Hollah Triumph

I have spluttered, ruffled, and rollicked my way back to you, Follower. It has been a long and arduous three weeks dearly departed. What can I say? I have entered and returned from what appears to be a highly unproductive reverie of sorts. Not only has my beloved been and gone in this time, but it's also left an indelible mark on my heart that has clawed it's wretched fingers into a gap and pulled apart a chasm. I have filled the void with contemplative reflection, good literature, cheap orange juice, and the proliferation of whimsicality. This blog will have a distinctively rejuvenated aesthetic when I return from England in the new year, but until then, mainly these coming three weeks, I shall retake the reigns of this blog from inconsequence and offer cankerous sniffles and wriggles wheresoever I see fit. How can I describe my early ventures to the nation's Capitol? How long ago those forays now seem. I can tell you, dear pilgrim, that I met your president, shook his hand, smiled a lame grin, and belted my pre-empted attack with all the vigour of a wheelchair-bound war veteran: "Greetings from the Untied Kingdom!". His reply: "A powerful ally". His gaze held mine, as it had done since I gripped his ageing mitten between my veined and gnarled fingers. What followed was a period lasting some two or three minutes wherein I maintained his divided attention. Malcontent with this statement I plunged and probed deeper, scraping at the fleshy remains of his intelligence. He told me that he was having dinner with Blair in the coming week at the White House and that Blair was a strongly convictioned man; someone who has upheld his most fundamental beliefs beyond his time in office (an endeavour Bush seems wont to follow). Here came his only gag, a smile-cracking head-tilter; when a girl called upon her graduation and asked for a job, Bush replied that "come February, Ill be looking for a job!" to the rapturous smirks of college students. There was not a dry eye in the house. And then, with all the briskness of a man who will be similarly riddanced, he left. One picture surfaced of our encounter. Alas, it captures nothing. Returning to the Capitol itself, the stately home of our great protagonist, I can only observe that never before, in any country worldwide, has so much space, effort, and money been spent in dedication to the remembering of a nation's heroes and the honouring of its history. This, I pointed out rather markedly in a short speech I gave at a reception that very evening, is unique. Something compelled me to add the addendum: "even as bereft as your country is of history and culture". I can say without ego that I was laughed at. Heartily, but warmly. Much more is to follow, sirs and madams. My love to all.

Off to meet the President

Well well, dear pilgrim, I travel to Washington DC tomorrow, beginning my journey towards The White House (soon to be "The Black House" as of January 20th). I shall be taking pictures with my solitary disposable camera and I shall be taking my laptop, though I doubt I'll have time on my hands to keep you abreast with my meager opinions and musings. Obviously, however, as soon as I'm out the door I'll explain the intricacies of the Bush family. We're not allowed to take pictures inside the White House, but who cares? I've heard that almost 96% of the Washington populace voted for Obama - what an interesting dialectic they must have over there - everyone you meet on the subway voted the same as you - what a cosy little frame of relationship. From Washington to California on Friday to swim, then my beloved arrives on Saturday. All in all, dear reader, I may be a little stretched in the coming days, so don't expect too much. Nevertheless, before I leave you, I'll direct you to another blog, recently set up by my good friend back home, now living in London, Thom Lowe. Well worth a viewing - his first headline had me clutching my sides.

Obama "Nigger" Cartoons 2

Despite the campus newspaper's reluctance to take me on as an opinions contributor, they have elected to print a ranting letter I sent them, mostly lifted from my earlier post, about the Obama "Nigger" cartoon. Although my eloquent, balanced, robust yet transparent piece suffered a desecration in the editing room, it is visible here. I'll let you judge whether they put my intended point across just as well.

