[charlton heston] vale, quiet man of passion

Charlton Heston has died and there's a nice tribute over at Nunyaa's place:

Heston was certainly one of the 'old school' of actors who gave perfection to his chosen craft of acting and provided countless hours of enjoyment. Charlton Heston maintained his style and dignity until his passing Saturday night and will be missed by many fans around the world.

Amen to that. He was one of the best and combined with Robert Aldrich in Twilight's Last Gleaming, a nice commentary on the true state of affairs in the U.S., he was superlative - tailor made for the role with his quiet passion.

One of my favourites of all time. Here's an interesting little psychological profile of him.

[crucifixion] from a medical point of view

You might like to visit my other site and read about a progressive account of what really happens during a crucifixion. A bit gruesome and yet appropriate for winding up this day.

[fawkes on tv] grievous error hurt us all

Regarding the recent meeting of the MSM and the blogosphere on the MSM's home turf, Oliver Kamm said:

I know nothing of the pseudonymous Mr Fawkes, but I'm deeply sceptical of the value of political blogs and hostile to the whole medium of blogging. (I argued the point here and here.) Mr Fawkes's film is in my view ludicrous self-promotion, the vapidity of whose message is emphasised by the absurd affectation of its author's wishing to be anonymous and to be filmed only in darkness.

I've had a long association with Oliver now [in blogging terms] but I respectfully disagree that all bloggers can be tarred with the same brush. I don't consider this, nor this, to be unresearched and undefendable.

Nor do I think this, with this follower, ill researched nor the conclusions rashly drawn.

Devil's Kitchen commented on Guido's performance thusly:

Yes, Guido was hammered rather; however, I think that this is partially down to the medium. Writing allows a far longer reaction time and thus it can be easier to defend oneself. There's another aspect too; although Guido has his beliefs, his blog doesn't necessarily reflect them.

Look at it this way; I write very long posts, during the course of which I almost always reaffirm some aspect of my political ideas … Guido doesn't write in this way … it does mean that they are not so practised when faced with a spontaneous argument.

Trouble is, Guido had to be on a hiding to nothing to take on a rabid Michael White who was clearly out to show up the blogosphere. A scandal mongering blog is no match for researched 'assault' questions - the questioner is always going to have the advantage in this situation.

What I feel Guido has done, through both his ego and his ludicrous and long-ago-exploded anonymity on television, which it was wrong to do, is to allow the blogosphere to be tarred with the same brush, which sets us all back somewhat in the public estimation, including for the estimable Iain Dale.

To Guido's credit, he's been circumspect and has posted his take on the matter.

Further comment here and here.

GRIEVOUS ERROR OF MY OWN: Neojacobin was the one I should have attributed much of the data to and I even used some of his phraseology. Sorry, Courtney. don't know what happened.

[scandal] woman flaunts sexuality

Eva Green, who has absolutely nothing to do with this post

Good ... now all I wanted to remind you of was the History Quiz below. Don't forget to try it, readers.

[chocolate easter] of protests and rank hypocrisy

Heather Yaxley's chick and egg is cool, n'est ce pas?

Liz asks what the problem is with the chocolate Jesus. Why anyone would find that offensive. He was a man and therefore he had Crown Jewels, which happened to be on display. All they've done is have a little joke - funnin', as people [speaking generally here] who can't appreciate jokes might put it.

I ask how you'd feel [again speaking generally] if your own mother were portrayed in chocolate in all her naked glory, with her gynaecological aspects clearly defined? And not just any mother - your own. Different story, isn't it?

So why is this any different? The Son of Man means a lot to a rapidly dwindling and yet devout number of people around the world and the hypocrisy of the humanists chuckling at a gross act of disrespect and telling those of us who believe that we should be more tolerant, gets up my nose. I'd really love to portray someone dear to you having sex with a dog or whatever and then I can just laugh it off and say to you, "Oh don't be so sensitive. It's just a bit of fun.'

I don't give a toss about the actual chocolate Jesus. The original is a Big Boy and can probably cope with the slight. No, it's the rank hypocrisy of those telling others not to be so sensitive that grates - the rank hypocrisy of the godless. Which leads us to the Mohammed cartoons.

Were the Mohammed cartoons sexual in nature? No, they were political. So then - portray Jesus with a Terry Gilliam visage vehemently spreading the word or in some kind of levitating, lamb-shaped Popemobile, whilst addressing the masses - something political, rather than physiological.

But that wouldn't do the trick, would it? No, the point of the exercise was to entice people to mock the man Himself, through what is already a pagan hijacking of the Easter message. Two for the price of one, so to speak. If the minds of such people were rooms in a house, then you'd see some pretty grotesque furniture inside there.

