[weekend poll] next two should be crackers

The Sexiest Man Over 43 Poll is coming along nicely, thanks, with fifteen entries for ten places thus far [and thank you, ladies, for coming to the rescue on this] ... so now the weeding out begins.

The list was dominated by actors and musicians, lots of them, as Uber said; I capped these at 7 and the remaining 3 were to be from other walks of life. There's even a scientist in there.

The governing rule for inclusion was this - Brad Pitt was in there [David Beckham was too young], therefore anyone else on that list had to have a fighting chance of beating Pitt. Forgive me but Liam Neeson and Donny Osmond won't do that but some of the others might.

Another thing I noticed was the 'nostalgia' factor. Someone suggested Sean Connery but have you seen him lately? Ditto with Harrison Ford and the photo had to have been from the last couple of years.

That poll goes up this Friday.

High excitement

Your humble blogger is chuckling away to himself about the following Friday's poll, which should start a war and see him run off planet earth [chuckle]. Oh, I'm really looking forward to that one!
.

[the beat] best friend

One of the best British bands of all time were The Beat. Their politics were all wrong, their decisions about the band were all wrong, they broke up just as David Bowie wanted to tour with them and yet they remain the producers of music Britain can be proud of. The insistent melody which never rests but is just overlaid and overlaid is complemented by some nice bass and wonderful saxophone playing.

Try this one:



As eras go, the early 80s was one of the richest in British music - so many great artists were spawned and it's probably true to say that this was the place to be at the time. Fortunately for me, I was.

[know your stately homes] part one of new series

1. Built in the late 14th C. by Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany. The castle looks very strong and powerful, one of the least changed castles in Scotland, is perhaps best known for the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

2. Built by Sir John Vanbrugh, the location of 'Brideshead Revisited', an impressive Great Hall and fabulous collection of art.

3. Beautifully situated by the River Dee, was purchased in 1852 by Prince Albert, the present castle was built 1853-55.

4. Stronghold of the Chiefs of MacLeod for nearly 800 years, has a massive keep, a 15th-century tower and a hall block from the 17th century; there is an exhibition about St.Kilda Islands.

5. Was built in the late 16th century by Bess of Hardwick and her 2nd husband William Cavendish; there are outstanding painted ceilings by Verrio and Laguerre, a library of over 17,000 volumes, old master paintings by Rembrandt, Hals, Van Dyck, Tintoretto, Veronese, Sargent and Landseer, a collection of neo-classical sculpture and 'Capability' Brown's exceptionally fine garden.

Answers

Doune Castle, Castle Howard, Balmoral Castle, Dunvegan Castle, Chatsworth

[iraq enquiry] public or behind closed doors

Blogger Dave Cole is spokesperson for the Atlantic council and you might like to see the debate here over the closed investigation of Iraq.

He took the point of view that it should be a closed enquiry on the grounds that:

1. There are security considerations, e.g. the Iraqi workers who, if they were 'outed', would suffer. Also, Britain is still in Afghanistan.

2. One doesn't let the enemy, present or future, know one's operational procedures - even though it's not fashionable these days, there is still such a thing as the national interest.

3. An open enquiry would be a media circus and anyone wishing to testify would either feel constrained or would demand to have legal counsel present.

He makes a good case. All the other speakers took the line that the public is not going to wear anything less than transparency on this issue. There are too many dead Brits for no good reason to keep it behind closed doors.

Your humble blogger is halfway between the two. Why must we have this polarity in political life these days? Common sense dictates that some things must be kept private but the bulk will come out. As for saving their own butts, they can forget it.

The pigeons are coming home to roost .
.

[blogger behaviour] sometimes needs comments

There are reasons not to post this and then there are more reasons to actually post it.

In the context of our own financial worries, the girl who was murdered in Iran, the Iraq enquiry, the state of education, the burqa issue and so on and so on, this is a relatively minor gripe but it is still a gripe.

My position on the political compass is such that I don't like using left/right as designations and would prefer to say socialist, totalitarian, laissez-faire, libertarian or whatever. If forced to use left/right designations, I'd like to feel that I get a cross-section of opinion at this blog, probably more slanted to the centre-right [not my choice of terms] because there are more of those bloggers about.

