The Obscurer

Friday 10th June 2005

A House Is Not A Motel

Regular readers (not that there seem to be many left now I have returned from holiday) will notice a redesign of this site. Basically I got a bit fed up with visiting other blogs and finding they looked identical to mine, using the standard “scribe” template from Blogger. I was happy with the way my blog looked, but I decided as my comments and observations on life are uninspired, unoriginal and far from unique, the least I can do is have a website that looks different from lots of others out there.

Not that the new look is exactly a state of the art or cutting edge design, pretty much a straight lift of the look you find on many of the TypePad blogs; but I do like the neat uncluttered way those blogs look, and so I hope I have done a half decent copy. Anyway, if you’d told me when I started this blog last year that I would be able to do any sort of HTML redesign at all I would have laughed. But not to your face; I am not that rude.

While I am doing some “blog housekeeping” I will just mention the addition of The Sharpener to my list of links; not that this group blog needs further publicity as it seems to be doing just fine by itself. However, I do think it is worth noting that The Sharpener is a great blog, with some excellent writing from some fine bloggers, and along with Tim Worstall’s BritBlog Roundup every Sunday is a fantastic time saving device for someone like myself whose “blogging time” (largely of my own volition) is somewhat limited. The quality of the posts so far has been very high, and has introduced me to a couple of nice blogs at Third Avenue and Actually Existing. If you haven’t already, give it a go.

Leave a comment
Saturday 4th June 2005

The Nanny State We're In

I watched a few minutes of Grumpy Old Men last night, just before popping out for a Chinese take-away, and it made me realise how happy-go-lucky and un-grumpy I actually am.
The subject this week was “The Nanny State”, and its opening narration neatly encapsulated the somewhat ambivalent attitudes some people have on the subject. I am paraphrasing, obviously, but the voice-over went something like “There was a time when at least you were free from the state’s nannying influence in the morning, when you could retire to the bathroom and dream up new laws you would like implementing”. In other words, the nanny state interfering in your life is wrong, but you want the state to enact more laws to interfere in others’ business . Smashing.

This is part of the “Daily Mail paradox”. If you were to do a statistical breakdown I would suspect that the phrase “the nanny state” has been used more often in the Mail than in all other publications throughout history put together. At the same time, no other paper is quite so active when it comes to calling for further restrictions on drinking, gambling, video games, films, television programmes and so on. If the Mail doesn’t like it, then it should be banned; if it does, then the nanny state should leave it alone.

But what were the specific intrusions by the state as voiced in Grumpy Old Men? Well, the first was being told about testicular self-examination. Oh cruel and tyrannical state! How dare you educate people about health issues? Personally, since puberty, I have been checking my balls daily for no good reason, but I am not forced to do so by law. Perhaps the contributors live in different health authorities with different byelaws, but I doubt anyone is committing an offence in not feeling their bollocks.

Then there was the old bore about CCTV cameras. “I don’t want to be watched 24 hours a day,” wailed one grump. Well, you’re not, so don’t worry; even the people in the CCTV room probably spend more time eating sandwiches and reading the paper than watching people on the monitors. I know I would if I worked there. Arthur Smith complained that sometimes he just wants to get away from peoples’ attention, but is unable to thanks to CCTV. Someone should tell him that CCTV cameras tend to be on private property, where he shouldn’t be in the first place, or in large city centres, where it is nigh on impossible to avoid other people. I suggest he tries the Cotswolds; quiet, isolated and CCTV camera free.

Just before I left to collect my Salt and Pepper Chicken with Boiled Rice they were talking about smoking bans. Now, despite being a non-smoker I am against a law preventing smoking in public places, but the complaint here seemed to be about non-smoking areas anywhere in society. Why? If a shop or bar wants to have a no-smoking policy then that isn’t the nanny state, that is an individual company exercising its freedom to run a business how it sees fit. But, as with “political correctness”, “the nanny state” is a term that people seem to bandy about whenever to describe something they don’t like.

Now listen, I am against the state interfering in areas that are not its concern, I have made that point several times here already; but I actually find myself getting more annoyed by stupid “nanny state” comments of the sort made in Grumpy Old Men. I know, I know, Grumpy Old Men is meant as a mildly amusing programme there to entertain and perhaps I am over-reacting, but whatever the humourous intent the opinions offered were serious and genuinely held. In the end I wondered what the contribitors were actually bothered about. Even the things objected to seemed largely trivial and not at all intrusive; I got the impression of a group of well off and comfortable people who wanted to play the part of the downtrodden railing against tyranny, or maybe just the arrogant whingeing about being told what to do. Orwell’s name was invoked, obviously, as if talk of the “thought police” and the “ministry of truth” was relevant, but I think that is overdoing it a bit.

