Yorke

I've been suffering from strange, recurring migraines for the last few days and, as with all migraines, the causes and triggers are totally unknown. I've got all the classic symptoms: sensitivity to light and sound, runny nose, acute unilateral pain around my eye, and yet I have no idea where I stand with it all. The drugs I've been given are fairly strong, inducing a ten-minute bout of nausea and lethargy on top of the pain, which isn't exactly wonderful, but I'm seeing some improvement. I think, however, I've found the cure. Thom Yorke's little solo gig at the Cambridge Corn Exchange last night threw up some classics in the space of half an hour. I turn away from the computer for a while to cook some dinner and, when I return, Thom has bestowed us with three never-before-heard songs. Well how about that. I forgot my misery and went in search of videos. Here they are. Dedicating a song to the "open-minded, liberals of this country" (worrying, I know) is a song that used to be known as A Pig's Ear, and hails from the blackboard days of 2005, well titled, The Daily Mail.

We also had something that, as far as I can see, hasn't cropped up anywhere in the back catalogue before, Mouse Dog Bird, which, upon first listen, is one of those...

Lastly, but notable for being my favorite, is Give Up The Ghost, the name of which has been circulating for a while.

In The Loop

Planning one's iPod playlist for a long-haul flight is a delicate task. Not only do you have to pick music that you like, or are particularly "into" at that moment, but the music has to be subduing, lulling you into a sense of contentment and tranquility. This aspect of one's journey can be carefully and meticulously planned in advance. Not so with in-flight entertainment. Cracking open the on-board magazine and scanning the cinema planner is like reading through a list of Mark Kermode's worst films of the year. It's very difficult to find something that you haven't anything to be dismayed about, so you resign yourself to watching something you've seen already. (All the more important, then, to pack that playlist to capacity.) Over the years, one of the exceptions to the rule, for me, was Armando Iannucci's reinvigoration of parliamentary drama The Thick Of It, into the feature length In The Loop. A satirical comedy that combines just the right amount of politics with unnecessary swearing courtesy of Malcolm Tucker, played by the brilliant Peter Capaldi, who based the character on Blair's infamous spin-doctor, Alistair Campbell. Ninety minutes flew by, and I was that much closer to home. For a montage of brilliant swearing, see below, but if you're American, and are averse to curse-words, you're better if in the company of Stephen Fry, who knows better. What's more, In The Loop features a superb little cameo performance by Steve Coogan, popular on this blog, indeed.

v.

Tony Harrison, a hero of Thom Yorke, manages to combine the tragic and the indifferent with a wry smile:

House after house FOR SALE where we'd played cricket
with white roses cut from flour-sacks on our caps,
with stumps chalked on the coal-grate for our wicket,
and every one bought now by 'coloured chaps',

dad's most liberal label as he felt
squeezed by the unfamiliar, and fear
of foreign food and faces, when he smelt
curry in the shop where he'd bought beer.

And growing frailer, 'wobbly on his pins',
the shops he felt familiar with withdrew
which meant much longer tiring treks for tins
that had a label on them that he knew.

And as the shops that stocked his favourites receded
whereas he'd fancied beans and popped next door,
he found that four long treks a week were needed
till he wondered what he bothered eating for.

Do I?

Classic Coogan...

Toyota

Are we really so stupid to believe that the US Congressional grilling of Akio Toyoda isn't, at least in part, motivated by the shadow of the irredeemable imbecility of the General Motors bailout? Does it surprise us that every other item on the CNN cycle has to do with the recall? Let's stir this up as much as possible to make our manufacturing industry seem a little less useless by comparison. Anything to slight those lousy foreign car makers, eh?

Mother Teresa Again

Eventually I relented and abandoned the urge to respond to my Mother Teresa antagonist, even after the most compelling piece of persuasion I could have received, courtesy of Thom:

I'm not particularly clued up on mother teresa, but you gotsta reply to that guy. Literally take out your intellectual cock and piss all over his faithful face.

Even that didn't crack my stubborn desire to let him stew in his pit of anger and frustration. Anyone with an ounce of sense and a search engine could have written a decent rebuttal to that dirge of slurrilous drivel anyway. That being said, Clinton gave a powerful defense of freedom of expression and it's inevitable (and necessary) corollary: debate.

