Tony Blair and Secularism

Whilst I very nearly wrote an angry letter to the New Statesman complaining of it's loathsome columnist's latest unequivocally contemptible drool, I didn't because I couldn't be bothered. However, as I read my latest issue of Time magazine this week, I did get that very same urge, but now with slightly greater gusto. The article followed Tony Blair's recent personal endeavours to establish a faith-based institution aimed at harnessing a collective good among faith groups. Whatever you think of that prospect is neither here nor there for the purposes of this post. The journalist, Michael Elliott claims British heritage to his name, but he seems to lack the most basic understanding of British discourse. In doing so, he claimed Britain, "for all it's secularism, is still nominally a Protestant nation, with an established Protestant church." Perhaps a Protestant-based denomination, Mr Elliott, but this is not so; we live in a country ordained by the Church of England. He continues, "Britain is one of the most aggressively secular societies on the planet." The employment of the term "aggressive" is somewhat disconcerting as it carries strong connotations of outward hatred and active hostility towards religion, which we do not emphasize in our evolving community. The article, on the whole, is otherwise well written and direct on the points it establishes, yet I couldn't help myself but bash out an email to the editor. Here it be:

Whilst Elliott's article well presented the recent developments of Tony Blair's current agenda, his assessment of Britain as "one of the most aggressively secular societies on the planet" is fundamentally inaccurate. As a British citizen myself I have grown cautious of my home nation's international portrayal. In this instance, one should take pains to note that Britain is ruled under a democratic monarchy, whereby the Queen is not only the head of the state, but also the head of the church of England. Although, for all intents and purposes, British society has stepped far back from religious practise, it remains an inherently Christian nation. Unfortunately, until the monarchy is toppled, or democracy is free to operate independently from the royal family, this will always be so.

200th Post

As a special contribution to this blog, to mark my reflective 200th post, I shall attempt to account, in a single word, what I seem to have identified as the primary source of more and more of my subject-matter; it's a term infiltrating the modern lexicon, establishing itself firmly in the wondrous English language: Grumpelstiltskin.

Ziauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar writes in his column for the New Statesman this month with an article entitled, 'The racism behind integration':
"There was the Danish cartoon affair, followed by the less-known incident of the Swedish cartoon in which the prophet was depicted with the body of a dog. And we must not forget ex-Muslim champions of western civilization, such as Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, running around Europe decrying Islam as 'the new fascism'."
Needless to say, I had read enough. He makes very clear what he is trying to say. The above, he states, "makes many Muslims angry." Well, would the honourable Hirsi-Ali be forced to traverse Europe in search of refuge were it not for the fatwa that has been laden against her name as punishment for apostatising? Indeed, she has even sought asylum in Washington D.C. as no European country is willing to justify the cost of a permanent bodyguard? Islam is the only religion where this is deemed appropriate. Perhaps Sardar should spend more time denouncing the motives behind this absurd proclamation, rather than reaching his sickening, and sloppily contradictory conclusion:
"If Europe wants to change Muslims, here and in the rest of the world, I would say only this: change yourself."

The Comfort of Strangers

Endgame. Immobility and motivation. Mobility and resignation. Foreign faces. Strange faces. Foreign places. Stranger here, neighbour there. Neighbour here, stranger there. Cathartic sights. Bait. Overcome the loss. What loss? Confidence in yourself, without description. Checkmate.

Two Developments

As the internet's uses keep evolving, I've discovered two little gems for your enjoyment. Both instances are, for me, annoyingly irksome - on the one hand, I want to keep it all to myself, but on the other hand, I can't help myself. So here you read the result of that conflict. The first is woot. If you haven't already heard of woot, you have a personal duty to go there now. Basically, it's an independent seller that brings you one item a day, for a dramatically reduced price. Since I've been visiting (only a couple of weeks), I've seen digital radios sell for ten bucks, and Xbox 360s go for 150. For my British readers, please accept my apologies, but there is, as yet, no overseas equivalent. Still, it's a chirpy conversation piece that renews everyday - to buy or not to buy? My second discovery dominated a recent article in The New York Times; cashback (yes, both are uncapitalized). This nifty new search engine from the guys at Windows takes current market ideas and betters them. If you want something, currently you can browse through the known vendors yourself, or employ one of those engines that does it for you, such as Google Product Search. However, in the same vein as the highly successful Google Ads, the seller pays Microsoft a percentage of the nett profit once you've made an order by way of saying thanks for directing your custom to them. Obviously, this money is yours, and once you've accumulated at least 5 dollars/pounds you can opt to draw that money out, or leave it there and add to it later. But, I hear you cry, this has some potential flaws; will you really get a substantial amount of the money back? Will you have to pay more in the first place? Is the search among sellers comprehensive? Fear not, dear reader! The answers to all of these queries is answerable in the most positive tone of voice. They even include eBay as a vendor. I shall not bore you, for the site is there for your use and disposal. From what I can tell, this could be revolutionary.

