Print Story All You Zombies
Diary
By TheophileEscargot (Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:22:48 AM EST) Reading, Watching, Museums, MLP (all tags)
Listening: "Era of the Crusades". Watching: "Zombieland", Panorama. Museums: "Pop Life". Web.


What I'm Listening To
Era of the Crusades by Kenneth W. Harl. Thorough, excellent course covering the history of the Crusades through three different sides: the Moslem lands, Western Europe and Byzantium. Avoids over-simplifying and deals with the various motives for going on crusade: honour and glory as well as economic gain and political advantage.

Makes a useful counter to the "clash of civilizations" theory. All the actors seemed as much concerned with battling their local same-civilization opponents as clashing with others. The Crusaders made headway against a moslem world divided between Abbasid Baghdad, Fatimid Egypt and the Turks: just as the initial advance of Islam did not cause Europe to unite, the Crusaders didn't stop them fighting amongst themselves. Saladin is now remembered as a pan-islamic hero, but faced as a Kurd and a Sunni faced tough opposition: at one point even having to fight off an Assassin jumping out of a tree at him. Moreover, crusaders like Alamric I were happy to be hired by Fatimid leaders to fight Egyptian rivals.

Harl makes other interesting points too. At the time, the relevant states had large Christian populations. The occupiers used a feudal model: he regards it as anachronistic to think of the crusader states as much like the later European colonies.

Was also interested by the battle of Myriocephalon, where a large crusader army was ambushed and annihilated from high ground as they marched through a canyon they had failed to scout. This constantly happens in Fantasy books, but I don't recall having seen it in real life before.

Also found that the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was more accurate than I thought, even down to most of the characters involved. However, Guy and Raymond weren't quite as idiotic in real life: they ran out of water because the enemy had stopped up the wells: not just because they just ignored the need for water even after the hero lectured them about it. However, the basic idea that they made a mistake by choosing a battle to improve their reputation, rather than conducting cagey positional warfare, seems to be true.

Overall, excellent course, well worth listening to.

What I'm Watching
Saw Zombieland at the cinema. Liked it a lot, good comedy playing with zombie-horror stereotypes. Crisply and cleverly done, though it sags a little bit in the middle. Well worth seeing.

What I'm Watching 2
Saw the recent Panorama on racism on the Southmead estate near Bristol.

Somewhat depressing to watch, but didn't seem particularly startling. Didn't like the way supposed journalists seem to have been reduced to victimized wailing: rather than do any investigating, they seem to be there to provide an emotional reaction.

Museums
Went to Tate Modern to catch up with the latest batch of exhibitions.

The latest Turbine Hall installation is How It Is by Miroslaw Balka: a giant metal container, dark on the inside, where you walk in to be supposedly baffled and confused.

Very underwhelming. It's not actually that dark and you can see OK once your eyes adjust. It's totally blown away by Anthony Gormley's older take on the concept, "Blind Light" which was a huge glass room full of steam, which was genuinely disorienting and disturbing. This is dull by comparison.

I'm not that keen on Pop Art, but went through the heavily-hyped Pop Life exhibition anyway. Better than I thought, there's plenty of bright colours and shiny objects to look at, and pop music plays to keep you getting bored.

All seems a bit repetitive though, after three different artists have tried to shock you with (gasp) porn, it becomes even less shocking. Review, review, review.

By then was a bit arted out. Zoomed quickly through the conceptual John Baldessari exhibition but it didn't seem very good at a glance: yet another case of all concept, no impact.

Pics
Played around some more with the new camera (Canon PowerShot SX200). Seems pretty good: the zoom and the larger aperture make it possible to get shots at a range and with movement that I couldn't with the Ixus.

Glad I didn't go for a SLR as I find even this modest size unwieldy: it's harder to just whip out and snap. At the BNP/BBC demo I could have got a nice snap of the police photographer and his minders with the Ixus, but wimped out and didn't dare be too obvious, so the only pic I got was hopelessly blurred.

