Saturday, April 18, 2009

[hillary] where is huma now


The thing which always puzzled me was why Abedin would have wanted to.

[unwitting partners] we’re always the good guys, aren’t we

The importance of being right

In Russia, there was a particular father who had this unfortunate habit of concluding every third sentence with, ‘… am I right?’ This also went to show that people are the same the world over and that middle-aged men [and women], including me, are susceptible to this characteristic.

For us, the blog was invented, to pour it all out and to spare our partners an earbashing. Would that women would all blog as well and give us some peace and quiet 30% of the time.

By the way, there’s only one thing worse than an old pontificator, who at least knows something of the world … and that’s a young ponitificator. I still remember an eighteen year old mate of mine talking cars with my father and saying, ‘Well, you know, I’m not impressed by the Jensen Interceptor.’

My father replied with the equivalent of, ‘Who gives a f--- what you’re impressed with?’ He didn’t say those exact words because he never swore and taught me not to – that’s fraying a bit round the edges now.

That boy was little different to Mark Twain being impressed how much his father had learned between Twain’s 14th and 21st years.

Mr. White [a motif in itself] also said, in Quantum, ‘We have people everywhere,’ and concluded the remark with, ‘… am I right?’

Everyone likes to think he [and she]’s right. This personality quirk of yours, though annoying to us, is hardly as world shattering as, say, Gordo’s omnipotence.

When concepts don’t work

Svali, who incidentally said in 2000:

The good news is that if a person is debt-free, owes nothing to the government or credit debt, and can live self sufficiently, they may do better than others. I would invest in gold, not stocks, if I had the income. Gold will once again be the world standard, and dollars will be pretty useless.

… also said about Them, the ignorant Middletons, Balls, Millipedes, Obamas et al who corrode the cogs, nuts and bolts which help the world cough and splutter along:

Basically, they are in denial. They believe that history can be changed …

and:

They dominate the financial picture, have immense wealth, several mansions around the world, anything they want, and the (to them) joy of controlling millions of others. They believe their intellect is sharp, and that they will be the "good guys" in the New Order. They are Luciferians, and so believe the Bible is misguided in its assertions.

They believe that basically, they are GOOD and doing a good work, even if the means are tough to endure at the time. They are weeding out the weak and unfit, and developing a supreme human being. I know it sounds like hog wash, but they truly, honestly believe this at a core level.

If you think your humble blogger is ‘impressed’ with this woman, you’d be right, especially as it was said in an interview in 2000 … and look what’s happened since. Malcolm Fraser [former Australian PM] was in line with this thinking, smugly delivering to a suffering electorate [at the time]:

‘Life wasn’t meant to be easy.’

Look at Gordo and Harold Wilson, the pied pipers towards austerity. All part of the plan, comrades. The pound in your pocket – anyone remember that?

Agatha Christie, no less, wrote in ‘N or M’, 1941:

‘Incredible!’ said Tommy.

Grant shook his head.

‘You do not know the force of German propaganda. It appeals to something in man, some desire or lust for power. These people were ready to betray their country, not for money but in a kind of megalomaniacal pride in what they - they themselves - were going to achieve for that country. In every land it has always been the same. It is the Cult of Lucifer — Lucifer, Son of the Morning. Pride and a desire for personal glory.’

Now, you tell me how any of that is different to Gordo’s socialist world vision?

How is it any different to the principal speaker at the Oxford meeting of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders On Human Survival [1988], co-sponsored by the Temple of Understanding and the UN Global Committee., James Lovelock, a Fellow of the Lindisfarne Association (a New Age group headquartered at the Cathedral), who authored the book The Ages of Gaia?

… on Earth she (Gaia) is the source of everlasting life and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.

Lovelock wrote:

Orthodox Christianity, properly understood, is a distortion of the pure forms of religious truth … we must immediately return to the worship of the Earth goddess if we are to save ourselves from destruction.

Present there, nodding on and making speeches in support, was Maurice Strong, whose claims to fame include:

In 1992, [he was] chairman of the United Nation's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro He was co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum, became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), found time to serve as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance. Friends include former Vice President Al Gore.