When a speed camera caught me the other week I was pissed off, but as I knew that I was doing 90 mph on the A74 just because I wanted to reach my destination quicker I just accepted it, rather than moan about “big brother”. I don’t think Orwell was attacking the use of technology to enforce perfectly sensible laws in 1984; similarly, although he coined phrases such as “thought crime” and “newspeak”, I doubt he would have worried about the sort of “political correctness gone mad” where “you can’t even call people a ‘spastic’ or a ‘paki’ nowadays”*. No, I think he had some significantly more important concepts in mind when he penned his tale of a totalitarian future.

*this is not so much a direct quote as a generic “political correcteness gone mad” comment.

Leave a comment
Wednesday 1st June 2005

Go West

Interesting programme on Channel Five yesterday (and it’s not often you hear me say that) with Mikhail Gorbachev presenting Big Ideas That Changed The World; in this case the big idea being communism. We were given a little potted history of communism, which was interesting if not revelatory, but interspersed with Gorbachev’s own commentary it became quite fascinating.

Gorbachev is still clearly a fan of Marx’s theories, and was at pains to stress how the central planning, repression and cult of personality of the Stalin era had nothing to do with the Communist Manifesto. Growing up in a staunchly communist family it is little wonder Gorbachev was attracted to the theories at first; less so when you learned that his grandfather, who was a party member, was tortured by the secret police for withholding some grain for his family. Self-delusion seems to have been, to some extent, the order of the day, as Gorbachev’s grandfather insisted that Stalin could not have known the true barbarity of the regime; today, Gorbachev tells that he has seen with his own eyes the execution orders signed in Stalin’s hand.

But despite this early eye-opener into the Soviet Union’s totalitarian nature, Gorbachev became a loyal party worker, and rose rapidly through the ranks. The Red Army’s success in the Second World War actually illustrated one way in which central planning, however brutally applied, could be a huge advantage in times of war. Following the end of the war, as communist governments sprang up across eastern Europe and the world, as Gorbachev recalled the Soviet superiority in technology, sport, the arts and the space race, and while Khrushchev made some modest reforms, you can imagine how Gorbachev, amongst others, would be unlikely to question communism, and could see it as a system for the future.

For Gorbachev, disillusionment set in when Brezhnev replaced Khrushchev and turned the clock back to the Stalinist era of centralisation, the arms race, tyranny and ultimately stagnation. Gorbachev laughed when he remembered politburo meetings that even discussed the minutia of the production of women’s underwear.

When he became leader he was still an advocate of communism, but wanted it to be reinvigorated with greater freedoms and democracy. Today he speaks of how Marx’s followers (but not Marx) did a lot of damage, by suppressing trade and enterprise, and much of what drives a normal society. Interestingly he also believes that the west needs its own perestroika; that capitalism suppresses other human values of equality and solidarity, and that the lesson from communism, that it is an error to try to suppress universal human values, can equally apply to capitalism. I am not quite sold on this theory myself, but certainly I feel that any strict adherence to one ideology is likely to be a mistake, and that capitalism is capable of some pretty unpleasant outcomes that we should not turn a blind eye to. Surely, just as elements of free market liberalism were required in the Soviet Union to make it a more free society, so in the west the state must also play an important role in making society a fairer one. Many people seem to have an automatic aversion to either markets or to state involvement, but I think they both have a role to play; it is just a question of balance. But I am repeating what I have said in previous posts, now, so I will shut up.

One final thing, though; this programme was also a timely reminder of Europe’s recent history. As the television screen was filled with images of the Berlin Wall being torn down, Gorbachev spoke of how he refused to use the Red Army to intervene as the old communist leaders of eastern Europe were swept from power. I couldn’t help thinking of how, last year, when he died, Ronald Reagan was considered almost solely responsible for the dismantling of the communist regimes and the end of the cold war. This year it was the Pope’s turn. No doubt next year, when Thatcher dies, she will get all the plaudits. I think that Gorbachev, more than anyone else, deserves the credit.

