[zevon] ain't that pretty at all

Were there ever such savage lyrics set to such harmonious music as those of Warren Zevon, already mentioned earlier today? Was there ever a muso's muso unknown to the public at large?

Most know him as the gravel voice behind the classic Werewolves of London but his songs were myriad and often very, very strange: “Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner”, “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead” and “Tenderness On The Block”, about teenage love on the street, were three of note.

On the idealism of the young which turns to disappointment and then resignation:

“Looking For The Next Best Thing”

I worked hard, but not for the money

Did my best to please

I used to think it was funny

'Till I realized it was just a tease

So I'm looking for the next best thing

Looking for the next best thing

I appreciate the best

But I'm settling for less

'Cause I'm looking for the next best thing

On visiting much lauded sites and not seeing what all the fuss was about:

"Ain't that Pretty at All"

I've been to Paris

And it ain't that pretty at all

I'd like to go back to Paris someday and visit the Louvre Museum

Get a good running start and hurl myself at the wall

'Cause I'd rather feel bad than feel nothing at all

On the modern malaise which threatens to destroy relationships:

"Nobody's in Love this Year"

We keep walking away for no reason at all

And no one says a word

We were always so busy protecting ourselves

We never would have heard

And the rate of attrition for lovers like us

Is steadily on the rise

Nobody's in love this year

Not even you and I

Due to lack of commitment on both of our parts

We're going our separate ways

This show of indifference is breaking our hearts

It's making us crazy, yeah

You sit back and wait for your love to accrue

You'll be waiting a long, long time

Nobody's in love this year

Not even you and I

The lyrics only do partial justice to Zevon, who died in 2003, aged 56. Try to find the albums if you can.

[religion] when in rome

Pope in a mosque

Golden opportunity to defend another religion against Christianity.

The government of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has banned the propagation of other religions in the holy places of Hindus across the state. The authorities say the move is to ensure that Hindu sentiments in holy places are not offended.

It follows a row over alleged Christian missionary activity around a shrine in the town of Tirumala. Christian organisations have not reacted, but a Muslim legal expert denounced it as unconstitutional.

Precisely. The Christians have no right to enter the holy precincts and try to propagate Christianity. It doesn't need it. This blog has absolutely no problem with any Muslim site in Mecca either. It's the home of Islam and I'll put on the cap and take off the shoes any time to respect Islam.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

However, where one religion comes in, razes another's churches to the ground and builds its own on top of the site, that's beyond the pale. That needs opposing in a big way but not by violence.

[your role in life] greatness thrust upon you

The old Twelfth Night line about some having greatness thrust upon them. I was reflecting on this, after this from Ellee Seymour:

"proven ... leadership qualities and global contacts"

We were discussing Mutleythedogsdayout and his amazing rating in the other poll going on at the moment and I replied:

"Mutley is the Henry V type. A naughty boy now but give him some responsibility and he'd be one of the best."

Now that got me thinking. If we were, let us say, rudely thrust into the political limelight, what role would suit us best? In other words, which role would we take to, like a duck to water?

In my situation, there isn't any role in the British system. In temperament - the Chancellor but I'm no economist and don't wish to be PM. I have no ambitions in that direction. :) The U.S. system though - ah, there's a role tailor-made for me:

Secretary of State

Consider the qualifications required:

1] No discernible talent nor achievements of any note;

2] A mongrel attitude and as ugly as sin;

3] Divided loyalties, suspect contacts and the ability to play all sides;

4] Substantial world contacts;

5] A murky past and some very shady deals;

6] Some organizational talent;

7] Hard-driving and strong-willed;

8] Temperamentally preferring the role of "power behind the throne", rather than the throne itself;

9] Insufferable ego which, strangely, does not translate into ambition;

10] Pretends he's a saint.

Yep, I'm a snip for this role. Now, if we could do a double-package constitutional change to allow non-U.S. born candidates to assume office, we could have something going here. I'm just going off to write Arnie now. Although I think he has the Prez in mind, between you and me.

The other role I think I'm cut out for is The Envoy. As Warren Zevon sang:

He's got diplomatic immunity
He's got a lethal weapon that nobody sees
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Send the envoy
Whenever there's a crisis
The President sends his envoy in

Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Send the envoy . . .
Send for me!

And what about you? What's your ideal role?

[had to smile] had to agree

Whom do you Think would make the Best Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown 6%

David Cameron 0%

Menzies Campbell 6%

Mutley The Dog 88%

17 votes total

[human rights] there's no such thing

Charles Robertson is thought provoking again on the subject of "Handing Out Rights". He dislikes phrases such as:

The joint report by [...] says [a particular group of people] in Jersey should have more rights, independence and choice.

Really? What rights? Because rights come with responsibilities. Your right not to be assaulted gives me a responsibility not to hit you. So upon whom will the corresponding responsibilities for these new rights fall? What's the betting that it's you, me, and our wallets, and we're not really talking about rights at all, but services?

Read the whole thing. I replied thus:

I don't believe in "rights" at all. The concept of a right is that there must be a right "from" something or someone and even where there's a right "to" something, it implies that there is someone to hand that right out in the first place.

In the political sphere, this usually means the government. The only way to get the government to guarantee "rights" is by legislation. And legislation on social issues goes against the whole fabric of a democratic society - it accepts that the government can do things to you and that you need protection from that.

There is a subtle assumption here that you don't run the government - the government rules over you. I don't accept that in the least. My model of a government, the image I have in my mind's eye, is that of representatives, temporarily appointed by us, taking care of the daily running of the army, health care for the aged and so on.

We fight for and negotiate our own conditions and pay a flat tax for those who are incapable due to age, youth, insanity or ill health. Those we employ to take care of these things are accountable to us. This is the so-called government.

This is the concept behind Secretaries in the British government, i.e. officially servants of either the crown or the people but not rulers from Westminster or Washington.

They may have the "right" to enjoy office for some time but it's still a very wonky term.

[olympics] criminal wastage

From Steven Bainbridge on that scandal:

£400,000 of taxpayers' money:

Submitted to the BBC for nothing:

Please read his whole article.

This is more than just government wastage. This is serious criminal incompetence. Who were the people who came up with that? Who employed the people who came up with that? In what shape or form would that ever be accepted by the public? Where exactly did the £400 000 go? How can the cost of an Aston Martin and more go into a piece of paper?