This is Them and here is their global vision, which Strong was heavily involved in promoting:

The purpose of the World Service Intergroup is to generate a focused, conscious and deliberate intergroup effort to specifically assist the Externalization of the Hierarchy and the Reappearance of the Christ.

I'm not making this up. I wish I were. And this does not refer to JC. From an article I can't find the link to:

Strong was at Findhorn, together with the Lucis Trust. Gordon Davidson and Corrine McLaughlin, who set up the WSI in Washington, D.C. in 1995 were also instrumental in setting up the Valdez Principles, committing corporate America to the Gorean Eco-principles now in vogue today. Here is the mindset:

The Shamballa force is in reality Life itself; and Life is a loving synthesis in action. We also used the Six Laws and Principles of the New Age to lead us towards creating a vision of how these principles might create patterns for the New Civilization humanity will be constructing over the next 2500 years.

The environmental movement therefore has an occult angle influencing it which sets it apart from the mindset of most people who see themselves as at least partly green. Shamballa force would seem to have little to do with recycling your bottles and using eco-friendly lamps and yet the connection is forced at high levels of society.

These people really believe they are the Good Guys. Black is White [Mr. White] and White is Black. Does anyone recall the biblical ‘woe to them who call white black and black white’ [or words to that effect]?

What socialism really entails

In 1990, Strong gave an interview to writer Daniel Wood [West Magazine], in which he discussed a novel he'd like to write:

'Each year,' he explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot, 'the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO'S, prime ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.'

With this as a setting, he then says, 'What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world leaders.'

'They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered a panic, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich countries -' and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

Ravings of a loony? Maybe and there are many loonies, even in the blogosphere but the point is, this man is one of the Gorean ‘in-crowd’ of which Obama is a key member. In other words, the people coming out with these loony ideas are the people running things.

Look at the top in Britain and there he is in all his glory – El Gordo, with his global economic plan. If you’re an economic writer [I think here of Cityunslicker and Sackerson], you’d want to dissociate the ‘pure’ economics so beloved of you guys from the Shamballa guff but boys, you can’t separate it, not because I say so [and people have called me left field before] but because it really is the driving power behind Their actions.

Them.

You wouldn’t ignore inconvenient statistics, would you? You’d include all the stats. Ditto here. You need to weave the ravings of the people who actually run the show into your eco-view, at least to take the opposition into account.

Remember boys, these are the people who say capitalism and the free market have failed.

To my sweet, everyday, garden, socialist friends whose hearts are true

In Maurice Strong's April 8, 1997 speech introducing the Earth Charter to the UN, he said:

There is a need to address the fundamental ethical imperatives of sustainable development.

And what are these ethical imperatives?

Strong spoke of 'ethics of participation' . . . and 'ethics of inclusion' . . . in order to 'foster a healthy balance between quality of life and quality of environment — because development must henceforth be in balance with Mother Earth.' It will 'develop a sense of belonging to the universe.

There you go – tolerance, balance, the ethics of inclusion, love for humanity, multiculturalism where racism is anathema – all good stuff, eh? You’d subscribe to those values, socialists and left liberals, wouldn’t you? I hope Aaron’s reading this.

Of course you would, except that certain people at the top, Them, have hijacked the agenda and are pushing a very much unsustainable and bizarre policy which includes you, yourself, my socialist friends, who voted Nu Labour back last time and are now regretting it.

It’s not your fault but you can’t seem to see how the people at the top are manipulating your basic good will for completely other purposes.

Look at what motivates you. Look at what motivates my dear friend Cherie – care and compassion. Care for her members, care for the poor who can’t find a way on their own, respect and tolerance for humanity. Giving back to society.

Beautiful values.

You really are the Good People … except that you’ve been unwitting partners to the hijacking … and the agenda you think you’ve been supporting has actually been skewed and twisted into the shambolic Shamballa, at the higher echelons.

The fish rots at the head and always has.

You, my socialist and left liberal friends [and I mean good friends in many cases], are no different to the right of centre libertarians in that we all want prosperity and the right to a slice of the good life for our families. Yet we find ourselves on opposite sides of the political fence.