A40 Bridge 2453

After Demo 2495

Wire sculpture Ealing Central Library 2531

Seagulls Hampstead Heath 2636

How It Is at Tate Modern 2506

Hampstead Heath City from Parliament Hill 2655

Web
Economics. Deficit may still undershoot.

Sci/Tech. Moon tunnels. LED lamps overrated. Bobbit Worm.

Video. British fascists march, rough housed in Sixties. Lego pop-up temple. Flying panties. Done the rounds now: Cassetteboy Question Time remix.

Random. Great sportsman. Movie to be made of Iain M. Banks' A Gift from the Culture. HTTpanties. Why we only "stub" toes.

Pics. Kingfishers.

< These colours don't run... | Paddy One-Tune is undead! >
All You Zombies | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
well, headway against the muslim world was made.. by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #1 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:04:14 AM EST
Before the Crusades already. The Umayyads in Cordoba were already confined to the Iberian Peninsula after their losses at the Battle of Tours vs. the nascent Carolingian empire, and the several hundred years of Reconquista that followed were kind of a public beta for the Crusades.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

yeah although by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #3 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:43:16 AM EST
interestingly, the major success of the reconquista was in the 100 years or so immediately preceding the first crusade --- the christian kingdoms of hispania basically hugged the north side of the mountains (and the catalunya coast) until the start of the 11th century, and the major advances weren't until the middle of the 11th century, when the local caliphate just seemed to fall apart.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
caliphate fell apart earlier than that by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #24 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:59:19 PM EST
The Umayyad dynasty ended in 1031 and the Caliphate splintered into city-states.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
1031 by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #25 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 05:28:27 PM EST
is just on the border between early 11th century and mid 11th century.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #10 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:38:52 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
right, for them it wasn't major, but it stopped.. by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #23 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:53:22 PM EST
northward expansion. So it's not really a Caliphate loss, but rather the lack of another win.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #27 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:17:34 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Indeed by dmg (2.00 / 0) #2 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:19:54 AM EST
"after three different artists have tried to shock you with (gasp) porn, it becomes even less shocking" 


Modern art is rubbish

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
moslem v. muslim by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #4 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:38:19 PM EST
Is this simply a style issue?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

Pretty much by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #5 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:44:31 PM EST
But Muslim is the more recent and more common spelling... keep meaning to switch to it but generally forget.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Phonetic drift. by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #29 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:34:58 AM EST
"Moslem" is what the phonemes sounded like to Englishmen in 1800.  "Muslim" is what it sounds like to English speakers now.  Both English and Arabic have seen phonetic drift.

It's why "Peking" changed to "Beijing".  Spellings based on 16th century Spanish and 16th century Mandarin sound wrong to 20th century English speakers.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Beijing by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #52 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:31:39 AM EST
Do you have a source? I thought the change to Beijing (北京) was more driven by the growing power of the PRC in using a phonetic system defined by themselves (Hanyu pinyin). That's why it's still Taipei, even though the pei in Taipei (台北)is the same character and pronunciation as the bei in Beijing - because the ROC never changed systems and uses something closer to the old Wade-Giles system.

But I don't have anything very definitive to point to.

The Political Science Department of the University of Woolloomooloo

[ Parent ]
"wimped out, didn't dare be too obvious" by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #6 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:53:40 PM EST
Terrorists, won, etc.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

Well, I thought I might have got one by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #7 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:07:39 PM EST
But it was hopelessly blurry and the angle was wrong to see his camera:
Demo Photographer Cop 2489

Suspected the police would be on edge as they struggled earlier, some had to climb over a fence to escape the demonstrators.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Oh, and this just popped up by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #15 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:54:00 PM EST
Police spotter card.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Cute by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #26 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:15:36 AM EST
But seriously, a paper copy? You would have though Police State 2.0 had face recognition cameras by now.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Heh by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:36:35 AM EST
Someone seriously needs to get working with photoshop and a printer.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
You're right about SLRs by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #8 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:23:01 PM EST
They're really conspicuous. You have to be quite ballsy and blatant with them a lot of the time.