If you need to be angry then be angry that too many of the world's population lives without clean water, basic shelter or power.
I cannot support the view that this suffering leads to some form of enlightenment. It is a stain on humanity and and humanity needs to work to alleviate this.
You are the generation that should be producing the great ideas, the passion and the motivation to solve these issues.
Get talking, get debating, don't accept everything you're told by professors, teachers, priests and other assorted wise men.
Come on, you're better than this.

The crux of the matter lies in this latter concept; never accept what you're told without first questioning it, or, indeed, applying itself to itself. Would Kant, Hegel, or Marx want you to take their teachings and philosophies ex nihilo? No, they wouldn't. I fear my antagonist fell prey to this tendency and I did, admittedly, enjoy rubbing his face in it. It's understandable, then, that he turned to resentment and frustration, which he, when pushed, regretted. Although I'm notably absent, the rest of the conversation that you couldn't read is posted below.

=====

Zachary Hojnacki
As a follower of God myself i must say both of you have strong points and the lives that were touched by Mother Theresa cannot be denied, nor can Rob's obvious examples of her darker side be ignored. But i must interject that I am slightly disappointed in the attacks on Rob in that, while he may or may not have an atheist agenda, it is the hypocrisy by the believer that keeps atheist like Rob from ever even considering our point of view. Both of you have no regard for the others opinion, but I would expect the religious individual to show some grace towards his atheist opponent, certainly before the opposite happened. If were to ever make any non believer believe then we cannot take a holier than thou approach and must show to them that we have something that they are lacking. When an atheist hears an enraged believer tell him his points are "idiotic" and "petty", it basically suggest that he is an inferior human being, and its no wonder he doesn't believe God exist. I am not saying I believe what Rob is saying is right, but there are better ways to go about solving disagreements, and I would expect a follower of Christ to show respect to all of God's people, not just those who share his beliefs.

Andrew Starbuck
For my part, I do apologize for letting things get too personal. It's so easy to fall into an eye-for-an-eye type of argument. I definitely don't feel any ill will towards Rob, even if I have problems with his beliefs on issues, and certainly wasn't feeling "enraged". If he is anything like me, he was probably just as distracted from whatever he should've been doing in getting into a good ol' debate as I was.

On the other hand, we must be careful that we don't confuse being a peace-loving, respectful Christian, with letting others disrespect our God and those who serve Him. Jesus made it clear that we would be hated for what we believe, but not to fall into the complacency of the World. "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" - Matthew 10:34.

Zachary Hojnacki
I appreciate and respect the clarification and your apology

Jordan Smith
Rob has big muscles.

Zachary Hojnacki
its true.

Jordan Smith
You too Hoj

Zachary Hojnacki
thanks jordan i aspire to be as strong as you someday

Susana Helms
Over. This. Post.

=====

P.S. As if anything more need be said after that last remark from Dr. God.

Mother Teresa

Over the last 24 hours I've thrust myself into an argument about Mother Teresa. The exchange has taken place online, through Facebook, primarily between a 27 year-old Catholic minister and myself. He also happens to be the boyfriend of a friend of mine who I sit next to in class, so I didn't exactly give him both barrels. Below is the unedited transcript for your amusement; I'm assured it's rather entertaining. Being of the intelligent ilk, dear reader, I think I know who you'll be favouring, but I'd relish and wallow in your support nevertheless. Also, I haven't come back to him yet (as I'm quite tempted to leave him alone with his anger), but if you've got any suggestions or comments I'd welcome them.

=====


Susana Helms
"Don't give in to discouragement. If you are discouraged it is a sign of pride because it shows you trust in your own powers. Never bother about people's opinions. Be obedient to truth. For with humble obedience, you will never be disturbed." - Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Robert Iddiols
"I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself." - Agnese Bojaxhiu. AKA Mother Teresa.

Paige Dowler
Me likes!

Susana Helms
I like that one Rob. Its powerful.

Robert Iddiols
I was actually trying to demonstrate that she was an idiot.

Susana Helms
Well it didn't work. You know me better than that Rob!