BEE News

At last, there are some Bret Easton Ellis news to tell you of. Firstly, the film adaptation for The Informers, the series of interrelating short stories (underrated, in my opinion), is set for an early 2009 release now that Sony has picked up the lease. There was also a rather strange article in the 'Home & Garden' section of Saturday's LA Times regarding Ellis' bachelor pad overlooking Los Angeles that plays host to weekly dinner parties (one can easily imagine the debauchery that may ensue after a few bottles of wine given Ellis' track record). The article included a brilliant quote from Ellis: "We are pre-recessionary dinner party people. It's always been an easy way to get six or eight people together in an affordable manner and for me to be able to drink without driving or taking a cab." What struck me, however, was a minuscule phrase embedded within an otherwise indifferent article. As follows: 'Melina Kevorkian, the producer of a forthcoming film version of Ellis' 2005 novel, Lunar Park...'. This is only the second mention I've seen of a film adaptation for Lunar Park, and the first I've seen from an official source. This is good news, I suppose, although one is always intelligent to reserve a little doubt - these things rarely turn out as you'd hope. Nevertheless, if these films turn more people towards Ellis' minimal body of work then that cannot be a bad thing.

A Joke for your Saturday

Today on BBC Radio 5's Fighting Talk:

Q: Who is the Sarah Palin of sport?
A: Paula Radcliffe, because everyone's saying, maybe 2012, but she'll still get beaten by a Kenyan.

Barack Obama Nigger Cartoons

On Wednesday evening this week I received a text message from a classmate of mine encouraging me to attend a last-minute meeting concerning the campus newspaper "[calling] Barack Obama a nigger in a published 'witty' cartoon". I did not attend the meeting because I had not seen the cartoon. The next morning, however, when the class met I viewed the piece.The joke ran as follows (note that this cartoon was published the day after the election):

A young girl on the campaign trail for Obama is going from door to door. She knocks on the door of a house, only to find a middle-aged white woman answer. The girl asks, "Who are you voting for on election day?". The woman says she doesn't know, but she turns back and shouts to her husband, "Melvyn, who are we voting for on election day?", to which the man replies, "The nigger!". The woman turns back to the girl and says, "We're voting for the nigger".

Whatever you may think of the comedic merits of this cartoon, I appeal to your good sense, dear reader. If I have translated the cartoon adequately you will be able to see the inherent joke. Nevertheless, living on a campus this size, hundreds of people congregated to criticise the supposed racism of this independent publication. Letters of complaint flooded the mailbox of the Wildcat and they ran an article in the following day's paper regarding the meeting and the ensuing furor. Significantly, the paper did not publish the cartoon again the next day for any of those who may have missed it, even though they ran a lengthy section dedicated to the repercussions. Clearly, you might argue, it's journalisticly irresponsible not to. Further, on the Wildcat website, the editor in chief issued a turgid and bed-wetting explanation, claiming that she, in fact, published the wrong cartoon. What's more, the president of the University of Arizona, Robert Shelton, published a response claiming those who people took offense "are rightfully shocked, saddened, outraged and disappointed by the message this cartoon sent". People quickly demanded an apology from the paper so that "this is never allowed to happen again", and, if not, they would begin to attack the advertising base, from which the paper gains its only source of income. It is here that I must come to the defense of the piece.

There are three degenerative stages of argument from the point of view of those attacking the cartoon. First, it's racist. To me, this is a clear misreading of the piece. The fact that these are white caricatures intends to show the recent cultural shift in attitudes towards ethnicity and skin tone, whilst highlighting the direct manifestation of what the elections achieved for minority groups. Indeed, this is a white, home-owning, middle-aged couple who are, contrary to popular assumptions, going to vote for the very thing they may be bigoted and prejudiced against. The irony lies in their identification of Obama as a "nigger", a deeply offensive term, because this would suggest that they are aligned firmly against Obama, and yet the intend to vote for him. This is not some insipid racial slur against a black public figure from a right-wing neo-Nazi do-rag publication, but rather an independent newspaper carefully providing a megaphone for clever public address. This moves me to the second line of argument.