Why?

The simple fact is that the world does not owe us a living and even if it was altruistic enough to wish that, the resources don’t exist to implement such a panacea. Especially not when the resources are being skimmed off by Them.

If everyone felt the same and wanted to, rather than were compelled to , make personal sacrifices, as Lord T says, then people would not be as unemployed and living off the state which can't afford it, the current situation.

The nub of the matter

Look, I’m no wiser than you, considerably less so in many ways. Your world view you’ve sorted out in your mind has much to recommend it but if it does not include ALL the facts, including the inconvenient ones above, then it is flawed.

I’m not wise, I just report report these things as they happen, that’s all.

[political gaffs quiz] can you get all five


That gaff wasn't political though.


1. Name the gaffmeister who allegedly told British students in China: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

2. Obama had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians and ...whom?

3. Name the man who said: "I don’t particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."

4. Name the person who sent this e-mail message to the Department of Local Government, Transport and the Regions on 911, : "Today is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury." [H/T Paul]

5. Who originally used the epithet "the longest suicide note in history" to describe Labour's 1983 election manifesto?

Answers

Phil the Greek, David Cameron, Dubya, Jo Moore, Gerald Kaufman

Friday, April 17, 2009

[air travel] fly the python way


How would you like to find one of these on your in-flight magazine?

[pascha] good friday today



It's Orthodox Easter Friday today and you might be wondering about the discrepancy between east and west.

The Christian Easter is tied in with the Jewish Pesach or Passover.

The Passover itself is complicated and ties in with the Metonic cycle of years, which involve the Golden Numbers 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19.

From this come calculations for the Jewish calendar year which - the Hebrew Pesach is determined in the Old Testament to begin on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan.

Originally, this meant, from observation of the moon, that Passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Christians, therefore, celebrated Pascha according to the same calculation-that is, on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox.

Almost from the very beginning of the existence of the Christian Church, the issue presented variations. Although the New Testament relates these events to the Jewish Passover, the details of this relationship are not clear.

On the one hand, the tradition of the synoptic gospels identifies the Lord's last supper as a passover meal, placing the death of the Lord on the day after Passover. On the other hand, the tradition of the Gospel of St. John situates the death of the Lord at the very hour the paschal lambs were sacrificed on the day of Passover itself.

In practice, one group were celebrating it on any day of the week [wherever the Jewish mid-Nisan fell] and the other was putting it on the Sunday after Passover.

The First Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea in 325 took up the issue. It determined that Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday which follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox-the actual beginning of spring.

There was a strong feeling in some quarters that the Christian tradition should not tie in with the Jewish calendar.

Also, there was the question of determining the calendar. In the East, the 19-year cycle was eventually adopted, whereas in the West an 84-year cycle. The use of two different paschal cycles inevitably gave way to differences between the Eastern and Western Churches regarding the observance of Pascha.

A further cause for these differences was the adoption by the Western Church of the Gregorian Calendar in the 16th century. This took place in order to adjust the discrepancy by then observed between the paschal cycle approach to calculating Pascha and the available astronomical data.

Therefore, in practical terms, the invariable date of the vernal equinox is taken by the Orthodox church to be April 3 in our current calendar (but March 21 on the Julian Calendar).

To this blogger, except that it is celebrated vaguely round the spring equinox, it hardly matters, as long as it is celebrated. Personally I like the two Easters plus the rabbits and eggs but I also like the kulich and all that tradition, as well as the midnight vigil.

It all seems to give a nice balance of gravitas and fun. After all, the Resurrection is joyful by definition, not gloomy.

[blessed are the little people] not ... and other topics

You might like to see this article.

Is this the car of the future?


English singalong [Hat tip UKIP]

[censorship] do community standards exist


Does anyone remember the 1971 Schoolkids Oz pornography trial in the UK? Does anyone remember Judge Alex Kozinski in 2008?

Not only does there seem rampant hypocrisy in the matter of what constitutes community standards and the actions of its supposed defenders but these days, I wager no one really knows what community standards are.