UK not OK

My new best friend, AA Gill, bemoans the Labour government for letting things get so bad that elitist toffs have taken power in Crewe and Nantwich. There is no respite for this government, and rightly so. On Thursday, the audience to Question Time (the applause-orientated competition) was treated to the devil herself: Hazel Blears. As Bryan rightly points out, she did nothing but smile from ear to ear in her own peculiar way, apparently trying to patronise the viewers into submission. Or was it because everything is going swimmingly for her and her head henchman? Evidently not. What makes things worse for Labour, and better for Cameron et al is their shockingly poor lack of direction. This may sound like a cliche, dear reader, but think; check the headlines of The Times and The Guardian this morning, but then compare that to the BBC's top story. Allow me:
Guardian Online - "Labour chiefs tell Brown: appoint a leader-in-waiting"
The Times Online - "David Miliband is ready to save new Labour"
BBC News UK - "'No appetite' to oust Brown as PM Senior Labour figures have rallied around Gordon Brown."
Could there be less direction? Those of us acquainted with Bear Grylls or Ray Mears will have some knowledge of basic survival techniques: indecision kills.

Eurovision

Now, I shan't be doing a follow-up to this post because no-one, as far as I can see, actually cares who wins the Eurovision Song Contest as it usually winds up in the hands of some eclectic neo-pop cheese manufacturer, fully equipped with flames and howling female vocalists. Evidently, we won't win. Only recently I've subscribed to The New Statesman, upon first impressions, a great weekly magazine hailing from mainland Britain where there seems to be a lack of accessible high-end journals (apart from this one, obviously). They have a fantastic online feature whereby you can subscribe for a thoroughly reduced price to receive the E-edition, rendered into PDF format. For me, in the States, this is perfect, and it also grants me access to the complete archives. So, if you're interested, I strongly recommend it. The reason I mention this is because of their inclusion of some Eurovision news, centering on the role it will play for Serbia and Belgrade. But, for me and you, the only reason to watch the contest is for Terry Wogan's gags. Let's hope he has a few tinnies before he begins, and that he makes some lewd quip about Montenegro. What's more, we all need to watch for Britain's representative when it comes to delivering our points scores. Last year we had the forgettable Fern Cotton - this year my vote goes to Boris Johnson. Why not?

Another Fraud - Scientology

Speaking of fraudsters, Scientology received the butt-end of common sense yesterday as a judge overturned an absurd accusation that a 16 year-old boy was being "abusive or insulting", as the prosecutors would have you believe, to the religion. (I am, however, sure that they probably were offended and insulted - good.) Frankly, I wish this brave young contrarian had done more than erect a banner proclaiming: "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult". Scientology crouches behind its comforting title - shrouded with connotations of scientific enquiry and social analysis. And yet, this simply encapsulates what the religion really is: a cultish assertion of lies and untruth, couched in the garish commercialism of prosaic faith groups. May I get in trouble for what I've just said? If this court ruling sets a true precedent for future cowering, perhaps not. May those I speak of seek protection yet again from the piddling hate-speech law? Unquestionably.