Whether this is correct or not, I've noticed something happening which, at first, I put down to my own error - pushing the wrong button, not pushing hard enough, whatever. Either way, comments I've posted are sometimes not there when I return to that blogger's post's comments section.

Frankly, one's first reaction is to be miffed by this, particularly as it's not something I do to that person. If I delete someone's comment, then I explain why and my readers know that. Some bloggers go further than I do - they actually write, via email: 'Listen, James, I had to delete your comment because ...'

Fair enough. I don't agree he should have deleted it but it's his choice - it's his blog.

Now I'm the first to admit I'm quite disliked on certain blogs, particularly those I've savaged in the past and there are those who feel my views are too left field [without actually exploring it to the end with an open mind]. Again, fair enough. I know there's something in my manner which leaves many cool towards me, even if we fundamentally agree among ourselves, politically. All those are known knowns.

But leaving comments is when a reader has taken the trouble to come to that person's site, has looked at what he's offered and has decided to respond. On my blog here, people who come to visit are called 'Esteemed Readers' [see Mybloglog in the left sidebar] and the last thing I'm going to do is delete their comments, with two exceptions - ad hominem against another commenter and my personal ex-stalker.

I don't give a damn if you're Gordo's right hand man [or woman] or whether you're Daniel Hannan - all are welcome. I take pride over the appearance of my blog and like people to speak intelligently on an issue but sometimes they don't - they just leave a quick comment, often flippant and in passing on what was a serious topic. I don't have to like that but I'm sure not going to delete it. More often than not, it's a post which invites banter anyway.

It seems to me that some bloggers invite comments but when the comments don't accord exactly with their views, they are not allowed to stand.

Now the controversial part - of the five comments of mine which have been deleted in the past few days, all were at what you would call 'left-wing' blogs. Does that say anything?

What tends to happen with right-wingers who don't like my presence?

Well, take Dizzy for example, Julia M or Croydonian. They seem to put up with my comments, ignore them and hope I just go away and that's fair enough too. If I put a comment at Lord T's he doesn't like, he attacks, as he should do, as I would hope anyone would do.

Surely we politically blog for debate, for feedback, don't we? Surely we don't blog for our own narcissistic ego-pampering?

That's why just deleting someone's comments without any explanation stinks and says much about the blogger who does it. Having said that, I'll still visit and still try to leave comments.
.

[l'interdiction du burqa] pourrait expédier l'islamicization

Banning the burqa may, in fact, speed up the process of the islamicization of France

62,448,977 in mainland France, divided by 3.7 to 4.1 million Muslims gives a percentage of the population of 6.57%, [thank you, Nigel].

It is a significant minority and rapidly expanding. One estimate puts the Muslim birthrate at three times that of the "indigenous" population. I use the term indigenous with care, as "indigenous" includes Muslims going back many generations.

Nevertheless, whichever way you wish to slice or dice it, it still creates a "problem" like the expanding population of Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is a problem for the Protestants, not initially for the Catholics but then becomes one for them in turn. In France, the strife in the banlieues [thank you, Pedant's Apprentice] is but one manifestation but it's not the only issue in France.

That of laïcité has been around for centuries, at the centre of slaughter and helping spawn philosophers. The matter is not resolved but in the corridors of power, it is the guiding principle. Mixed in with this issue is the taking of citizenship and citizenship rights by so many Muslims and there's a pretty problem:

A parallel process of Muslim enfranchisement is accompanying [the] population surge. Nearly half of the ... Muslims in France are already French citizens. The situation is similar for most of the ... Muslims in Great Britain. Most recently, in 2000, Germany joined the countries where citizenship is granted according to birthplace instead of ancestry. The new German citizenship laws added already a half million voters to the rolls and have opened the road to citizenship to all other Muslims in Germany.

Laïcité is at the centre of Sarkozy's remarks. At pains to redefine the issue as one of oppression and an "affront" to human rights, he understandably wishes to steer the focus away from the religious aspect. Again, whichever way you cut it and I'm not taking sides on the matter, it is a divisive garment, the burqa and the human rights angle muddies the waters and dilutes the opposition to its banning, i.e. leftist thought in France.

It would be interesting to see if the wearing of the cross would follow that; I feel it would not in the forseeable future in what is, after all, a Catholic country and with the political implications with the papacy.