Andrew Starbuck
Rob - I don't understand how that quote would demonstrate to anyone with half a brain that Mother Teresa was anything other than brilliant. She had a knack for simplifying what society wanted to complicate.

Robert Iddiols
Are you suggesting that I have less than half a brain? There is nothing motherly about Mother Teresa. She was a fraud. A friend of poverty rather than a friend of the poor, who used and maintained the suffering of others to celebrate her position within the Catholic church, while espousing the most fanatical, backward teachings and ideologies that poison the wells of India to this day.

Paige Dowler
Robert.. uh.. buddy, I believe you're wrong.

Andrew Starbuck
"Used and maintained the suffering of others?" Haha. You are seriously mistaken. Mother Teresa was recognized again and again for her work with the poor, including a Nobel Peace Prize (which isn't much of an award anymore..but that's a different conversation entirely). Her sisters, following her example, have opened over 600 missions in over 100 countries, not including the countless schools, orphanages, and homes.

I assume, based upon your comments, that your ire towards this (soon to be) saint is based upon her beliefs on contraception and abortion. I gotta say, man, that you have a lot to learn. Concerning the spread of AIDS and other diseases, condoms deter but aren't enough of a prevention to be worth it. There are tons of testimonies about people getting HIV with consistent condom use, if you take the time to look.

As for pregnancies, the Church (and Mother Teresa) teach NFP techniques that are actually more effective than condom use...and cheaper. Of course, if you feel that no one should have to take personal responsibility...than there's not much to say here. The contraceptive companies and abortion mills make bank off of people with your beliefs selling eugenics to the world. I'm sure you feel its an injustice if innocents in Haiti are slaughtered by local militia, rightfully so, but do you not feel a thing for human beings being pulled apart in the womb?

But back to the point of Mother Teresa, you say she celebrated her position...when really she hardly sought any media coverage at all...and every time it was to plead for more aid in the poorest places. Sorry, Rob, but I don’t see you making any worthwhile arguments here. It’s obvious the many things the Sisters of Charity have done to help those in need, how about you?

Renise Alexis Rodriguez
whoa. that's all.

Ricardo Ramon Guzman
amen to that Starbuck

Robert Iddiols
Pleading for aid in the poorest places, indeed, and it’s Interesting that you should bring up Haiti. She visited Haiti in the 80s by invitation of the corrupt dictatorship lead by the Duvalier family, wealthy by virtue of stealing from the impoverished members of their country. She accepted a large donation from Jean-Claude Duvalier in exchange for a public declaration of the Duvalier's kinship with the poor. She said how wonderful the situation for the Haitian poor was, how they loved the Duvaliers, and how they loved them back.

This sort of bolshie claim was not unusual. At a press conference in 1981 she said: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Indian volunteers to the convents and clinics set up by Teresa describe them like they would a concentration camp: no chairs, only stretcher beds; no medical care or painkillers were administered beyond aspirin. As I said before, she was interested in the maintenance of the poor, not in their emancipation. She taught the suffering to “accept their lot”, and that it was a gift from God, often refusing to take them to hospital where curable diseases and ailments would have been dealt with easily.

It’s not as if she hadn’t the money to equip proper teaching hospitals, where the liberation of women living in patriarchal, third-world conditions could be instigated, educating them about PROPER family planning techniques, such as the use of condoms. Note also that when she got sick herself, she’d prefer the private clinics in California to one of the 500 convents bearing the name of her own order.

How did she get from Calcutta to Haiti? She used the private jet that Charles Keating gave to her along with $1.25 million. Keating served a ten year prison sentence for defrauding his investors of over $250 million in the 90s. When Judge Lance Ito wrote to Teresa asking for the money back he received no reply other than a scrawled message begging him to look into his heart and acquit Keating on account of his generosity.

I fear, however, there may be little audience for my argument, as there has been a stirring of fawning propaganda about this woman ever since her death, about which you do nothing other than fall prey.

I’m sure you’re aware that to be ascribed as a Saint by the Vatican you must purport a miracle, and in this instance I only urge you to look into the case at hand and you’ll see the obvious fakery. As for your comments about condoms and HIV (which I cannot fail to address, even flippantly), I feel you may be a lost cause.

