Monday 31 August 2009

Top 10 differences between the Taliban & the Saudis

1. Both make their money from selling black, sticky stuff to the West BUT for the Taliban it's Opium and Hashish; for Suadis, it's oil

2. Both favour public floggings, amputations and executions BUT the Saudi like decapitating with swords; while the Taliban like to hang people from cranes

3. The Taliban face Mecca to pray, BUT the Saudis pray in Mecca, since they own it.

4. Both like their women to wrap up warmly BUT the Taliban do it against -21C winters & the winter minima are 8C in Saudi

5. All the attackers, bar one, on the World Trade Centre in New York were Saudis BUT none were Taliban

6. The Saudis had a 75 year old widow flogged in public this year BUT the Taliban had a 17 year old girl flogged in public this year.

7. The Taliban drink lots of Tea BUT The Saudis prefer to drink Coffee

8. The Saudis are anti-democratic, so are the Taliban BUT the Saudis like Monarchy, the Taliban Theocracy

9. The Taliban speak Pashto BUT the Saudis speak Arabic

10. NATO has been killing somewhere between 6 and 10 Taliban a day for the past 8 years BUT NATO is killing nobody in Saudi Arabia

Saturday 29 August 2009

Smoking and living

Smoking kills. Yes, it does, but it doesn't kill everybody, and even those it does, it doesn't kill at once. It takes its time. So, if you're (you, gentle reader, for it's probably only 'reader' in the singular, means 'one', but, I avoid 'one' as some, those with uncomfortable chips on their shoulders mainly, think you're being snobbish if you use 'one' - Kiwis might string you up for that alone if stringing people up wasn't also not in the pc bible) young, and, as we all do, you believe that you'll live for ever, then smoking seems a good idea.

In the old-fashioned sixties words, smoking is cool, it's groovy, it's svelte - at least you are, because it keeps you slim.

It does, though, for those it chooses to kill, kill very horribly; not just lung cancer, not just emphysema, but other horrors too many to mention.

It's not just death either, it gives you wrinkles, makes you short of breath and, unless you meet another smoker, or somebody who likes kissing ashtrays (and there aren't many of those around these days), it restricts your love-life.

So, what can you do? You can't give it up because you're addicted - and you might get fat, and there's the risk that you may not develop those lovely wrinkles, and your heart might keep you going until you're 96.

A solution? Yes, many. One is to smoke cigars - the risk from them is about a tenth of that from cigarettes. But, sadly, they are very expensive. More, even, that cigarettes. Even cigarillos cost more than cigarettes (petite cigars, or course). Also, with cigars there's the problem, for women anyway, that the sort of women who like cigars tend also to be thought as having a penchant for snappy suits, ties, body hair (a moustache if they can manage it) and vegetarianism. This is not prime man catching territory. Often a wrong perception, but, there you are, it happens. The tobacco in cigarettes contains a number of nasty chemicals, particularly saltpetre, which is what makes cigarettes continue to burn, even when not smokes, unlike cigars - roll-up tobacco has none of these unhealthy additives.

So, what to do. Simple - roll-ups. Firstly they have health advantages. Not as healthy as cigars, because of the paper, but much better than cigarettes. Also, secondly, maybe, they cut down your intake because they take time to roll. Rolling them is good, too, for the psyche, being a meditative act. Old Holbourn is a fair exemplar of the tobacco to choose. They have, too, a certain style, not, as you might think, only the aging hippy, but also the free thinker, modern woman. Yes, you get some nudge-nudge, wink-wink sort of comments from people who think you're a secret (or not so much) ganja smoker, but a superior air sorts them out quite quickly. Also, you smell a lot less rank with roll-ups - not, I agree, if your taste in man runs to the Anosmic, a handy preference if you're also a lousy cook. You also get used to the soggy ends - if you don't you can buy filters in packets or, like the ganja smokers, tear up handy pieces of cardboard to make a filter.

The only cheaper option is to get fag ends out of dustbins, which, not to put a PC gloss on it, about as nice as the other sort of fag end. But it's cheap.

You'll be asking now, if there are other disadvantages to roll-ups (if you're still with me, that is). Yes. If you've not been brought up properly to know that other people's property is theirs, and not to be taken, then, on a trip to Saudi Arabia, you might find that even mild kleptomania isn’t taken lightly and you’ll have to learn to roll them single-handed. Similar problems arise if you’re a trifle clumsy but a D.I.Y enthusiast. There is a solution, though; you can buy machines that roll for you. Not very chic, but then, Captain Hook wasn’t a fashion victim.

As a responsible adult (from time to time, anyway), I must repeat that giving the nasty things up is really the best solution.

This blog is dedicated to my muse, my inspiration, my friend, and my niece Zara - to be found blogging at: http://ow.ly/nhzp - be sure to follow her (if you like the blog - as you will)

Sunday 2 August 2009

In praise of Common Law


It's true that there's no absolute, platonic, abstraction of
jurisprudence to appeal to. This doesn't, though, mean that it is 'all
relative' or that justice (as opposed to law) can be arrived at only
by some sort of loose agreement.

We're an animal (and there are others) that has evolved a strong moral
sense. We can distinguish fair from unfair and right from wrong. This
sense does not, of course, mean that everybody behaves morally, all
the time; even ants in an ant colony sometimes rebel.

It does, though, mean that we can identify the clear, constant bases
of justice. There's a long historical record from which the essential
matters can be deduced. This is the basis of the soundest form of law,
Common Law, the gradually accreted body of a multitude of small
judgements, taken as precedents, that embodies our internal moral
system, particularly with its exceptions, contradictions and evolved
attitudes to, for example, the relative power of monarchs to ordinary
people, and the legitimacy of torture, execution and arbitrary
detention.

Unfortunately, where common law has been strongest, there's been
something of a conspiracy of politicians [the correct term for a
collection of the creatures, I believe] to replace this with the badly
drafted, idiot inspired, bloated corpus of legislation.

This erosion of an essentially sound system by an essentially foolish
one, has led to the decline in the respect for law that properly
attends such a decline in the essential requirements for respect -
justice, fairness and impartiality. This, in turn, has led to a
decline in justice, which, in turn, as a simple consequence, has led
to an increase in crime.