Opinion in France, as Sarkozy well knows, appears divided along political lines:

Cinq ans après la loi de mars 2004 sur le voile à l'école, le problème de l'affichage de signes distinctifs religieux particulièrement voyants et attentatoires à la féminité – burqa ou niqab – suscite à nouveau un vif débat qui transcende largement le clivage droite-gauche.

Le Figaro doesn't seem to be carrying too much on the issue at all. Le Monde carried the Muslim side of the story. An interesting interview in Jakarta from 2004, throws some light on the official Muslim position:

ULIL: Can you estimate how many Muslims in France wear headscarfs?

AF: Statistic indicates that about 80% of Muslim women in France do not wear headscarfs. Hence, only 20% wear headscarfs. Syafiq Hasyim told us that some Muslim figures have said that the matter of headscarf is not an important religious matter. The French government asked the Muslim leaders in France about this and they said that it is not a big problem and that the most important is integration of the Muslim children. Hence, to them, it’s not a fundamental matter.

ULIL: What do you mean by mentioning that secularism benefits the Muslim community?

SH: It is because they are led by the majority law system supporting secularism. If only they accept not laicite or secularism, there will be a chance for the French people to adopt the Catholic system, since their major religion is Catholicism.

In other words, the Muslim spokespeople will make all the right noises against the move but actually, they are not against laïcité per se, as it affords them the best chance of keeping the Catholic Church in check and not reasserting its position within France. The Muslim task of the islamicization of France can then proceed without great hindrance.

From all this, one can conclude that the burqa will be banned but rather than be the next step on the road to the reassertion of France's traditions, it will actually aid in the islamicization of the country.
.

[creedence] put a spell on you

The Creedence version of the Screamin' Jay Hawkins song is, IMHO, head and shoulders above all other versions, including Nina Simone's. This was Creedence at their very best.

There are two versions here. Frankly, the B&W has the more interesting vid but the Live Creedence version has the better sound. Your dilemma, dear reader.

[bigot] this blog is racist, sexist, ageist and against shellfish

Russian Filipina, raised in Hawaii. Hmmm. OK.

The other day, one of my fellow bloggers asked why I'm always posting half unclad women on my site.

Another blogger has a thing about me posting only about young women. Now I'm told I'm only posting older women - where are the men?

On the weekend, a correspondent asked why I never post pics of non-whites. Do I have something against non-whites? Someone told me Latinas are black. Are they? I always thought they were Brazilian.

Actually, I was originally going to post 42 to 43 year olds but there were two women I didn't want in there. They were Halle Berry and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

So, I'm clearly anti-black, a disgusting honky racist and anti-Welsh too.

The real reason is that they would have won the poll, those two, no question and I wanted a more even contest to make it that little bit more interesting. Truth was, I was hoping the older ladies would get more votes, so I made it 'over 43'.

Why would I think they would have won? Because they're hot, that's why. No man I know would question that.

So where do I stand as a racist? Well, it IS true there are no Tibetans or Mongolians making regular appearances on this site. Maybe this needs to be rectified. Also, have you noticed there are very few redheads [colourist], almost no naked men [sexist], very few disabled [disablist] and virtually no Australians or New Zealanders [hemispherist]?

There are virtually no pets whose pics are posted here. That makes me highly prejudiced against non-humans. There are very few robots, so I'm obviously anti-android.

There are no sight-impaired or MS sufferers as yet.

Confession time

Do you know why I'm really doing these 'sexy' polls?

To be totally politically incorrect, completely unreconstructed and neanderthal, to anger the Feminazis and have them run me out of the blogosphere and I'm going to do a Sexiest Member of Them one week [hee hee]. If I live that long.

I've got a Sexiest Philosopher coming up too and I'm going to ask Chris of Godfree-Morals and Sean Jeating if they wouldn't mind adjudicating that one.

And a Sexiest Rodent. I'll ask the Flying Rodent to adjudicate that one.

[sedition] if you blog, you're seditious

There is a blogger, Scaramouche, accessible via Blazing Cat Fur, who wrote:

We have legal constraints--laws protecting people from being libelled and slandered and the state from sedition ...