Andrew Starbuck
Saintly behavior seems to be lost on you. Most certainly the grace involved in suffering. She was speaking about how, rather than being consumed by their poverty, it's beautiful to see them immersing themselves in life and really living. Being an atheist, you ignore the good that comes from suffering and how God allows us to suffer in order to really enjoy the life He made for us. Not much else to say on that, you simply can't comprehend it.

All of your "points" are about her accepting money from sinful people...so? She never changed her ideals or plans for that money, she just didn't judge them. Her focus was firstly on the poor. You say she "refused to take them to hospitals". What hospitals? A major reason for her mission was because these people weren't able to receive any care at all. Oh, did they not have chairs to sit on? Really? That's one of your points? So even though you admit that there was barely enough basic medicine to go around, she should've got some chairs? Petty. And the fact that you would compare any camp created to help people (regardless of your definition of "help") to a Nazi extermination camp is despicable.

I've got an idea. Ask the millions that have been through her convents and missions. Ask them if they think she was a monster. Ask them if they are grateful for this "minimum care" that you turn your nose up at. I can guarantee you that you'd have an overwhelming positive response. As a matter of fact, if you went into Calcutta and said the things you're saying you would probably get the crap kicked out of you. God bless America, right?

Finally, you should check your facts about her personal health care. Her first heart attack was in Rome when she was visiting the Pope and later she was ordered by the Pope to get treatment in the States. How can you judge her for being obedient? Again...pretty lame point.

You are right about one thing. There is no audience for your argument. Mostly because its an idiotic argument that is so petty its simply unbelievable. I think its even more contemptible since you're arguing against her becoming a saint...something that, in your case, shouldn't matter anyway. Atheists can be so quick to judge those with faith and love to push their anti-faith agenda down other people's throats...while screaming at anyone who happens to have or share faith. Take for example, the origin of this whole conversation. Sus, who you well know is a devout Catholic, puts up a quote that could possibly be the least debatable quote ever (it doesn't even really have a faith angle). Then you attack her, simply to start a debate, and insult someone she looks up to. This just shows a huge lack of respect for your friend and teammate, and it'd be the honorable thing to apologize to Sus.

Heads Up

I've been hit by wave after wave of spam lately so I've rejigged the comment system. It's probably quite annoying, but I'll change it back when this dies down. Try and let me know if there are any problems.

If I had a gun...

Note the badge on the right, and the scoreline in the top corner. Other than that, this screenshot requires no further introduction:

Interlude

I can't stop now as the workload is mounting up. These essays don't write themselves, you know. Well, that's not strictly true. I'm pretty good. Anyway, if you need something to do, read Brit's critique of John Gray's Straw Dogs. Alongside 2666, Holly's Dad bought this for me for Christmas. If you haven't read it, I suggest you BUY IT NOW. It's a very important book, not because you will agree with everything he writes, but because you'll disagree with pretty much everything, and, when you try to explain to yourself why, you find it much more difficult than you might expect. Brit misses a glaring flaw in Gray's work, which I briefly allude to in a comment, but I fear I must elaborate and lend my time to writing a more worthy piece. I suspect, however, that once I've begun I'll end up writing a thousand words. It's one of those. Maybe at the weekend, eh?

Amnesty

It's no coincidence that two enlistees on the blogroll to your right should tackle the same topic for discussion at the same time, but the parallels in this instance run deeper. Both Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen have written about the current Amnesty International debacle, which sees secular feminist Gita Sahgal suspended from a senior position within the organization for airing her view that Amnesty's support for Moazzem Begg violates the central mandate of Amnesty's cause. Hitchens and Cohen write eloquently and explicitly on the details of the case so it would be needless for me to paraphrase. It presents a problem for the left, of course, as it sits pretty in the middle of their allegiances. On the one hand, Amnesty International have formerly been relied upon to deliver results for universal Human rights, and yet on the other hand, they appear to be harbouring the interests of a shady and suspicious individual. Not only that but, in doing so, Amnesty violates the constitutional principle that users or supporters of violence will not be defended. It fails to surprise me that this story has received next to no coverage as yet in The Guardian or in The Times; who wants to pin their colours to the mast and say that most liberals will side with Amnesty? What I do find interesting, however, are the pleas that both authors issue. Cohen concludes his piece with quite a realistic and practical cry for help:

If there are any principled human rights lawyers left in England, contact me and I will pass on your details.