Second, the inclusion of the very word, 'nigger', itself is implicitly insulting, and has no place in a campus newspaper. We now begin to negotiate areas of free speech. Before I begin, it's worth noting that the cartoonist actually took care not to do this, but rather play with the medium of cartoon frames and chop the end of the word - we only see "nigge" in one frame, and then "nigg" in the next. This is hardly a sound defence, but it's important to recognise the cultural taboo, just as the cartoonist has done. This may, dear reader, remind you of the Danish Cartoon fiasco of 2006, which still makes one's blood curdle at the very insinuation. Their placards that promoted killing those who cartoon Islam, or beheading those who insult Mohammad, were couched in the doctrinal teaching that forbids the visual representation of the prophet. Is the same thought-process not in play here? Is it totally unacceptable to use the word "nigger" in any context whatsoever? Surely not. As I am demonstrating in this post, it's necessary to confront but not to outlaw its use.

Third, once all else fails, it is the obligation of the prosecutor to claim that "the fact that people are offended is enough for me". Why? I accept anyone's right to their opinion, and their right to take offense; but in the same breath, those who take offense must affirm the right of those to free expression. In the constitutional democracy of the United States, where such freedoms should be deeply respected and upheld, it's morally impossible to criticize one but not the other. To do so would be to appear complicit with the Mullahs who promulgated the burning of Danish embassies in 2006, or, for example, support the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 following the publication of The Satanic Verses that led to the death of a translator and countless other acts of violence and open repression.

It is with the evidence before you that I encourage you to give the above motion the resounding indictment that it deserves. It is unsurprising that I cannot link you to the cartoon online. Everything is all too reminiscent of 2006. To demand apologies for freedom of expression attacks the very core of our free society and establishes the basis for a new climate of fear whereupon nothing satirical or ironic is acceptable. Lastly, I repeat my proposal that to take offense is to misread.

Film Trailer

I cannot wait for this.

YouTube Friday

Since I'm quite detached from the British media coverage of the American election (I noticed the BBC has been given quite a rap), I'm exposed to a fairly one-dimensional overview. And, following Clinton's comments, I felt it was duty to uncover what I could from the delves of YouTube to update myself on the British perspective. However, one of my good friends, Thom, who should take all credit, has more or less done this for me. If you're suspicious about the BBC's critics, or wondering what the highlights of the coverage were from across the pond were, then I must point you in the following directions: Gore Vidal raises fresh concerns about his mental health, Dizzee Rascal tells Jeremy Paxman he may run for PM, and, more seriously, Christopher Hitchens throws his weight around on the BBC panel with David Dimblebee.

Just as an aside, Obama's first press conference includes quite an interesting line about Nancy Reagan's spiritualist superstitions. He makes a joke about consulting dead presidents for advice, which is warmly received in an otherwise dull transcript. All of this seems to suggest that Obama will be markedly detached from the religious base. Why would he poke fun at the widow of a dead president without making a conscious suggestion towards a secular leadership? Perhaps that's wishful thinking, but time will tell.

What's next?

Rather than attempt to summarize my thoughts on what's to come for the president-elect, I shall reprint here what my step-father, and lifelong mentor, has recently written to me in an email. I think it sums everything up rather perfectly.

Courtesy of Clinton:

I’ve been reading the press here on the American elections, with large sections of the papers devoted to Obama. I just hope for the world’s sake he can live up to the hype.

All of the coverage is all too reminiscent of the coverage when Blair came to power here. There was a huge sense in the country of a need for change. Blair replaced a humiliated and discredited and deeply unpopular Government and was seen as a fresh “new” era of leadership.

Obviously we saw what happened. The vast majority in parliament was squandered. All the areas where real change could have been made were quietly dropped. Particularly the well overdue and imperative need to reform the welfare state. I hope that Obama is confident enough to surround himself with the right people (not cronies who need paying off for their support) and brave enough to make the smart choices as we all need the world’s only super power to lead us out of the mess we are in. Blair was found to be severely lacking in all the areas of character that were required in a leader here and can only be deemed successful in propelling himself into the league of the super rich. Mind you what else should we have expected from someone who publicly professed that many of his key decisions had the approval of god.