No mention of Question Time? The fallout has been quite mixed - a poll boost on the one hand, disunity in the party on the other. I'm sort of coming round to your point of view, although my democratic principles balk at it still.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #11 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:02:46 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Blah blah blah audience chooses the questions by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #14 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:46:30 PM EST
The questions being asked seemed predominately to be "why are you idiot racists so racist?" and I'd almost feelsootyy for nick griffin if he wasn't an idiot racist. It made question time look bad as well though I think. It made me think of "facists against facism" or someone saying, "eveyone has the right to free speech, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise'."

I really don't like the bnp though, I just think it showed up the "anti-bnp" as well

[ Parent ]
Audence Picks The Questions by priestess (4.00 / 1) #16 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:10:20 PM EST
The audience submit questions, then there's obviously some sort of selection process. The selection process has a lot of power behind it.

I like how he always says the panel don't know the questions in advance, which is weird coz, to about a 90% degree, I know the questions in advance. The same questions the media have been asking all week, usually with a bit of a local twist.

The media give the questions to the audience, the audience obediently hand 'em over to the BBC, who then select only the ones that they think relevent, based on what's gone on in the media.

I do think he should have been on the show though. There are racists in the country, loads of them, they have as much right to a voice as anyone else, reguardless of how insanely nutty they are. If you're gonna start banning loons, can we stop having representatives of the churches first please?

Pre...........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
According to his mother-in-law by Vulch (4.00 / 1) #21 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:54:50 PM EST
He's not only a racist, but hasn't done an honest days work in his life.


[ Parent ]
Didn't have much more to add by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #13 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:42:04 PM EST
I think I think it's all been said elsewhere, but repeating some things:

I don't think he should have been on QT. It should have been a BBC decision, not government censorship. It's not a free speech issue since the BNP already gets their Party Political Broadcast time: they're not entitled to get additional promotion by a public body.

Up to a point, it doesn't matter who won the debate. It's about legitimising that debate.

It's like the creationists. First it's "If you believed in free speech you'd debate us here". Then it's "if you believed in free speech you'd debate us everywhere". Then it's "now every time you mention the subject you have to mention this big controversy". At no point do they ever actually have to win a debate and prove that the world was created in 4004 BC. But that is now on the public agenda, presented as one of two sides. It's now just a matter of opinion, even though one opinion is true and one opinion is insane.

So, Griffin lost the debate, which is better than if he'd won the debate. But ethnic cleansing of the UK is now on the agenda, which is what he really wanted.

Hopefully the demo helped to denormalize the BNP up to a point, showing it's not just another party.

I think the BBC got panicked into changing their minds and turning it into an Everyone vs. Nick Griffin contest instead of a normal Question Time. But I don't think that's either better or worse than the alternatives of letting him sound reasonable and say "We in the BNP oppose fortnightly rubbish collections", or having a "fair" discussion where evenly matched sides calmly debate whether to racially purify the UK.

One thing that annoys me is that people seem to be repeating the talking point that "the mainstream parties ignore the immigration issue". If you look at the last Conservative election manifesto, "controlled immigration" was one of the 6 points on the front page. Labour's is less prominent on the front page as "secure borders", but they both promise curbs on asylum seekers, tougher border controls, and a points system.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
I haven't got much more to say either by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #17 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:21:56 PM EST
But free speech isn't just a legal thing. Having the BNP on fits the BBC's editorial line on where it has provided coverage in the past. They have their own line on bias and fairness they've built over years of political coverage.

The BNP have reached a certain threshold with the electorate. It's come to a point where a decision has to made on whether to legislate against them, either by tackling policies that should quite possibly be illegal or banning them from the air, or debating with them.