2 Comments
Thursday 26th May 2005

Veggie Chile (Slight Return)

Well, I am back off holiday (yes, I had a lovely time, thanks), and the world appears to still be turning despite the hiatus in my blog. This is the first chance I have had to bash anything out, and I suspect posts will become less frequent and more brief from now on, but who knows. Stay tuned, if you can be bothered.

I have landed back home in the middle of National Vegetarian Week, but I won’t be joining the celebrations; after all, I had about eighty vegetarian weeks in 1993 and 1994, so I have done my bit for the rest of my life I suspect. Fair play to those who have lasted longer at this meat free lark than I managed; in the end the smell of grilled bacon and roast chicken became too much and I lapsed.

I suppose that it is events such as National Vegetarian Week that irritate some people about the vegetarian movement, and vegetarians in general; the stereotype of a pasty faced evangelist trying to ram his or her opinions (and some braised soya bean curd) down other peoples’ throats, but this seems unfair to me. Every vegetarian I know, or have known, has been supremely indifferent to what I eat; they have never pushed their opinions on me and have never complained about my preference for eating dead animals. I have probably encountered more lobbying from those people following the latest fad diet – the hay diet, the Atkins diet, the South Sea Bubble diet – than I have from vegetarians; at least vegetarians don’t look at a simple ham sandwich as a contradiction and a paradox, like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma then wrapped in bread.

What a difference compared to when I was a vegetarian, and carnivores regularly questioned my motivation and reasoning behind spurning meat. Unless you are, or have been, a vegetarian then it is probably hard to understand the general grief you have to put up with just for eating a Quorn fillet. It can range from some people just thinking you are a bit odd to others actually arguing that to not eat meat is itself wrong. Of course most people were fine and even supportive during my flirtation with vegetarianism; but there were still enough people who seemed to have such a problem with it that it makes me smile whenever I hear people complain about vegetarians being intolerant of meat eaters. During by stint, a stranger even called me a weirdo when I collected my vegetarian pizza from a take away; although I suppose there are plenty of other reasons they could have had for thinking I am a bit strange.

Still, if you are one of those people who gets wound up by the antics of those you perceive as being pushy vegetarians, just think on if you could be a pushy carnivore, and let them be. Unless they are one of those annoying, superior vegetarians, of course, because they do exist; then do as you please.

Leave a comment
Saturday 7th May 2005

Cattle Prods And The IMF

I probably shouldn’t be writing this, after the amount of Stella I have been drinking tonight, and at this time of the night/morning, but time is pressing. Anything I write that is particularly stupid will be deleted in the morning, leaving only the plainly stupid to remain. What the hell; here I go.

As you may have noticed, I haven’t managed to do any live-blogging of the general election. It was never going to happen. I was watching the television coverage in bed by 1 am, and I was asleep by 3 am; so kudos to NoseMonkey, amongst others, who managed to cover the whole event. I hope their insomnia is soon cured.

Here in sunny Cheadle the LibDems managed to turn a tiny majority of 33 into a comfortable majority of 4,020. Bizarrely, in the most marginal seat in the country, the Con Club at the top of my road only put up their “Vote Conservative” posters last week. They really didn’t deserve to win here. It looks as if the LibDems won because of a collapse in the Labour vote. I really don’t understand this whole business of swings, though. The BBC website reports a 4.2% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrats, when if you look at the figures, the Tories vote was largely static, while Labour voters switched to the LibDems (Cheadle is fucking weird, though; this time there was a swing to the LibDems; in 1992 the Tories increased their majority. Madness).

Across the country a similar story seems to have emerged. Labour has simply shed voters in all directions; they have done a starburst towards any other party. The war seems to have played a larger part in the election than I suspected it would, but Labour are still by far the largest party in parliament. There was never much doubt that Labour would form the government in this election, but next time it may not be so clear cut, and so it will be interesting to see if in the next election people still feel they can afford a protest vote against the government. Whatever people think of Blair, or the war, I don’t think that there is a feeling at the moment that people want to see the back of Labour, whereas in 1992 the country was thoroughly sick of the Tories and wanted them gone, they just lost their nerve in the polling booth; by 1997 nothing short of divine intervention could have saved them. In improving their share of the vote by just 0.6% this time it still doesn’t seem as if the nation is particularly enamoured with the Conservatives just yet.