At least Gordon Brown seems less worried about his personal wealth and “legacy”. Even though he is “a son of the manse” he doesn’t appear to bother god too much about the economic crises.

Lots about the “special relationship” with America . When will we ever give give up thinking that we have any influence with America ? Lots on the vast inefficient coverage offered by the BBC. Lots of reporters and hangers on sent to USA at vast expense only for coverage to be technically and intellectually poor. Only their choice of Christopher Hitchens to give his usual razor sharp comment has been praised.

The child is father of the man? So it seems. I have taught him well. Clinton also adds a suggestion to my earlier question:

I doubt that the CIA is going to let a foreign unbeliever and despoiler, such as yourself, anywhere near the president, so I wouldn’t worry about what you say to him. Just tell him you are related to Yo Blair and that you also want a job lecturing to the American public at £250’000 a pop.

Huzzah!

It's happened. Everything happened in the space of about a minute. Obama sat comfortably in the polls with just over 200 electoral votes taken, and then CNN announced he'd won Virginia. That was always going to be one to look out for as an index. (They've voted Republican consistently since 1964.) Seconds after that was settled, the West coast results flooded in to give Obama 297, well above what we expected earlier. We won't know until the morning, though, whether he got to my 396.

...He just won Florida. Wow.

After it became morally and intellectually impossible to support the vulgar Republican machine, could we foresee any other outcome? Lots of images of black people crying on the television. Good for them. Now it's time for journalists to really get their teeth into what's to come; usher in the new era. As fortune has it, I'm meeting the president next week (Bush, not Obama) and I'm open to suggestions as to what exactly I should say. There's supposedly a detailed document devoted to fine-lining the proper practice when meeting the president, first lady, etc. But I'm willing to ignore it if there are any particularly good suggestions. I've already had one, but I somehow don't think he'd find it funny...

That Ad and Religious Repression

Harking back to that ridiculous Elizabeth Dole ad, I've taken the liberty of providing a transcript for the voice over and scenes, but I've also replaced the word "godless" with Jewish. It reads as follows:

Dole: I'm Elizabeth Dole and I approve this message.
Voice Over: A leader of the Jewish Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor.
Typescript: 'Jewish Americans?'
[Cut-scene: Ellen Johnson, Executive Director Jewish Americans.]
Ellen Johnson: There was no Jesus.
[...]
Voice Over: Jewish Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras, took Jewish money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return?
Voice (not of Kay Hagan): There is no god!

Do as you're now tempted and start substituting other words in there too, such as "black", perhaps, or "homosexual". It's totally absurd. Paul Kurtz has taken the time to reprint the Humanist Manifesto he compiled in 1973 for this month's Free Inquiry magazine, to which he is the founder and editor in chief. Interestingly, written before the internet took off, he suggests: "Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent." Surely, this fits wetly under that category. For it's quarter-century age, the Manifesto holds up remarkably well. Is that necessarily a good thing, just like our reliving of Martin Luther King's speech is still culturally relevant? Perhaps this is different. Either way, I wholeheartedly scribe my signature alongside it.

The LZR Racer

Time has granted the Speedo LZR Racer swimming suit the prestigious mantle of the 26th best invention of the year. Perhaps a strange choice, you might say, but upon reflection, why is it not higher on the list? 94% of the races won at the Olympics this year were won by swimmers wearing the LZR. Never before has so much sporting success been down, arguably, to a single component (disregarding, of course, drugs and the Tour de France). This kind of publicity is worrying for someone in my position. The college swimming circuit here in the US is the best in the sporting world, and for swimmers striving to achieve the qualifying times set to attend the NCAA Championships we're obviously going to take every step we can to do so, including wearing the LZR. However, there have been rumours flying around that the board who assigns the qualifying times may lower the mark even further due to the introduction of the new suits. We shall see.