The context was the human rights bill in Canada, "protecting" people from "hate talk". The one up in arms is called Haroon Sidiqui, who says Muslims are being targeted. Yawn. There are too many real problems at the moment to worry about, without going into that.

Scaramouche was saying, I think, that the law of the country as it stands can take care of "hate talk" without setting up a multi-billion dollar Human Rights Commission under the control of certain pressure groups. Now, in the middle of all that I saw one word - "sedition".

Sedition

Let's look at changes to British law:

First, the RIP Act. You can be spied upon by your government for what, on the face of it, are good reasons (you're a criminal etc.) but there are some appalling reasons there too. Section 22 sets out the reasons you can be spied upon by your own government:

Section 22 says:

It is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection to obtain communications data if it is necessary-

(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health; or
(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

Now section (h) here requires both Houses of Parliament to review the draft order, but what the hell does (c) mean if it's not the same as (b)?

The UK situation with sedition

Legislation under George III for example made it an offence to use any words to excite hatred and contempt of the king, government or constitution, particularly speech that might have a "tendency" to cause disloyalty in the armed forces.

Look at this post and this one. That's sedition, James and James, even though you were pointing out how the government has sold its armed forces down the drain.

You may not criticize the government.

The Treason Felony Act 1848 made it a serious offence, punishable by transportation, to call in print or writing for the establishment of a republic, even by peaceful means. As of 2004 it remained in force (athough last used in 1883), with life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.

You may not criticize the form of government, its composition or advocate ways to make it more responsive to public opinion. If you take up the invitation to write to N10's suggestion box, you are now on file.

They, of course, are allowed to destroy the Lords and stack it with Labour peers, they are allowed to sell Britain out to the EU [which still does not legitimately exist until post-Lisbon 2], they are allowed to sell off Britain's gold reserves for a song but if you start talking proportional representation or doing away with the monarchy, that's sedition, boy!

Now here are two I adore:

# violates the King's wife or the Sovereign's eldest daughter unmarried or the wife of the Sovereign's eldest son and heir", with or without the consent of those women

That's choice. I'll have to try it with the second daughter then.

# "slays the chancellor, treasurer, or the king's justices" while carrying out their duties.

Duties? Er ... like selling out Britain?

Applicability

Of course, this is all largely ceremonial at this time but it is still a useful little arrow to have in the quiver. Let me give a possible scenario:

Lisbon 2 is passed by Ireland. The EU, poised, swoops and officially assumes the organs of power in what was once the UK. The blogosphere erupts and the major bloggers are rounded up and shut down. Remember they're allowed to be waterboarded. How long was the detention for these days?

All of it silently, inexorably put in place - the legal right to snuff out dissent. Who will actually do all this? Well the traitors in Common Purpose, of course, the socialists who've now been trained to "lead beyond authority" and take over the functions of state during the turmoil.

America

America is a little different - FEMA's your problem there. What it comes down to, quite simply, is this - when American troops, even acting for FEMA, are asked to round up or shoot their own citizens, they have a big problem in their heads.

Many American armed personnel have gone online to say that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the Country, not to Obama or anyone else in Washington. It happened in Vietnam, it happened elsewhere - they'll shoot the officer who gave the order to fire on his own people.

The complication is if he's told, 'If you don't do this, your family gets it.' Then it gets a bit tricky. Yessir, it's a bit tricky in the U.S.A. at this time and the people ain't happy. Not only that but do they really think anyone's going to surrender his gun in the amnesty?
.

[weekend poll] closed, results here

Who's the sexiest?

9…Stevie Nicks
9…Susanna Hoffs
8…Michelle Pfeiffer
6…Kate Bush
6…Nigella Lawson
4…Queen Noor of Jordan
4…Segolene Royal
4…Julia Louis Dreyfus
3…Ann Curry
2…Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
2…Monica Bellucci

Total Votes: 55. Thank you to everyone who voted. You can find all eleven photos here.


Sexiest Older Man

I'm stuck with the 'Older Men' poll for this Friday. So far I've only been able to find Pierce Brosnan, George Clooney, Jon Bon Jovi and Mikhail Khordokovsky.

Surely there are other fine men out there between the ages of 43 and about 63 [not too fussed about the upper end].

Ladies, give me a hand here.
.