Let's face it, the games kids are playing on the net and using the new technology, the sex, drugs and the instantly clickable gross porn kids can access any time they want on the net has changed the ground rules completely. Parents are either naive, turning a blind eye or throwing up their hands in despair.

What are community standards now?

Censorship classifications are a case in point. Take three films I've seen in the past months - Saw [18], In Bruges [18] and From Russia with Love [12].

Now Saw deserves its classification for gratuitous violence [people hung up with meathooks, limbs being twisted asunder and so on]. So if that constitutes an 18 rating, then what of In Bruges?

It has tame sex [Clemence Poesy even keeps her clothes on], has swearing and one drug scene. There's a point where someone throws himself off a tower and you don't see the splat, you see a closeup of his face, still alive, with some ketchup spread about. Poesy, in an outtake, uses the F-word to describe the F-act.

That's it. So where's the 18 and for what? For swearing?

On the other hand, the re-released Lowry Bond FRWL is tame in itself but the menu and links feature unclad females who are quite clearly unclad and therefore the silhouettes don't work. Let alone the womanizing theme of Bond in the early episodes.

This is rated 12?

So I ask again, what are the community standards which lead the censors to decide on classifications, on what do they base it, who enforces it and is there any need for it at all?

My own view is that what adults watch is their affair but that kids need some form of protection. However, I'm well aware of the obvious flaw in that - where is the line drawn.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

[keyes] beautiful



Hat tip Lord T, from here.

Changing the topic, this on privacy and the lack of choice in the UK now:

Just look at what BT does with your phone service now. You don’t even want a BT phone but you need one to get a broadband connection with any ISP so you pay BT £11+ a month even if you don’t need, want or use the phone. OFCOM should fix this but is clearly toothless. It’s effectively a cash cow for BT and an additional cost for subscribers that looks very much like a license fee on broadband. BT marketing did well here. What consent is required for this? If you want broadband by anyone other than Virgin then you need to pay it and sign up to their user agreement. No options.

[pirates] a time for everything

Humorous line of the day:

Is anyone else getting tired of reading about pirates in this day and age?

[closure] and when to call and end to it

Round table discussion yesterday:

A: You remember that woman whose child was killed by Brady fifty odd years ago and she spent the rest of her life seeking justice?

B: Meanwhile, the rest of her kids lost her while she was fixated with the murder.

C: How do you know she didn’t spend part of each evening writing and phoning but the rest of the day she took care of day to day things?

A: But she still had it in the back of her mind the whole time, day in, day out.

D [me]: Mothers do that.

When there hasn’t been any more than the usual trauma of old age, when there was a closure of sorts, then it’s usually only once a year when it becomes difficult. But like Hamlet, when there has been no closure, then perhaps a person can be forgiven for becoming distracted.

However, if the living suffer because of this, then when is enough enough?

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

[extreme wii] phase two



It's possible this won't work so try the url.

[statement] with comment moderation turned on

Regular readers, the ones who remain, will have noticed the ratcheting up of provocatively opinionated and wildly generalizing posts recently, the last one, on Bond, published yesterday. Put it down to the now-passed fad of a pontificating, middle-aged man-on-a-bicycle who wanted to see how it looked.

So to this post.

Higham is currently miffed.

Bloghounds was set up with a concept in mind and leaving myself aside, the original committee represented this concept, namely that they blogged ethically. To make that statement is to leave that ‘group’ wide open to one simple challenge – their ethical blogging.

Just what is ethical blogging?

None of us are saints and we all have skeletons in our personal and private cupboards, some more than others, admittedly. Many of us also, by the nature of our political blogging, are into fiskings, exposés, debunkings and the tearing down of hypocrisy; my statements in the ‘middle-aged post’ obviously, in some people’s minds, crossed the line into hypocrisy.

There is a line though which should never be crossed. One should never bring anything into the blogosphere about another person’s private life, especially personal details we know of a fellow blogger, we shouldn’t even intimate it and here’s the criterion:

… if that person has never set out to personally harm us and has shared bread with us, either metaphorically or for real.

Please look at the name of my blog.