So look at my own post on Friedrich Hayek and Martin Kelly, where the illustrations relate to Martin's text. That's mocking. Yes but is it grossly offensive? Is it pornographic? That's your decision.

Having said all that, the question of the devotees of Christianity remains:

My own best friend here, [who became a Christian via a different path to me - we're both women loving, unChristian Christians, so to speak, who enjoy a drop or two], tells a story about a coffee shop in the US which was fairly dire.

There's something not quite right about the so-called 'fundamentalist' Christians which is … well … off-putting. I can't identify it fully but I'll give it a shot:

For a start, there seems to be a certain mental set in the first place - either a stern, unbending outlook or else a sort of teenage girl totality to the mindset which either goes all bad or swings round and goes all good.

Christianity is, as it's founder said, primarily for gathering lost sheep and so there's a certain gratitude for what has been done for you. If you haven't taken this step, you'll never know the euphoria of it. A huge weight is taken off your shoulders and out of your soul. It's simply so.

The trouble comes when a certain naïve bonhomie deviates into fanaticism, as on the Planet Krikkit. The blindness to other points of view negates the message itself. There's a very simple test of this. Do the actions of the protesters turn the average person towards or against becoming a Christian?

And I think that was the idea. The other side knew what would provoke the fundamentalists and show them up in a bad light, therefore furthering the work of deviating people away from the essential message of common sense in our modus operandus in life. The keepers of the gate are so fearsome, none dare enter to hear the message.

There's little doubt that a battle is being fought for hearts and minds just now and so far, the humanists seem to be in the box seat. But the game's not over till the fat lady sings, guys.

By the way, be careful this easter - it's also grand climax and sacrificial victims are being sought for a bit of good ole bloodletting. You never know - you might meet your local mayor there behind that cowl.

[business lunacy] cautionary tales [1]

How not to run a business.

The Case of the Christian Coffee Shop

This one is set in Sioux City, Iowa, on the campus of Morningside College.

My friend Viktor and his wife were on the academic staff and at lunchtimes, there was the most delightful little café in the grounds, called Java, run by a sprightly lady in her mid-60s, named Polly.

Perhaps you can envisage it – cosy little place on two levels, all turned wood and chintz, offering the freshest ground coffee, chunky soups, sandwiches and salads, all served with a big smile and a personal greeting as you walked through the door.

On the second level was a quieter area for browsing through 2nd hand books and taking them to a table to read, whilst sipping on the syrup. Viktor and Daniella swore by the shop, as did the bulk of the campus, particularly the English department. Now I need to be quite accurate as to developments, as this names names.

For some reason, the shop was sold to Susie, a Southern Baptist Revivalist [I’m not sure what she was doing in the tri-state area] and husband.

And grown son.

And baby.

A huge ‘smiley’ of Susie now greeted you at the door and an electric piano had appeared in the corner, just inside the door. The coffee was served to the dulcet tones of Susie belting out one or other great revivalist hit, sometimes with family members joining the chorus, the baby puking in time in her arms whilst the food was being prepared and visitors encouraged to sing along.

Viktor and Daniella did not immediately shake the dust from their sandals but made a pact to visit every so often to chart the decay, as it were.

It was an uphill task.

There now appeared to be out-of-town strangers lounging about the shop and when the proprietors were not about, which was quite often, one or other would slouch behind the counter and fill the food orders of the rapidly dwindling clientele.

The English department particularly gave it a miss but even students, who could generally be relied upon to tolerate a certain degree of non-hygiene, now they too gave it away.

Our heroes gritted their teeth and continued to visit sporadically, taking only the self-serve half ’n half coffees from the dispenser and perching gingerly on chairs, having first brushed the dust away.

Enter – the son. They sold the business to him. A young man in his early 20s and described as inept though nice enough in a ‘sloppy kindaway’.

First sign was the greasy table of coffee dispensers – now empty most of the time. This necessitated asking at the counter and this day V&D asked for 'half ’n half", which is American code for some sort of coffee manifestation.

'Oh,' mumbled the son and went over to the fridge, took out an unopened carton and opened it. It had gone completely off. ‘My dad left it here,’ was the mitigation. ‘It wasn’t my doing. Pitch it!’

And with that, he did.

At this point in the story, I’m wondering why the two brave souls even contemplated going there again but it seems they did. This time there were computer games in one corner and two dirty socks below it on the floor.

D&V clapped hands over mouths and ran for the last time.

It later became a Mexican fast food outlet, roundly shunned by the whole campus. The owner simply can’t understand why.

[poor kate] media claws into her

Clearly I don't know much about who's "in" and who's passe and I don't understand why everyone's down on Kate Middleton. Is the average blogger down on her because the media also is? And how did that come about? What did she do which was so wrong?