Commercial Fraudsters - Homeopathy

At last, another syndicate widely known for conning customers has been realised as a fraud - Homeopathy. Boots did themselves an injustice when they sold bottled water in a spray flask as a revitalising life-juice, but they have done themselves even greater harm with their stocking of homeopathic 'medications'. Of course, there is wide scientific support for the 'placebo effect' but homeopathy relies on this psychosomatic afterthought far too heavily. Lest we forget that Boots has probably made a fair few bob well beyond the actual price of those balls of crushed sugar. My mother once took me to a homeopathic distributor, a very nice lady with a reassuring voice and a cosy little house in rural Buckinghamshire. It was during a rather severe bout of tonsillitis at a time when I was willing to try anything, but I knew the game was up when she began quizzing me - questions included: "What side do you tend to sleep on?" and "How much orange juice do you drink?". I'm willing to concede that this can build up a holistic picture, but you and I both know that this was only a front to superimpose some psychological benefits onto her pills. The whole experience reminded me of the doctor sketch in Chris Morris' cult television comedy, Jam, where the doctor asks the patient to drop his trousers and jump up and down (watch on YouTube). How humiliating.

Cannes - Uncut - Kermodian

Our resident film critic, the supreme fifties-throwback, Mark Kermode, has been video blogging live from the Cannes Film festival this week. It's a great little webpage, dedicated to bringing you more of the good doctor's genius (during a screening of a Lars von Trier movie, The Idiots, in 1998 Kermode was thrown out of the theatre for standing up and shouting in his best O-Level French: "il est merde, il est le pluse grande merde dans le monde entire...!" Apparently, he has now successfully entered the dictionary as an adjective: Kermodian.

Raef Appreciation

Our gallant knight has been slain, dear reader! As I'm sure you're fully aware, the chivalrous expert of eloquence, Raef, was booted off The Apprentice last night. How, I wonder, will anyone continue watching the show? I will allow you this moment to mourn and reflect on the mastery of Raef's conceitedness, wardrobe, and his ability to reassure Britain that our country plays host to like-minded connoisseurs of charm (charm with substance, mind). Indeed, as early as Episode 1, he said, "If I am faced with a situation that may cause mere mortals to quake - I don't." Mere mortals quaked for the next seven episodes, where he remained on the winning team for each. And yet, as soon as he shows the first sign of slip-up, conclusions formulate as to his vivacious front does, in fact, not play host to business acumen. How wrong they were, dear reader! This man will inevitably go places, as reminded by this article in The Guardian this morning. If you saw the aftershow I would value hearing your interpretations; I even went so far as to join the Raef Appreciation Society on Facebook: "The Spoken Word is my Tool". I shall leave you with my favorite Raef quote: "Sales is sales. Obviously it makes a huge difference if you believe in a product - and I have. I've taken a look at those panties and I believe in them."

Flip-Flops

On Monday I arrived back in my apartment in Tucson, thoroughly exhausted and looking forward to some quiet nights in. As usual, however, training has restarted with renewed gusto, which somehow fills me with feelings of uncomfortable trepidation as I didn't do very well at the meet in Santa Clara. For all sports fans, it brings me great displeasure to tell you that Michael Phelps did very well, winning six or seven events and, inevitably, winning the top performer accolade, as if he needs any extra cash. (He has now hired a bodyguard, by the way, presumably for the highly likely event that someone takes a cricket bat to his kneecaps just in time for Beijing.) All videos and interviews are available at Floswimming.com, an ever-growing resource for all swimmers. I hope my posts on Friday kept your appetite well and truly wetted before my return, although, it seems as though the world has flipped on its head since I left - Sen. Clinton keeps winning States; the increasingly annoying Bryan coincidentally notices the same fluorescent green Lamborghini in California as I did on Thursday; Jeffrey Archer updates his blog daily; Radiohead started their Houston set with 15 Step rather than the questionable All I Need; Israel and Syria are in peace talks, employing Turkey as the token Tony Blair intermediary; and AA Gill has been caught lying in the most pretentious fashion - he is now the definitive pinnacle of arrogance. Well, I appear to have missed quite a lot so I'll make up for it with up-to-date posts. Seeing as everything else has changed, I may as well follow suit...or should I?

Sick bags at the ready again

Combining the twin evils of religion and monarchy - the fickleness of faith: "Miss Kelly has given up her Catholic faith to allow her fiance to retain his place as 11th in line to the throne."

Even more bullshit from the Church...

I'm currently sat in the 40'C heat of Santa Clara, California, but I can't help myself in bringing you this piece of drivel from the former Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Bishops seem to have developed an amazingly poor reputation when it comes to saying appropriate things (remember the floods in the North East - punishment for the gays; remember the sharia law fiasco?), but surely this video, addressed to the captors of five British journalists, ploughs new depths of profanity. If this appeal does bring the captives home, I'll eat my words and publicly apologise. But, for now, have the sick bags ready; this from The Times' report: 'he greeted the hostage-takers as “honourable men” and “men of faith”'.