Many bloggers wish for simple privacy and privacy is an endangered concept in today’s big brother society. In the open sphere, there are sharks circling for blood and the very nature of our political blogging makes enemies.

So yes, expose hypocrisy, yes, call someone out for being an unmitigated liar, yes, quote from his or her words but no, never publish, or email to a third party, his/her real name, address, workplace, sexual proclivities [if you didn’t know mine before and if they’re still of the remotest interest, read the soon to be posted book - it’s all explicite in there], yes, expose the fact that he is one of that detested subset, that pariah of the highways and byways – a closet bicycle rider, do any of that.

But no, don’t publish or bring into question the personal details of someone you’ve shared bread with and who wishes you no harm. Especially don’t touch on past misdemeanours, unless he or she is specifically denying, in a public forum, that they occurred, in order to harm someone else or you or to hide his/her little game.

This last is the key criterion – that he, for his own reasons, goes public and denies what he/she did, for the purpose of attacking another. Even then, the blogger might like to desist, if it doesn’t personally harm him/her.

I am angry because I believe someone I admire had that happen yesterday, quite out of the blue [no, not me - another person, on another blog]. That’s beyond the pale, in my eyes.

There are various commenters I hugely enjoy and some I know the personal details of, even down to photos sent either by them or by someone else; they’re lost somewhere in the library which is this computer.

Two ladies reading this, [other than Uber], will be smiling at me coming over all moral, given what we did some time back and ‘je regrette rien’. I’d do it all over again, for sure, if I were partnerless, which I currently am. One of those women is one of the nicest people I’ve ever known but unfortunately, we fell out over the f---ing CSA [and no, I’m not an alimony jumper – certain partners and I came to arrangements before the nazis took over and rewrote the rules]; we also fell out over a certain English blogger [my gripe] and over a young Melbourne-based blogger whom I never had anything with at any time, truly, despite what you saw – that girl would laugh in my face to think so [that lady’s gripe].

I’ve missed that lady ever since, even though she thinks I’m a smarta—e, which is true. The other I actually proposed marriage to and when she took it to be more than the ravings of a maniac and we got down to details, that involved more complex emotions and a total paradigm shift on both parts, which had my closest people freaking and shouting at me to get back to the real world.

By the way, to the one whom I suggested the idea [or maybe you suggested it and I embellished it, I can’t remember], I’m still planning to take you to that beach for the night, the cool sand, don’t think I’ve forgotten and I hope I’m still up to it and it’s not all talk.

Any of these ladies could sink me in the sphere if she wished and that just shows that some people have principles and are true to themselves, despite how they see me acting. The man trying to ‘out’ me last year was amusing – he was barking up the wrong tree completely. Does he think I’m a bunny rabbit? St’ruth, the real thing was otherwise.

And another thing, be careful of women. All the time you were [allegedly] manipulating women, one clever Australian [surely no oxymoron] was [allegedly] manipulating you to help get at other women. It’s not only the men, you know.

To another young thing in my age range, quite unhappy with me at this moment, who’ll read this today, I’d like to say now – don’t ever think I’ll forget your arms. You can think what you like but it’s the arms and lips which remain in the memory although you think I made light of them but at least we had that, rather than just cyber words, which is more than many of us can say. That and the salt of course ☺.

I’m relatively silent on Uber but I’m saying here and now that she is one of the kindest people I know, to those who don’t f—k her about; she’s straight down the line and my feelings are consequently warm and have not diminished in any way. Trouble is, she’s someone else’s, so I’ve stayed at a distance.

All the good ones are taken. Sigh. Listen to the third verse, last line, of Turn, Turn, Turn [immediately before the instrumental break].

Anyway, back to the topic, what sort of an animal would I be if I did an ‘outing’ of any of my friends or the few people I’ve been really close to, male or female?

This is the thing.

Even after you’re well aware someone’s been undermining you through emails to others, with snide, disloyal little daming with faint praise [don’t forget that these people email to tell me, dearest, despite protestations to the contrary], even after you know that that person wants to hit back at you, you still must never release personal details.

After all else has gone, all we have left is personal principles of a sort … plus loyalty.

They’re more sacrosanct than the confessional.