She's now dropped a complaint against the Mirror that printed a picture of her walking to work, accompanied by a caption suggesting "stoney-faced Kate" was about to scold William after he was pictured with other women in nightclubs. Richard Wallace said: "We got it wrong and we sincerely regret that."

What's with this "stoney-faced Kate" jibe, after having cameras pushed into her face? The media really are animals, the way they behave or so it seems to me. Then again, am I just as bad, running the photo to the left?

And what is it with Kate Middleton? Is William bored with her? Is she possessive? Is she dowdy? Does she just hate publicity?

I read her as a private person who is more or less pro-William but who got off to a bad start with the media and now their claws are into her.

Someone enlighten me please.

[economists] the new high priests of society

To this post on the cause of the ills of society, the irrepressible Martin Kelly replies:

1] Economics, or more particularly an over-emphasis on the gross selfishness peddled by the faintly diabolical Friedrich von Hayek and rehashed by James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock and others into 'public choice', bears a very significant proportion of the blame.

2] The UK was lost the day Thatcher took out a volume of Hayek, slapped it down on the table and thundered: 'This is what we believe'. That was the United Kingdom's real 'Year Zero'; the point where the elites made it clear that all that was old and good about us would be smashed and that we would be remade according to the vision of a foreigner. It was if Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the previous 1,000 years of history had ceased to exist.

3] It's perhaps no coincidence that the decline of religion and its associated values has seen the rise of economics as a secular religion whose priests believe they can answer all human problems with some back of the fag packet calculus, McEquations, and very liberal usage of the word 'If'. They are slavishly doctrinaire in their adherence to the true faith, and regard all who oppose their beliefs and teachings as heretics.

I go with Point 3 and to some extent Point 1. How about you?

[history quiz] how many of these ten can you get

Who is this person?

1] Inclined to favour Matilda, Countess of Anjou, this man was arrested at St Albans, he acquiesced, was set free, gathered a force, took Cambridge, the abbey at Ramsay was sacked and then this man withdrew to the fens, in preparation for a long siege.

2] Schiller, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Twain, Shaw, and Brecht, have created works about her, and depictions of her continue to be prevalent in film, television, and song. She had visions, became a heroine at 17 and died at 19, on a trumped up charge.

3] He surrounded himself with all the luxuries and the external grandeur of an Eastern monarch, and his government prospered. He entered into an alliance with Hiram I, king of Tyre; the first half of his reign was better - in the second, he fell into idol worship.

4] When 19, he opened his own tailor shop; an unsophisticated, pugnacious but honest man without oratorical and political skills, he did more for the power of the presidency against congress than any before or since. Ross voted him not guilty.

5] Reporter, columnist and editor for Baltimore's Sun papers, he was especially well-known in the 1920s for his witty and insightful commentaries on the wretchedness of humanity. He edited The Smart Set and American Mercury.

6] Of Scottish descent, he became Russian Minister of War in 1810 and his cold, determined and scientific approach probably saved his army from early destruction at the hands of a full-strength Grande Armee. Other commanders did not like his caution.

7] A dutch exotic dancer, she was also adept at ballet and tried her hand at intrigue but the French were not impressed with he efforts. Apocryphal story of her once wearing only a fur coat and boots, her myth finally caught up with her.

8] Considered by many historians as the world's first multi-genius, he was revered in the ancient world as a poet, philosopher, physician, and astronomer. But he is best remembered as the creator of the first pyramid, the step pyramid and for two recent movies.

9] Raised in Tulsa, Clapton is perhaps his greatest fan, has influenced Dire Straits, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Deep Purple, the Allman Brothers, Johnny Cash, The Band, Santana, Captain Beefheart, and Bryan Ferry. Widespread Panic covered him not so long ago; he remains cantankerous and yet laid back in the extreme.

10] Played the clavier at three and composed his first piece at five; the Pope conferred knighthood on him early. He wrote on an official form regarding his salary: "Too much for what I accomplish, and too little for what I could accomplish."

Answers here.

[dilemma] the broken down car

I put this to a group of young ladies today:

In a nutshell, there's a dilemma wherein a man and his wife see another man whose car has broken down by the side of the road.

The husband reasons that it would be dangerous and time consuming to stop, with no likely benefit as they'd never see him again but that they could well come to harm if they did stop. and anyway, who was to say they'd be competent to render assistance?

His wife disagrees. She says that not only would he lose her respect but G-d would make a note of it for later reference. Not to mention living with hmself in the future. To stop and help, on the other hand, could well become cumulative, as the man would no doubt do something similar when it's his turn.

One girl reasoned that there'd be no immediate effect but the good feeling would brush off on all three, which would impact further down the track, e.g. the boss would give his workers an easier time the next day and so on.

I asked one young man and he reasoned: "That's his problem, buying an unreliable car."