Similarly, Hitchens calls for a "any member who takes the original charter seriously to withdraw funding until Begg is cut loose to run his own beautiful organization and until Sahgal has been reinstated." I fear that Hitchens' plea, even if read by thousands, will yield little result. After all, what's left of the left?

Reasons to be excited...

Aside from the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, which I've been looking forward to very much, contrary to the lampooning that Sport received recently courtesy of The Hitch, there are a few reasons to sit forward and take note.

I may have been a little hasty with my referral to the all-new Radiohead Twitter feed; they haven't actually posted anything yet. Nevertheless, a couple of other little indicators have started vibrating in the malaise of Radiohead rumour. First, their website has undergone a revamp, albeit merely facially, displaying a new direction for subsequent artwork, perhaps. Abandoning the black background and the rainbow theme, they've gone for a streamline, black on white look, which is already being heralded as the cut-and-paste revolution.

What's more, Radiohead's resident artist, Stanley Donwood has remodelled his website to coincide with his project in Holland, Red Maze. Is it a stretch too far to point to the rather convenient timing? We already know, of course, that Radiohead were in a studio in LA for a month over January, and Ed, our hero, has already gone gung-ho on the website, whetting the appetites of many a-Radiohead fanboy (myself included).

To cap it all, Thom Yorke has announced he's going to play a benefit gig for Tony Jupiter, the forerunner for the Green party, at the Cambridge Corn Exchange in a couple of weeks. Tom has his tickets. Do you? (Best price on eBay: about Eighty squid for a pair.) I won't stick my neck on the line and propose that he'll test a couple of new songs, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

Other reasons to be excited include: I travel to Phoenix tomorrow to face our rivals, ASWho? That's Arizona State University for anyone back home. At present, they hang, like a ball-bag, precariously on the brink of financial liquidation, and I'd be all to happy play Prince Albert and put the final nail in the coffin.

Also, on a weekend of intense rivalries, what could be more juicy than the South-coast derby: Southampton v. Portsmouth tomorrow at high noon? You think the Manchester derby was tough? You thought the Merseyside derby was tough? This is another level of hatred, dear reader. As the chant goes, There's only one team in Hampshire.

When I was just a boy
I asked my mother
What would I be.
Would I be Pompey?
Would I be Saints?
Here's what she said to me:
"Wash you mouth with soap
And get your father's gun,
And shoot the Pompey scum,
And support the Saints."
We hate Pompey,
We hate Pompey,
We hate Pompey...

Backup

I've just heard that my YouTube link for the Hitchens interview below doesn't work for visitors from the UK. My beloved asks whether it's still worth watching the whole broadcast on 4OD. It most certainly is not (unless you want your ears to start bleeding). Here is an alternative link that, I hope, solves the problem.

Drinking Game

Reflecting on Dickens' classic, Great Expectations, it's embarrassingly obvious that Pip's life of expectation was as void as Widdecombe's bonce. All he seemed to do entailed drinking and worrying, balancing his debts, and fawning all over a suspiciously repellent young lady. Of course, this was the intention. We're talking Dickens, and he can do anything. At the moment I'm reading Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, a tale of the leisure-class in Paris following the First World War. Their lives are similarly vacuous, devoid of direction, resolved to keeping up appearances with their various acquaintances. Drink is a recurring motif, and it's supplied me with the idea for a new drinking game; read The Sun Also Rises and, when they drink, you drink. Trust me, you'll be in the emergency room having your stomach pumped before you get to page fifty. Then again, were you to do the same with a Bret Easton Ellis novel, you'd dissolve your septum in half an hour.

