer would recognise that Rupert Murdoch is as much a 'fit and proper' person to run pretty much all of British commercial broadcasting in an unbiased manner as Colonel Gadaffi is a 'fit and proper' person to run a country peacefully and sustainably.
This is a man who has overseen a systematic abuse of rights - I mean Murdoch, not Gadaffi here - at the News of the World. When the phone-hacking issue went public some time ago he was almost certainly aware of how deep the problems ran, but has since published falsehood after falsehood in an effort to protect his name and company. He employed two editors - one of whom, Rebekah Brooks, is now a Chief Executive of the News Corp subsidiary News International - who personally authorized phone-hacking.
This is a man who has also used the awesome power of his media machine to totally destroy politicians in the past - Neil Kinnock springs to mind - and to procure political favours in exchange for support - as in Tony Blair's rather casual approach to media regulation, which oddly coincided with support for New Labour from the Sun.
Ever since Murdoch colluded with Margaret Thatcher to break the strike of his own print workers in the 1980s, a political racket has existed between Prime Ministers and the world's most powerful media baron. The implicit agreement is that in exchange for support from Murdoch's papers, the Government of the time will turn a blind eye to his fanatical accumulation of the British media.
It is quite clear that allowing a Murdoch blitzkreig of BSkyB would be wrong not only in the light of the phone-hacking that he has presided over, but in the context of the long-term abuse of power which has turned successive Prime Ministers in to political lapdogs.
David Cameron might now finally decide to act on the Murdoch empire. It's about time. But if he does, he should be careful to delete any voicemail messages that his master wouldn't be pleased with.
In the last 48 hours it has become clear that the News of the World - which was, in any case, both read and written by all sorts of scum - was even more of a moral vacuum than we previously thought. So-called 'journalists' working at the paper were authorized by former editor Rebekah Brooks to hack in to the voicemails of all various undeserving victims: Amanda Dowler, the families of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, dead British servicemen and victims of the 7/7 bombings. In Amanda Dowler's case, tampering with voicemail messages led her family to believe that she might still be alive after her kidnapping.
Shockingly, Paul McMullen, a former editor at NotW, has seen fit to describe all this 'not a big deal'.
For some time the police have been half-heartedly investigating claims of phone-hacking at News of the World, though the fact that the Met were happy to sell information to the newspaper on several occasions ought to explain pathetic attitude of Britain's largest police service to the investigation of such crimes. The political sphere too, with one or two exceptions, has been rather quiet. It turns out, you see, that our Dear Leader, moral head of the nation David Cameron, is actually pretty friendly with Rebekah Brooks and her deputy at the time of the Dowler hacking, Andy Coulson - a man with moral credentials comparable with those of Josef Goebels. Indeed, the PM even saw fit to hire Andy Coulson, in spite of existing evidence that he had presided over phone-hacking at NotW, as his chief propagandist and general minister for truth.
I don't wish to go in to how revolting the actions of NotW minions were, nor to lament the jaw-dropping decisions of the Prime Minister to employ Andy Coulson and cosy up to Rebekah Brooks. Those conclusions are self-evident. Rather, I want to highlight the fact that the company responsible for all of this, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, is about to take over the largest private sector media organisation in Britain, BSkyB.
Rather conveniently, David Cameron has thus far managed to protect the interests of Murdoch's Sky bid - and in return he has recieved almost embarassingly slavish support from the Murdoch press. In addition to his working with Andy Coulson and socialising with Rebekah Brooks, Cameron has occasionally wined and dined with the News Corp's beloved fuhrer. So why wouldn't he want to ensure that Murdoch's quest for further media lebensraum is met with appeasement? The only cabinet member willing to stand up to News Corp's annexation of Sky was Vince Cable, and when it became clear that he was no pushover, Cameron simply gave the job of deciding whether Murdoch's media reich might be extended to Jeremy Hunt, who would probably let Rupert Murdoch take over the civil service, the BBC and the British Monarchy if he felt that it would improve his job prospects.
The debate on whether Murdoch should be allowed to take over BSkyB rests upon whether he is deemed to be a 'fit and proper' person to hold such a role. Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron have obviously come to the conclusion that he is - although any impartial observer would recognise that Rupert Murdoch is as much a 'fit and proper' person to run pretty much all of British commercial broadcasting in an unbiased manner as Colonel Gadaffi is a 'fit and proper' person to run a country peacefully and sustainably.
This is a man who has overseen a systematic abuse of rights - I mean Murdoch, not Gadaffi here - at the News of the World. When the phone-hacking issue went public some time ago he was almost certainly aware of how deep the problems ran, but has since published falsehood after falsehood in an effort to protect his name and company. He employed two editors - one of whom, Rebekah Brooks, is now a Chief Executive of the News Corp subsidiary News International - who personally authorized phone-hacking.
This is a man who has also used the awesome power of his media machine to totally destroy politicians in the past - Neil Kinnock springs to mind - and to procure political favours in exchange for support - as in Tony Blair's rather casual approach to media regulation, which oddly coincided with support for New Labour from the Sun.