None of us are saints.

That’s all.

Here endeth the sermon.

Note 1 – clearly, I can’t leave comments open on this topic, for fear someone will bring even more attention to some other poor blogger in the sphere. However, moderation seems the way to go on this post, allowing statements by you and allowing me the right to scrutinize them late tomorrow morning when I get to the internet again. That will prevent slanging matches either way.

Note 2 - This post has also been a way to send covert messages openly, without emailing or phoning and I have personal reasons for remaining incommunicado in the citadel for now. Anyway, I hate phones and hardly ever email. Doesn’t mean I’m not thinking of you, please don’t see it that way.

Note 3 – Apparently this area near the sea here has no cable, it being stopped by a roughly parallel railway gorge, some distance away. What makes it worse is that I’m near the end of a track, right by the water.

Therefore, the only alternative is satellite, which is being installed in the next month, so I’m led to believe. When that happens, I’ll have cheap[ish] internet and will be able to research properly, visit properly, do bloghounds properly and blog properly.

Regular readers, be patient please.

[gun control] and logic

Wow! By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:45:44 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights )

From James Kelly on the gun control debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true, and doing my best to explain why I believe it. Kevin, by way of contrast, claims to be able to literally ‘prove’ his case beyond any doubt whatsoever by recourse to detailed statistical data.

Mind boggles. Is that the same as, 'I know nothing about art but I know what I like?'

Hat tip Lord T.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

[elopement] don't try it in a muslim nation

A happier elopement


Nice people, the Taliban.

[doctor no] when taken in context



Tiberius Gracchus would be the first to admit the principle that one can’t judge the past by present day standards.

As many of you know, the original Bond films have been re-released in cleaned up digital format; the visual and sound quality is excellent in one sense but a bit clinical in another. It seems not unlike the early CDs against the vinyls – tonal qualities are missing.

What’s also missing is the societal context in which the Bond films appeared.

It’s obvious to say that the early sixties were a follow on from the fifties but it’s as well to dwell a little on that time, the era of Stalin-Krushchev, the Rosenbergs, the reaction against McCarthyism, Britain getting back on its feet and the post-war death of its cuisine, the early years of the youth revolution, of Philby, Burgess and Maclean, immediately pre-Kennedy assassination, an era of Dien Bien Phu and the fall of French prestige, despite or perhaps because of de Gaulle; this was the time of The Manchurian Candidate, the Sinatra rat pack and the advent of the Beatles and the Stones.

Watch clips of ‘She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah’ or ‘Not fade away’, even watch the Yardbirds’ ‘I’m a man’ on Youtube, with the naive dancing floozies high kicking and that was the context of Dr. No.

Quite frankly, I don’t find Wiseman in the least menacing and his demise was a bit pathetic; like Buddy Holly, the early guitar quartets and the days of the 12 song LP, [no more than 12], comprising two hits and the rest fillers - it all seems nice but a bit thin in production values.

The trouble is, Bond films don’t bear scrutiny.

They’re all about image, in the context of its day – fine for what it was at the time but eventually dating; even Moore is now so dated and yet Live and Let Die was vibrant at the time and the graveyard voodoo sequence a bit unnerving. The Connery era largely passed me by and I was brought up on Moore’s Moonraker et al and let’s face it, it was escapist, fantasy entertainment.

For me, OHMSS and The Living Daylights were far superior films, the only problem being the lead actors. Bond films really must reflect current realities, as was shown by the way Licence to Kill did not do that, a good film, set in a boring part of the U.S., as was Diamonds are Forever … but years ahead of its time.

People were not ready for that Dalton darkness then and yet Craig today has quite acceptably reprised the revenge motif in Quantum of Solace, doing the scrunched up scowl better than Timothy Dalton but still leaving one wondering whether he has any other tricks up his sleeve.

Having grown up in the Moore era, that doesn’t mean we have to like the lightweight flippancy and I’d vastly prefer the brooding menace underlying From Russia with Love and in the new[ish] Casino Royale … but does Connery deliver?

I’d say, on balance, no.