Daily Hitchens

Why I haven't ventured to this website before is unknown. The enigmatic maintainer of the Daily Hitchens, the so-called, Tom, appears to have archives of Hitchens videos ranging from the late eighties to the present. How they have come into his possession, why he has them, and how they are so easily dissected and uploaded to YouTube DAILY, all remain to be answered. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful site, growing every day, almost to the point where any other Hitch devotee will have a hard time matching Tom's accomplishments. Click the link above and you'll quickly know what I mean. Today's video is notable in it's own right (and not just because this happens to be the day I post about it). For a Channel 4 documentary entitled, The Bible: A History, the saturatingly stupid Anne Widdecombe pours her morose and gratingly irritating voice over images of our beloved Hitch and sidekick, Stephen Fry. It seems an interview was conducted by Widdecombe following the Intelligence Squared debate that I wrote about at the time, with the view to splicing it into her program, which she does very sparingly, falling short of sustaining the illusion of non-bias. I can sense you becoming excited already, dear reader, and adding the Daily Hitchens to your Favourites, but there's more; an increasingly frustrated Hitchens walks out of the interview with Widdecombe, forgetting his signature charm and good-humour. It's quite clear that the interview was over and, typically, Hitch was determined to have the last word. His playful smile was extinguished by the void between Widdecombe's ears, and it's no surprise that he got out as soon as he could and let Fry take the reigns. Necessary viewing, not once, but again and again.

Expectations

"The death close before me was terrible, but far more terrible than death was the dread of being misremembered after death."
~ Charles Dickens

Superbowl Sunday?

On Friday one of my three Professors of English said that, on Sunday, he would be sitting down to watch the Superbowl "like any good American". Well, that conveniently leaves me out. So, while the rest of the country pauses (quite unjustifiably, in my opinion) I offer a simple question; who's the better singer, this ginger bloke, or this really weird bloke?

Radiohead on Twitter

Doubleyew-tee-eff? Now I might actually have to sign up.

Shut up

Hugo Rifkind, a man whose name I have heard and yet heard without the slightest knowledge of who or what he is, has made a little Vlog about the "moral blackhole of secularism", and how secular campaigns at present are entirely negative, providing no "coherent philosophical alternative". (It turns out he's Opinions leader for The Times, by the way.) I particularly like the way the camera gets bored of his face and ambles along the bookshelf behind him, as if we're interested in what he claims to have read, or that the books provide a summary footnote as per his credibility. Well, as I said, I don't know who he is, nor care what he's read, so I'm taking him at face value. Here's the basis of his opinion:

I'm quite a soft secularist, in that I don't really care about it. This is how I think the world should be, but if it's not, so be it, so long as I don't have to wear a burka.

It doesn't take me to tell you what's wrong with this line of thinking. Then again, it's not so much what's wrong, moreso that it suffers from a severe deficiency. That's like saying: No, I'm not against the Nazi regime, so long as they don't make me exterminate Jews. Like it or not, sonny Jim, there's an argument here and you better be prepared to take sides. The title of his ditty is "Why atheists just need to shut up". Okay, but you can't have it both ways, mate; if the Pope's going to tell me that gay marriage violates Natural Law (something his predecessors just made up), and the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to make headlines with his two-cents on the Chilcot inquiry, then you can bet your bottom dollar I'm not shutting up.

The Shorter Story

Roberto Bolaño, the novelist responsible for 2666, has cropped up again (not literally, of course; he's dead) in this month's New Yorker with a short story entitled 'William Burns'. It's quite an easy, two-thousand word read that's pretty powerful stuff. Bolaño seems to have written extensively in the last decade of his life, and it's only now that publishers, not least of all, translators are getting their mitts on the stuff. There are even rumours of a sixth and final part to 2666, turning a brick of a 1200 page novel into a cinder block. No thanks. Interestingly, Don DeLillo also published a short story in the New Yorker recently: Midnight in Dostoevsky (an ambiguous title, it must be said, but befitting the mode).

The library was deserted during the break. I entered with a key card and took a novel by Dostoevsky down from the shelves. I placed the book on a table and opened it and then leaned down into the splayed pages, reading and breathing. We seemed to assimilate each other, the characters and I, and when I raised my head I had to tell myself where I was.

The two styles could not be more contrasting: one with an emphasis on narrative, the other on language and style. DeLillo's masterwork is, of course, Underworld, another 1000 page epic. So, then, both responsible for mammoth journeys into the void, it's worth reading these two side by side to see how they handle the shorter medium. Well worth fifteen minutes.

bit of a blur

Ahem, yes, yes, I was there...