Dear Reader,

I must inform you that I am moving up in the world. Today I rid myself of the the oppressive regime of dormitory life at university, instead opting for the road less travelled. I've moved into my new flat just a mile from campus and, I can tell you, the liberation is unrivalled. It's not often that I offer personal reflection, but occasionally the occasion warrants. But save your champagne, dear reader, for you will be without your humble servant for a few days as I'm leaving for sunny Santa Clara in the morning. I shall update you on my travels come Monday, but until then, I leave you with this worthy article on our great fellow contrarian, Christopher Hitchens, by Alexander Linklater. It appears more and more that this blog dedicates itself to him, but others do that just as well. I am quite content to assassinate my own character.

The American Election

Living in mainstream America, as I do, everyday I'm immersed in turgid journalism "covering" the 2008 election, which usually centers around the ongoing struggle between Sen.Clinton and Sen.Obama. More often than not, the daily commentary is not worth reading, but the Atlantic has two excellent articles between its covers this month: articles that have supported my suspicions for some time now. Both indulge Barack Obama, who would now have to burn the American flag to not be elected as the Democratic headpiece. Firstly, Marc Ambinder highlights the successes of Obama's online campaigning and how this would translate well into government. Of course, if he were to be elected president, the history books would be filled with the racial facets of progress and cultural revolution, seamlessly sweeping aside his dabblings with the internet. He's churned out well in excess of $50 million through his website donations alone, but his real statement has been his cyber-networking, pulling in Facebook fans and MySpace clingers-on alike. The Web is a fickle engine, capable of derailing even the hardiest public figure with one looped video-clip, but as Ambinder explains: "If Obama wins, he can harness the Web as a unifying force once the voting is done [and] even deliver some of the audacious promises that Obama the candidate has made." Indeed, if he employed and (crucially) developed the British model of online petitioning, he could encourage genuine democracy beyond the meager vote. The second of Atlantic's Obama articles draws, for the first time, on the possibility that the extended furore between the two Democratic candidates might, in fact, help them in the long run. Besides the obvious benefits, such as time to hone their arguments and refine their speeches, they've also been forced repeatedly to revise their policies and evolve the fundamental messages of their campaigns. (Some might argue that Clinton hasn't done this at all, and I would concur, but Obama certainly has.) What's more, now that the campaign has extended well into it's ninth month, both candidates have become household names, and the subjects of many round-the-table discussions. Our honourable friend, Mr McCain has somewhat slid off the radar. For the neutral bystanders among us, like myself, voting for a Democratic candidate seems an easy option, but that would severely misread the scale of the Democratic operation. Not only do they have to overcome this lengthy affair unscathed, with a viable contender, they also have to overcome the Republican party, similar to the Conservatives switching places with Labour in Briatin. This draws a close comparison; how many Labour back-benchers can you name? No reader of this blog could not name the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Education Minister, etc. But could you name the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Home Secretary? Probably not. However, with the election of Boris Johnson, we see that promiscuity of character can occasionally prevail as a valuable long-term investment, as the Tories would undoubtedly agree. This, my friends, poses a problem to the Republican Party in the US. Can they uphold public awareness to the point of total confidence? especially in the wake of the glossy Mr Obama and his web-friendly user base, the upcoming months will be interesting for this very reason. But will the media pick up on it as Matthew Yglesias has done in this month's Atlantic? I will.

9/11 Again

Whilst on the topic of 9/11, few may remember my commentary of the Pope's visit to the US. During his round trip he attended a memorial at Ground Zero in New York where he lent a prayer and a moment of reverie for the dead. This has to stop. As is the case with the anniversary of 9/11, each year the event takes on an even greater air of tragedy. This takes away from what the attacks actually embodied: an act of aggression. Needless to say, we must remember those who disastrously lost their lives, yet we must also remember the source of those terror-driven events. This lapse of judgement could represent a languid general mourning, whereby individuals prefer the memory as one of national tragedy rather than international warfare. This must be tackled head-on.