I don't think having them on QT was very positive at all, but don't think we can go on pretending they're not there any more either. I don't think it's working.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #18 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:26:12 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Possibly by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #19 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:33:42 PM EST
I think one leads to the other: if you're going to ban them from air, there needs to be a solid reason for doing so. It'd be inconsistent to ban them from air for, say, Holocaust denial if everyone else is allowed to talk about it.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
AUTHORITARIAN BOOKMARK by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #20 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:44:09 PM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
yay political censorship! (nt) by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:37:42 AM EST

---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #32 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:50:54 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
The excuse of tyrants by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #33 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:16:21 AM EST
Once the systems are in place, it's easy for tyrants to find lots of people who are trying to "end democracy".  Like GTO protesters, Green Peace and generally any group the government doesn't like.

If you don't apply democratic principles to everyone, then you don't really hold democratic principles.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:21:30 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Free speech by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:27:11 AM EST
Nazis have full free speech rights in the US and no political power.  The naive bit is thinking that banning offensive speech stops the movement that spans it.  The other naive bit is thinking that governments will stop at the offensive speech.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #36 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:31:06 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Why? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #37 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:41:10 AM EST
So governments can ban games involving shooting Nazis?

I'd prefer not putting the tools police states need in the name of stopping fascists.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #38 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:47:05 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Reassuring? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #39 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:54:11 AM EST
Note that even though Nazi skinheads in the US can and do wave Nazi flags in public, their party is mostly a joke, and the neonazi movement in the states is a fraction of the power of that in Germany, where they can be taken off the streets.

Having people carted away for their political statements seems neither sensible nor reassuring as it makes me wonder what will happen if those in power get it in their heads that my views are worth carting me off for.  Would you want George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deciding what speech was worthy of prison?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #40 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:58:07 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
They didn't. (nt) by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #43 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:23:16 PM EST

---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
This is where morality comes in by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #41 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:41:33 PM EST
We both know that the racism of the BNP is wrong while the issues Greenpeace protest about are right.   I don't know where we go from that conclusion, but to treat them as equals because of the similarity of their methods is absurd.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
You and I might by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:13:49 PM EST
There's plenty on the right that would reverse the two.

More to the point: do you want censorship laws on the books if the likes of the BNP gets people into positions of power?

The point of freedom of expression is not that all viewpoints are equally valid or moral.  The point is that you can't make an objective legal description that distinguishes the immoral from the moral.  The only options are to treat them all equal and hope that the public at large figures out what is moral, or you toss freedom of expression out the window and hope that the few that are in power figure out what is moral.

Personally, I prefer the former.  Regardless, the latter is not particularly compatible with Democracy.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
I don't think this is a free speech issue by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:46:29 AM EST
Most people were calling for the BBC to choose not to allow Griffin on the show, not for the government to ban them.

Lenin's Tomb had a bit on this.

...director-general, Mark Thompson, doesn't understand what is wrong with having the BNP on Question Time. He says it would be censorship not to have the BNP on Question Time. This is a man personally responsible for refusing to broadcast the DEC appeal over Gaza, a decision he presumably does not consider to be censorship. Yet the rationale he presents is at variance with the facts and with BBC doctrine. First of all, he says that the level of BNP support demonstrated in the Euro elections is sufficient to mandate an appearance by the fascists on Question Time. This is disingenuous, since we know that the BBC have been angling to arrange an appearance on the show by the BNP for a couple of years now, well before the recent election results...