Ever since Murdoch colluded with Margaret Thatcher to break the strike of his own print workers in the 1980s, a political racket has existed between Prime Ministers and the world's most powerful media baron. The implicit agreement is that in exchange for support from Murdoch's papers, the Government of the time will turn a blind eye to his fanatical accumulation of the British media.
It is quite clear that allowing a Murdoch blitzkreig of BSkyB would be wrong not only in the light of the phone-hacking that he has presided over, but in the context of the long-term abuse of power which has turned successive Prime Ministers in to political lapdogs.
David Cameron might now finally decide to act on the Murdoch empire. It's about time. But if he does, he should be careful to delete any voicemail messages that his master wouldn't be pleased with.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
The Daily Fail: Tabloids are Killing Democracy
Think for a second. What is the single most terrifying thing you can contemplate? Spiders? Snakes? Michael Howard? Regardless of who you are, deep down there is a tought that really makes you shudder.
For me, it's the fact that people who read the Daily Mail have the right to vote. I'm unapologetic for this view, by the way. I think readers of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Star and so on should be ruthlessly hunted down and stripped of any right to decide who runs the country.
This might sound unreasonable to you. But consider that in Britain no person under the age of 18 is able to vote, and the same is true of those afflicted by certain mental health disorders. Who, I ask you, is more capable of deciding who they believe should run the country in a level-headed manner? The A level politics student, deprived of the right to vote, or the vote-endowed Mail-reading pensioner who genuinely believes that Britain is being overrun by EU-backed Muslim paedophiles bent on using the BBC to maliciously promote a soft justice system? The argument for excluding the severely mentally ill from the electoral process, presumably, is that they cannot reasonably be expected to grasp the facts necessary to make an informed decision. I contend that a reader of, say, the Daily Mail is in a similar position.
You might view this as offensive. Is it possible that I am simply ranting? Perhaps. But there is a serious point here, so if you're an insulted tabloid reader, don't give up just yet - there might even be a few muslims later on for you to get excited about.
Until then, though, examine this recent Daily Express headline: 'TEST DRUGS ON PETS SAYS EU'. The EU, the article goes on to claim, is planning to forcibly remove pets from their loving British owners and test all sorts of horrific drugs on them. They'll probably send our beloved cats back blind, deaf and branded with euro signs! The bastards! What would Diana say? Well, hang on a sec. Turns out those Eurocrats aren't actually planning to do any of the sort with old fido. No. You can read the full critique of this story at www.tabloidwatch.blogspot.com - a truly brilliant blog. To cut a long story short, this is complete rubbish. No pets will be touched by the EU whatsoever.
How, then, does a voter make an informed choice on the EU - and, of course, political parties and their views on the EU - when this sort of rubbish is presented to them as fact? It scarcely helps that the Mail and the Express are bent on informing their readers that the BBC, the best non-biased news source in the country, which might give a quite reasonable presentation of facts on the EU, is an evil left-wing con.
It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. These newspapers have serious influence. The Mail and the Sun are far, far out in front of all the rest in terms of national readership. Giving tabloid editors this sort of power is like putting a three-year old in charge of Airforce One's big red nuclear button and hoping that it won't do anything too reckless.
You might argue that it's all fairly harmless. Can't the targets of these pathetic attacks stand up for themselves? The BBC, the EU, the Labour Party - they're big boys are they not? Well, perhaps. But it takes a rather sinister turn when the slimy editor of one of the gutterpress papers decides that there are jucier prejudices to be tapped through the shameless misrepresentation of an ethnic minority. The Daily Star is the worst offender, though the Mail and the Express, which laughably see themselves as more upmarket, are equally happy to encourage the racism of their readers. By way of example, here's a selection of tabloid headlines:
'MUSLIM THUGS BURN POPPIES' (Daily Star)
'CHRISTMAS NICKED BY MUSLIMS' (Daily Star)
'MUSLIMS TELL BRITISH: GO TO HELL!' (The Express)
'MUSLIM-ONLY PUBLIC LOOS' (Daily Star)
Do these sound like the headlines of a press aimed at giving Islam a fair coverage? For posterity, by the way, the Muslim poppy-burners were a tiny minority, and we roundly condemned by the British Muslim community which, despite numerous efforts to sell poppies, suffered reprisals including the vandalism of a Mosque in Portsmouth; the Muslim grinches that stole Christmas were actually a local council (a majority of non-Muslims) that decided to put up 'Happy Eid' and 'Happy Diwali' lights up with the 'Happy Christmas' decorations; the Muslims telling 'us' to go to hell were three protesters outside a court case - hardly a representative example; and the Muslim-only public loos were literally a complete fiction, dreamt up by a journalist looking to encourage racial hatred to sell a few more of their dismal paper.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The Daily Star runs a negative story on Muslims almost every day. What this suggests is that people not only believe these lies, often completely fabricated, but that they also want more. They want evidence to help fuel and justify their hatred. One might protest that readers aren't fooled by this sort of stuff, that they don't take it all at face value. I urge proponents of this particular line to enjoy the comments left on this Mail article comfortingly entitled 'ONE IN FOUR PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS ARE FROM AN ETHNIC MINORITY' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006892/1-4-primary-school-pupils-Britain-ethnic-minority.html#ixzz1Q8xCSGv3).