Look at the moment when he appears to Honey Rider, crooning behind a tree and getting a silly look on his too young face. Connery doesn’t stand the scrutiny of time, sad to say. Yet the overwhelming memory most have of those early Bonds was of Connery at his peak, at his most dangerous.

Ursula Andress is a puzzle to me. Did people really find her beautiful or the way she appeared from the sea remarkable? I thought Halle Berry did it better but the setting was better in the original. No, Andress I find far too masculine with that strong body, as was Caterina Murino, a man in a woman’s shell and perhaps Eva Green and the huge Olga Kurylenko also failed to excite. People even found Grace Jones beautiful so it takes all kinds, it seems.

I’d hardly expect any man to agree with me here.

Maryam d’Abo, whilst her character in TLD was annoyingly cloying, was at least tall, elegant and feminine. Sigh. Why can’t women be women, like Carole Bouquet [who can actually act, by the way – see For Your Eyes Only] and why can’t men be either less than neanderthal [Vin Diesel] or with more testosterone than the average, present day, oppressed, emasculated, weaker sex [take your pick]?

Someone like Topol [Columbo in For Your Eyes Only] or Gabriele Ferzetti [Draco in OHMSS] would be two candidates for role models.

Why can’t men pack a bit of menace to them any more, like Telly Savalas [OHMSS] or even Goldfinger himself? Rick Yune [Zao in Die Another Day] was a good example. Sean Bean was always good [e.g. in Golden Eye]. Why can’t men be both horribly intelligent and dangerous and when they pause to look at you, you squirm a little inside?

Also, why do we have to put up with bland bores like Modern Woman Miranda Frost [played by Rosamund Pike in DAD]? Newsday sums it up:

Miranda's view of Bond as a sexual dinosaur puts him refreshingly in his place. (Don't worry, boys, she gets hers.)

Refreshingly? Yawn.

Associated Press’s Christie Lemire’s take on Halle Berry:

She's strong and sexy, a great match for the dashing Brosnan. She's more than that, though; she's his partner …’

… which no one would dispute the desirability of, is then spoilt by the modern female fixation:

‘and every bit his equal.’

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Why tf does the Modern Woman always have to compete? Why can’t she complement her man? It was Boy George who sang [in a different context, of course]:

You're my lover, not my rival.

By the way, speaking of appalling modern day women, did you read the other day about Angelina Jolie’s ‘need for other lovers’? What a poor excuse for a human being she’s always been.

Having said all that, the three most lethal agents in my own little trilogy are all women – a Russian called Ksenia, a European known as Thirteen and an Indonesian called Frederika [who exists in RL, by the way and I miss her a lot] although there is a maniac man, Zhenya, to partly redress the balance. Women run security sections, women are strong but they’re lovely in the arms.

People get fixated about Bond’s neanderthal sexual politics or the leading lady’s kick-butt, ‘she can’t be oppressed’, sleep inducing politics but the simple truth is that they’ve misjudged what’s really going on.

Bond gets the woman because he knows how to treat her well, it’s as simple as that – he’s always treated his women well at the point of contact and they appreciate it.

Yet can you imagine him doing his thing without a woman by his side, not for eye-candy reasons but for mutual support? Brosnan would not have overcome Graves on the plane unless Halle Berry had been doing her thing as well. Look at the eye contact between the two – there’s real chemistry there and the mealy-mouthed, begrudged thanks of Kurylenko Camilla at the end of Solace was an insult. It would never do to actually appreciate your partner these days, would it, you ingrates?

Do you detect the smoke coming from my nostrils?

Craig was tamed by his love for a woman and Moore was saved by two martial arts savvy schoolgirls. Even Tell Savalas’s Blofield could not have done it without the excellent Ilse Steppat’s Irma Bunt. She, in turn, was the one who facilitated his vision.

Look, you can’t have bread without butter, you can’t have savoury food without salt, you can’t have an overseas trip without somewhere to stay, you can’t have a real man without a proper woman and you can’t have a proper woman without a real man. Period. Full stop.

For me, that’s the real world and this current travesty we’re enduring today will hopefully become a thing of the past.

Long live the Bond franchise.