The Penultimate Day 2

"We need to win the argument in the developing world; we need to reach out and persuade the Muslim middle - especially the next generation in Iran and Iraq and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Western Europe - about the virtues of democracy and constitutionalism. We cannot do that if we trash our own values ourselves. It is self-defeating."

~~ Andrew Sullivan endorses Barack Obama.

The Penultimate Day

One day before the crux of what has now become the only news-worthy discourse of the last four years, and I have found a new toy: a website called 270toWin. By clicking on the various states of America you can tot up the immediate totals for either candidate. What's strikes you first is the amount of land, in real terms, that remains red even though an Obama victory remains likely. If you turn all the toss-up states red, just for the sake of hypothesis, McCain is still lagging behind the magic number. My most positive accounting returns a landslide - 396 to 142. I recommend turning to Slate's final election scorecard, or Pollster as sources of reference for which states you can, or cannot turn blue. Either way, however, it's a game with only one outcome: an Obama victory. All reliable sources confirm this in even the layest of terms. Whilst I'm here, the term "intellectual curiosity" has been thrown around a lot in recent days, mainly dubbed as a positive characteristic of Obama, yet I doubt this would have ever been so externalised had it not been for the monumental ignorance of Gov. Palin. Is she seriously going to stand for the Veep without having faced a press-conference at all? Staggering.

Ba. Hons.

I am a happy man, dear reader. Not simply a new blog, but a new world of undertaking awaits. Christopher Hitchens has been writing a blog or the UK Mirror now for the last few days, documenting (mainly) the American elections under the title, Politics, War, and Religion. Once again, I'm left aghast, how did I not uncover this before? Moreover, you can now identify yourself as a regular pilgrim of this minor blogging foray - please join this very exclusive club by clicking the tab on the right. You are now a peer of the realm. It's time to muster some brand loyalty. Equally as important, though slightly more personal, is my recent dealings with the English Honors Department here at the university. My softly spoken, but highly intelligent (obviously) English Professor, Larry Evers, has passed my name on to the head of the department, a position he used to hold, as one of his best ever students. Apparently, this is a unique and unprecedented occurrence, and so, if I wish to be inducted into the honors department, they will accommodate my every desire. I could not be more proud, delighted, and, indeed, honored. Being recognised in such a way, as much as my ego purports, is highly gratifying. The application process for me individually, I'm told, is now merely academic for paper reference. It made me splutter my tea to read their email - never before have I been confronted with such a contradiction in teaching standards and expectations; on the one hand, I'm receiving well below the class average for essays that reveal a much higher intellect than that of their marker, yet on the other I'm being personally recommended to figureheads of the university. Perhaps now they'll take note. I shall keep you informed.

Something Nisexual

Something that's been on my thoughts now for sometime is the very obvious possibility of a previously unrecognised sexual identity: not heterosexual, nor homosexual, nor bisexual, but rather having no sexual attraction or arousal whatsoever. I've been scouring Google and JStor now for some time and there appears no definable term for this particular sexual anomaly. Although it appears to be acknowledged by some writers on the subject, even the most thorough in sexuality analysts sometimes neglect this latent state. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that these such individuals merely assume themselves to be bisexual, thus circumventing the awkward questions that pertinently arise. Yet, there must be some sort of distinction between those who are actively and positively attracted to both male and female, in congruence with those who are simply attracted to neither. How could this be termed, I wonder? Asexual implies something else entirely. Nisexual, perhaps? In this sense, we can see how one might simply be nisexual and have experimented sexually with both sexes in a somewhat teenage curiosity test - which do I prefer, if any? Am I simply destined to never have a loving relationship like others report to because of some sort of unacknowledged sexual deviance? We can see how this may result in delusion - bisexuality appears less problematic than nisexuality. I feel there must be some sort of potential research to be done on this topic, or have I completely gone off the rails? Then again, I may be onto something...

Inquisitve innocence stumped again at the Hands of the religious

It still happens. If only this was an isolated example. What 'holy scripture' can instill in humans who would otherwise do nothing of the sort. Alas, a glimmer of guided hope: "militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander." Children do the darnedest things. Hmm, see below.

My One and Only

For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.

~ G. K. Chesterton

Atheism and American Elections

American atheists should be delighted that this flapping mess of an advertisement is being widely trounced throughout the American media, calling it the "scummiest ad of this campaign" and other such well-deserved titles. There continues to be a kind of loathing for any kind of skepticism when it comes to the existence of god throughout the election campaign. It makes me wonder whether the bigoted America far-right would actually rather Obama be a Muslim than an atheist. After denouncing the recent preachings of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which I was wont to cover during its time, Obama has had to re-prove that he's a religious person in order not to alienate the reportedly mobile, and assumed undecided Christian voters. There's nothing wrong in appealing to the values and beliefs of a religious group, but why should the general ideology be constructed to eliminate the atheist population? Almost 20% of Americans now profess no specific faith, which infers that they don't attend a church. Indeed, atheists tend to think along similar lines anyway, and we don't need to meet in a grand hall every week to sing and chant about what we believe in some sort of attempt to remind ourselves of convictions we should maintain regardless. As an aside, isn't it strange that members of a congressional flock always vote the same way? Isn't that a direct encapsulation of the fickleness and unthinking of huge swathes of the American religious population? Whatever will become of election campaigns in the future? Perhaps at last, it is conceivable that candidates will wish to appeal to the atheist masses. Obviously, should the atheist population take up a greater role in the public sphere, any political electee will focus their policies or speeches around issues that concern unbelievers. However, it's depressing to hear of Obama or McCain reaching out to "swing voters" through the conduit of faith even though they may only enclose a very small number of the overall electorate, particularly in comparison to the number of atheists. Maybe I'm being pessimistic. Its quite possible that the candidates at present are merely ignorant of this fact and whomever comes to realise as such will benefit in ways never before thought possible by the promulgators of the sickening self-aggrandizing propaganda campaigns such as this one.

My Twelve Volume Autobiography

"I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself." ~ Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (AKA Mother Theresa).

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara." ~ Richard Dawkins.

I have unearthed two articles today that are worth your attention on a Saturday. The first is from 2003. In an article for Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens claims a right to his own two cents on the abortion debate: "I claim an absolute right to be interested in the condition of the human fetus because … well, I used to be one myself." And as Dawkins points out in his introduction to Unweaving the Rainbow, there is unlimited scope for the horizons of "pro-life" pamphleteers. Where do the boundaries lie? What limits should be enforced? Are they right in Oklahoma to force women to have an ultrasound scan before undergoing the already traumatic procedure? Linking everything together once more, of course, is religion. In America, where the Roe v. Wade debate raged forever and rages forevermore, religious grounding, religious philosophies and doctrines are the cornerstones for all arguments on such issues. Hitchens also points out that the feminist movement was started in the States, which surely holds some significance. My second article dwells on similar fields and meadows. Richard Powers writes in The Guardian about the million souls who will never exist, the trillions of possible genetic sequences - indeed, the sand grains of the Sahara - as he bravely commits to the unravelling and documenting of his own genetic sequence. Only a handful of individuals have undergone the rather expensive experiment, but all it takes is a wad of cash, a few vials of blood and a sturdy stomach. How different would I be if that was there and this wasn't here? Do I have a susceptibility for Diabetes, cancer, heart disease? Will I develop schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Huntington's? I struggle to articulate the many thoughts that these articles have amassed, yet I feel the need to throw them out there. To all the two-thirds of America who don't "believe" in the Law of Evolution, who claim they can't accept that we "descended from Apes" (not that we share a common ancestor with Apes anyway, rather from Chimpanzees), remember that even a 99.98% likeness still embodies tens of millions of genetic differences. Powers - "If a standard 250-page book comprises 500,000 printing characters, you'd need 12,000 books to publish an individual genome."