Here's a refreshing example of an open-minded Daily Mail comment upon that particular article:
"How wonderful that the youth of today will grow up fully integrated with people from other cultures and backgrounds, such cultural diversity is to be applauded. Surely these young people give us all hope for the future."
For me, it's the fact that people who read the Daily Mail have the right to vote. I'm unapologetic for this view, by the way. I think readers of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Star and so on should be ruthlessly hunted down and stripped of any right to decide who runs the country.
This might sound unreasonable to you. But consider that in Britain no person under the age of 18 is able to vote, and the same is true of those afflicted by certain mental health disorders. Who, I ask you, is more capable of deciding who they believe should run the country in a level-headed manner? The A level politics student, deprived of the right to vote, or the vote-endowed Mail-reading pensioner who genuinely believes that Britain is being overrun by EU-backed Muslim paedophiles bent on using the BBC to maliciously promote a soft justice system? The argument for excluding the severely mentally ill from the electoral process, presumably, is that they cannot reasonably be expected to grasp the facts necessary to make an informed decision. I contend that a reader of, say, the Daily Mail is in a similar position.
You might view this as offensive. Is it possible that I am simply ranting? Perhaps. But there is a serious point here, so if you're an insulted tabloid reader, don't give up just yet - there might even be a few muslims later on for you to get excited about.
Until then, though, examine this recent Daily Express headline: 'TEST DRUGS ON PETS SAYS EU'. The EU, the article goes on to claim, is planning to forcibly remove pets from their loving British owners and test all sorts of horrific drugs on them. They'll probably send our beloved cats back blind, deaf and branded with euro signs! The bastards! What would Diana say? Well, hang on a sec. Turns out those Eurocrats aren't actually planning to do any of the sort with old fido. No. You can read the full critique of this story at www.tabloidwatch.blogspot.com - a truly brilliant blog. To cut a long story short, this is complete rubbish. No pets will be touched by the EU whatsoever.
How, then, does a voter make an informed choice on the EU - and, of course, political parties and their views on the EU - when this sort of rubbish is presented to them as fact? It scarcely helps that the Mail and the Express are bent on informing their readers that the BBC, the best non-biased news source in the country, which might give a quite reasonable presentation of facts on the EU, is an evil left-wing con.
It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. These newspapers have serious influence. The Mail and the Sun are far, far out in front of all the rest in terms of national readership. Giving tabloid editors this sort of power is like putting a three-year old in charge of Airforce One's big red nuclear button and hoping that it won't do anything too reckless.
You might argue that it's all fairly harmless. Can't the targets of these pathetic attacks stand up for themselves? The BBC, the EU, the Labour Party - they're big boys are they not? Well, perhaps. But it takes a rather sinister turn when the slimy editor of one of the gutterpress papers decides that there are jucier prejudices to be tapped through the shameless misrepresentation of an ethnic minority. The Daily Star is the worst offender, though the Mail and the Express, which laughably see themselves as more upmarket, are equally happy to encourage the racism of their readers. By way of example, here's a selection of tabloid headlines:
'MUSLIM THUGS BURN POPPIES' (Daily Star)
'CHRISTMAS NICKED BY MUSLIMS' (Daily Star)
'MUSLIMS TELL BRITISH: GO TO HELL!' (The Express)
'MUSLIM-ONLY PUBLIC LOOS' (Daily Star)
Do these sound like the headlines of a press aimed at giving Islam a fair coverage? For posterity, by the way, the Muslim poppy-burners were a tiny minority, and we roundly condemned by the British Muslim community which, despite numerous efforts to sell poppies, suffered reprisals including the vandalism of a Mosque in Portsmouth; the Muslim grinches that stole Christmas were actually a local council (a majority of non-Muslims) that decided to put up 'Happy Eid' and 'Happy Diwali' lights up with the 'Happy Christmas' decorations; the Muslims telling 'us' to go to hell were three protesters outside a court case - hardly a representative example; and the Muslim-only public loos were literally a complete fiction, dreamt up by a journalist looking to encourage racial hatred to sell a few more of their dismal paper.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The Daily Star runs a negative story on Muslims almost every day. What this suggests is that people not only believe these lies, often completely fabricated, but that they also want more. They want evidence to help fuel and justify their hatred. One might protest that readers aren't fooled by this sort of stuff, that they don't take it all at face value. I urge proponents of this particular line to enjoy the comments left on this Mail article comfortingly entitled 'ONE IN FOUR PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS ARE FROM AN ETHNIC MINORITY' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006892/1-4-primary-school-pupils-Britain-ethnic-minority.html#ixzz1Q8xCSGv3).
Here's a refreshing example of an open-minded Daily Mail comment upon that particular article:
"How wonderful that the youth of today will grow up fully integrated with people from other cultures and backgrounds, such cultural diversity is to be applauded. Surely these young people give us all hope for the future."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)