Well done to Jon Chatfield by the way, an old college friend of mine, for increasing the LibDem vote in Cambridgeshire South East; I was in the land of nod, unfortunately, by the time that result came through. I was also sleeping for the exchange between the God-like Paxman and the twattish Galloway (no prizes for guessing which side I am on in this argument), but thanks to the wonder of the Internet you can watch it again (and again) here. Wherever you stand on the war, I think it is a terrible thing that Galloway has won in Bethnal Green and Bow; egos like his don’t need feeding any further. I would like to think that he has delusions of grandeur, but unlike Kilroy he actually does seem to have some supporters; and let’s face it, they are welcome to him. On a better note, I am happy that the deeply irritating television presenter Esther McVey has failed to win Wirral West. When I heard they were doing various recounts in the constituency I did hazard a guess that she had lost, but just couldn’t accept it. I don’t know the woman, so I may be doing her a disservice, but that is the way it appeared to me.

I mainly watched the coverage of the election on the BBC which was pretty good; I just wish they wouldn’t give Peter Snow so many electronic toys to play with. That graphic of the party leaders walking down Downing Street was totally embarrassing, and I don’t ever want to see it ever again. That said, whenever I flicked over to ITV or Sky (usually when Dead Ringers’ Jon Culshaw appeared on the screen) they also succumbed to the corny graphics; it must be obligatory in the media these days.

What now? Hopefully we will see the government taking more notice of parliament this time round. Blair I suppose will have some more of his “difficult decisions” to make for a while yet, but for how long? He has looked rattled and grumpy all campaign, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he just wants out now. Some have mentioned that he would like to see Britain through signing the EU Constitution, but as there is not a cat in hell’s chance of winning that referendum (that’s if another country hasn’t scuppered it by the time it gets to us) there is not much for him to hang around for. Perhaps he may stay long enough so he can hand the leadership over at a convenient time, so Brown can still call the next election during his own honeymoon period. I guess we will wait and see.

As he has not managed to get elected I suppose Jon Chatfield’s mind will be allowed to wander this weekend to the possibility that his beloved Everton could qualifying for the Champion’s League. I sincerely hope they do, for my many Everton acquaintances such as Jon (in Cambridge, via Weymouth), Mike (Cheadle Hulme, via Formby and Canberra), John (Wallasey) and AJE (the blogosphere). I think it is quite right that if the FA have four positions for the competition then they fill them with the top four teams in their premier competition. If UEFA want their champions to appear in their competition, they should change their rules. End of story.

Will City join them in Europe? Well, it is a tough call. By tomorrow the UEFA cup could be out of reach, a slim possibility, or even in our own hands since we play Middlesbrough in out last game. Whatever happens, I think Stuart Pearce has shown enough to get the job permanently. As was said on Occupied Country “all we are saying is give Pearce a chance”. Well, he has had his chance, and I actually feel more confident about City’s progress now than I have done for a while. Off hand, I can’t think of anyone I would prefer to be our manager.

And at the bottom of the table? Well apologies to Saints fans, but I really hope Southampton go down. It is about time. I never used to mind them; they used to have the Le Tissier for one thing; for another, they allowed my ultimate hero, Gio Kinkladze, to carve them open for this goal. However, the very same season that Kinky scored that goal Southampton and Coventry both stayed in the premiership on goal difference while we were relegated. The following season both clubs once more finished just above the relegation places, and I decided they were living on borrowed time. Employing Gordan Strachan as my emissary I despatched him to get both sides relegated. He worked wonders at Coventry, and when he left them for Southampton it all seemed to be falling into place. It was my idea for him to initially be successful at Southampton in order to avoid suspicion; but during the Saints’ “relegation year” he let it slip that he would be leaving at the end of the season; so he was sacked and Southampton survived. With luck, perhaps this season is the time that my thwarted ambitions are finally realised.

So, in this post we’ve had politics, and sport; what about Fimbles? Well, hopefully I will have a few weeks free from their annoying influence. I am off on holiday tomorrow for a fortnight; to Rumbling Bridge in Perthshire for a week, followed by a further week in Bowness on Windermere (picture above). Where I go, I hope Cbeebies can’t follow. As a consequence there will be no blogging from me for the next few weeks, unless I spot a passing Internet café by a lonely tarn, and even then…

I will see you all in a couple of weeks; take care, and look after yourselves.

PostScript: if you are unhappy about a Labour victory in the election, then just look at what you could have won, (via Shot By Both Sides). Not far from the truth, if you ask me (but did you?).

Leave a comment