Zeitgeist

One of my closest friends, who could be credited with bringing The God Delusion to my attention, has now drawn my eye to this film, Zeitgeist. It's a very interesting piece of work, which forces you to question what you think you know. The first part, 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', introduces the central theme to the piece: dispelling commonly held myths. Indeed, we are given a highly persuasive analysis of Christianity's origins and the life of Jesus Christ with direct reference to classical mythology and ancient history. The conclusion we inevitably come to is that Jesus did not exist at all. The title, Zeitgeist, is a clever illustration of the times we live in - one cannot deny a changing of the tides, where education has enabled the West to see through the transparent falsities of our culture. Unfortunately, the film quickly descends into mere conspiracy in the same vein as Loose Change. In fact, the next section tries its level best to portray the 9/11 attacks as an inside job orchestrated by the US government, something which was categorically rubbished by the British media last year. What would have cemented the film's success is a continuous discourse, interlocking the various sections to a central topic. What the second part does demonstrate, however, is that Humans still prefer a conspiracy theory to no theory at all, indicative of our bumpy evolutionary past, something which the religious, incidentally, fail to accept.

A Philosophical Question

Question: If something exists repeatedly across Time's infinity, but with lacunae in between, can this, therefore, exist eternally? Answers on a postcard.

Surveillance States

Once again, statistics have proved what we already knew - CCTV has no great deterrent value, nor does it aid police in locating their suspects. Orwell was not simply an alarmist, but he foresaw with worrying detail the potential damage of such a state. In last month's Free Inquiry, Nat Hentoff points out that people's malcontent for public surveillance is not resultant of their fear of being watched, but more-so of their unknowing: are they being watched or not? This kind of unknowing manifests distrust and inevitably leads to everyday paranoia. Indeed, in sociology there exists such a concept as the 'Panoptic Gaze', which identifies the innate onlooker within all of us; we conduct ourselves at all times as if someone were watching. Did the July 7th bombers know they were being filmed as they ambled through the London Underground? Of course. Would they have conducted themselves differently if they thought otherwise? No. The same is true for any individual travelling through the great surveillance states like London, or American college campuses. Why then do our governing bodies insist on bringing us this supposedly pro-active vigilance when there remains no discernible merit? Why then has the FBI commissioned a $1 billion enterprise to database people's physical characteristics, from the way we walk to the sound of our voice? Human privacy is being eroded at massive cost for seemingly no benefit, and yet the movement continues. Our vulnerabilities are exposed on a daily basis in our ignorance of this matter. The next time you see an oblong box jutting from a building corner, or a convex black chandelier suspiciously protruding from the ceiling, do as your fellow author and extend a finger with relish.

The scourging abruptness of Pat Condell

"Just a couple of weeks ago, the classic story of the three little pigs, the classic children's story, was censored by a committee of English middle-class bed-wetters desperate to show how culturally sensitive they are at everybody else's expense. And it's a classic story, we all know the story, I'm sure. The three little pigs, they're building their houses, aren't they? One of brick, one of wood, and with a naivety that would embarrass even a dimmy Archbishop, one of straw. And we all know what happens. The big bad wolf comes along and blows down the first two houses, but he can't blow down the brick one, so he flies an aeroplane into it and blames the Jews. [Pause] Isn't that it?"
-- Pat Condell, Sharia Fiasco (10/02/2008).

100 Most Influential People

Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People edition arrived through my postbox recently and I was slightly surprised to see Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of the Warner Music Group, write some very astute words about Radiohead and their pioneering move to release In Rainbows for whatever price you like: "If any band could extend its creativity and spirit to redefine an entire industry, it would be Radiohead." Equally as surprising was Radiohead's categorisation under the 'Builders & Titans' section, as opposed to the preceding 'Artists & Entertainers' section; a peculiar gesture of good-will I suppose. However, what was most striking about Time's list was their ration of male to female influentials. I haven't counted the exact number, but I'd expect a 4:1 split in favour of the men. Obviously, measuring "influence" is entirely subjective, and their list is cast through a lengthy public vote, so, one would suspect their list reflects society rather than dictates society. Indeed, Time's list is global, and women are subject to suppression in many of the countries where these individuals originate from. And yet, there is a putrid stench of irony in the air when they cover those men campaigning for women's liberation but fail to include those most orchestrative in garnering a cultural movement. Where was the inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, or Benazhir Bhutto, or even J.K. Rowling? Much is made of those who are effected, but not those who affect. Here lies the ongoing flaw in Time's many lists. Only months ago did I comment on their judgement of 'Person of the Year' - Vladimir Putin, "Tsar of the New Russia". As we can see, winning one of these competitions is not necessarily something to be proud of, but surely women play a more prominent role in our global direction than what Time implies. In case you needed further proof, check this alternative cover to this weeks edition; if you squint your eyes, is that a woman or a man?

Pat Condell

Richard Dawkins has churned out another questionable business venture through his website recently after having collaborated with Pat Condell to release a DVD with all of Pat's internet videos. As is the case with most of Professor Dawkins' videos, they're all there for the eye to see on YouTube. However, if you have not come across Pat Condell before, you have missed something rather spectacular. Having joined YouTube about a year ago he has released periodical tirades against everything he despises about religion. Whilst his laments begin fairly sweetly, with a resounding dose of quintessential British tolerance, he later finds himself ranting until he's red in the face with regard to whatever he picks up as his latest topic. Strangely, he's ranked third in the UK's most subscribed-to comedy channels, yet what Pat discusses is rarely laughable. Covering topics ranging from 'Catholic morality' to 'the trouble with Islam', he's come in for stark debate. May he be arrested, or murdered, for what he has to say? Very likely. May the individuals he criticises face immediate opposition from the powers that be? Very unlikely. This, dear reader, is the problem with European society as it stands, as depicted encouragingly by this American news piece. I leave you with a section from his clip, 'Sharia fiasco':

The solution is to prosecute those who incite terror; to close down the mosques and deport the imams. Any sane society would be doing this automatically. We need to stop treating Islam like a special needs case.

Obama and the Reverend

Barack Obama has credited himself wisely by denouncing the absurd preachings of his "former" pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This man appears to be having a party at the expense of our glossy candidate, fully taking advantage of his position. With quotes such as, "God damn America", and, "you cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you", this merely acts to reinforce the depressing claim that you really can say anything as long as you have the term 'Reverend' before your name. Just as a simple thought experiment, therefore, what would become of this man if he dressed in Muslim garb, stood atop a box in Hackney, and spewed the same anti-social nonsense? Would he be arrested for inciting violence, racial hatred, or terrorist acts? Let us hope so. But that does not excuse the drivelling fool from projecting his warped, transparently Christian, beliefs. Lest we forget that Obama has similar associates being tried for terrorist accusations in Illinois as we speak. At last the media has caught up with the problems of Obama's past. These are questions that need to be raised, and the free ride he's received so far from the press has got to stop. For those of you who feel somewhat left behind by the whole debacle, watch this Slate recap of the entire Democratic election in 7 minutes.

Terrorism and Islam

A drought of opinion has kept me away from this page since Sunday, but low and behold, news pieces have flooded in which compel me to comment. Firstly, the news yesterday of the teenager charged under the Terrorism Act displays wonderfully how this insipid religion can affect the minds of the young, to their infinite detriment. Not only have we seen doctors careering into airport terminals in Scotland, we've now seen British-born youths engaging in calculated plots to bring on our demise. The police officer issuing a press-release yesterday even had the cheek to condemn the news coverage for stirring fear and racial hatred within the community - I don't wish to be overly prudent, but surely this sick young man did that all by himself. Alas, this wasn't the first, nor the youngest teenager to be arrested under suspicious circumstances; in 2003 a 17 year-old from Northern Ireland was charged with possessing items likely to be used for acts of terrorism. Indeed, our whole media furore is at the whim of what these mindless individuals can think of next, as demonstrated by the morning news today, the who-cares news of newly released CCTV footage apparently showing our terrorist counterparts at work. Should we provide these people with a viable media outlet? I think not. Much in the same was as the media has a moral responsibility not to cover teenage suicides in Bridgend, surely we have an intrinsic duty not to flaunt these muppets over the news. The whole debacle has incensed me to the point where I give you this short poem I wrote the day after the Glasgow Airport attacks:

Islamorama

Today the ocean shed a tear. To-
Day the sun quivered in the sky.
Today the moon and stars shone red.
Today the living lived in fear.
Today I drew a breath and smirked.
Today I prayed our war had worked.
Today I ended a terminal phase.
Today I set myself ablaze.