[The BBC] has developed a set of discourses and practises that interpret its public service remit - the two key ones being 'trust' and 'compliance'. Those presenting and producing programmes have to get clearance from 'compliance' - a producer, an editor, an executive - who will approve or decline potentially troublesome incidents in a programme. Rosen pointed out that one example of 'compliance' at work was exhibited in a recent programme about King George VI. Because old George had a stutter, he was depicted as having a stutter. It had to go to compliance who advised that there was 'too much stutter' in evidence. So, there is no such thing as 'free speech' in the BBC: editorial controls are vast and intricate, and in this case deferred completely to any possible concerns of George's daughter, the current tinpot monarch, and her disgusting and illiterate family. As regards 'trust', the BBC requires that viewers - subscribers, co-owners in a sense - trust whatever appears on the BBC, and everyone who works for the BBC has to commit to upholding that trust. Trifling controversies, such as the Ross-Brand affair, constituted a breakdown in compliance and a breach of trust. So, the idea that hosting a fascist politician, with an explicit commitment to purging Britain of all of its non-white citizens, is in any sense uncontroversial by the standards of the BBC itself, is utterly false. What the BBC are doing is breaking with their own conventions to promote a fascist party before millions of people.

For more context, the BNP is not banned from running its adverts. Moreover, the British government specifically gives the BNP free television airtime for its political ads (what we call Party Political Broadcasts. The equivalent would be if the US Federal government paid for TV ads for the Ku Klux Klan. So, they're not being censored.

It's a bit like the K5 crapflooders complaining that they're being "censored" if they get deleted. They're free to say what they like on their own websites, but they have no automatic right to say what they want on someone else's website if the owner doesn't want them to.

As a licence-payer for the BBC, I don't want them to habe the BNP on Question Time in particular. It's a terrible format for it. Normally, all the panellists are asked questions on a variety of topics by the audience, they recite a soundbite or a slogan and move on. It's a great format for shouting slogans, a terrible format for in-depth discussion, which suits the BNP.

After the controversy, they changed things for this one show, so that almost all the questions were about the BNP, and the rest of the panel rounded on Griffin. That managed to expose him a little bit, but it also made it look to BNP sympathizers like he was being bullied. If it had been a one-on-one interview it would have looked more like a fair contest and the same information could have come out. But that's not the Question Time format.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
That's different by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 06:53:59 AM EST
I'm only objecting to the statement "banning them from the air". 
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Has anyone already said by Herring (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:16:03 AM EST
Cynical ratings grab?

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
Surprisingly not. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 11:39:41 AM EST
That's been my thought.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:12:24 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
So... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 06:59:20 AM EST
You are saying that to save Democracy we must discard it?

Again, here in the US, the neonazi movement has little power despite having freedom of expression.

There is little evidence that banning such things does anything but make the banners feel better.

What is naive is the belief that the government will only ban speech you don't like.  It almost never works that way.  Once you give those in power the tool, they use it everywhere.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
It was voting by Proportional Representation by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:34:09 AM EST
That got the BNP their seats in the European Parliament and London Assembly. The lack of PR seems the more likely explanation for their lack of electoral success in the US.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Yes, PR is another issue. by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:24:41 AM EST
Horrible idea in my mind, precisely for this reason.  It's what let the Nazis into power with <30% OF THE VOTE.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Sadly, I think this is the case by Herring (4.00 / 2) #22 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 04:31:34 PM EST
And it was predictable that, while most people saw a sweaty idiot attempting to defend the indefensible, some people will have seen a guy being ganged up on by "liberal elites".

Stoked by the tabloid media, a lot of people do think that immigration is a problem. Rather than trying to address that, the main parties seem to be publishing policies on how they are going to restrict it - playing the BNP's game.

I see the BNP as a symptom not a cause.

It's funny(?) isn't it how phrases that ought to command respect or sympathy - like "human rights" and "asylum seeker" now have such evil connotations.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
What ratio are you keeping? by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #9 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:27:21 PM EST
I'm liking the ones you're posting, especially the night ones with the lights.

Thanks! by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #12 Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 02:23:26 PM EST
About 1 in 10 gets to Flickr.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Unweildly camera by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #28 Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:18:32 AM EST
An SLR can actually be less unwieldy than a point 'n' shoot as the heft makes it more stable, and the size makes it easier to hold properly. Plus the added advantage of a viewfinder. <>p>That said, it is much more noticeable.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

All You Zombies | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback