Thersites Writes

Ah, the Netherlands: that beacon of liberalism. Where the government can now tell you what to wear, and what to think, all in an attempt to "reign in terrorism" (or appease the latent racism of its population). Still, since you now need to carry ID around with you at all times - like those other great pluralistic democracies; China, Belarus and Iran - it should at least create the illusion that the government knows what it's doing.

I know it's important to deal with terrorism, but surely what we all should be doing is asking WHY (only a handful of) women wear Burkhas and why Muslim communities seem so alienated. Trying to make them as 'Dutch' as possible is part of the problem: you'll just drive them further into the arms of extremists. Reform, in order to work, has to come from within, which is hard to do when a community feels under siege. 'Assimilation' is all too often a cruel joke anyway. The Jews of Germany tried their very best to be as 'German' as possible, but no matter what they did, it wasn't good enough. Dreyfus didn't exactly do well in 'tolerant' France either. The only way forward is for both sides to accept their differences, rather than trying to rub them out, and get them to coexist. But then, that would require a degree of tolerance and an attempt to mediate, which the Dutch government seems to be in no mood to do right now. How can they then criticise Muslim communities for the same thing?

And quite why the Dutch think this is a good idea is beyond me. Are extremes only tolerable if they indulge the majority? I find it odd that a mediaeval, backward bit of cloth is any more of a threat to Dutch society than legalised euthanasia or quasi-legal dope or gay marriage. But then the majority of people with white skin in the Netherlands support the latter whereas a minority of people with brown skin supports the former. But then, every nation justifies itself on the grounds of public opinion. Iran justifies its public executions, amputations and hideous homophobia on the grounds that the public wants it too. And, like the Dutch, the Iranians want to tell everyone how to dress and what to look like. Dutch readers may be offended by this comparison, but then I hope Iranian ones are too...

(Flame away, everyone!)

As a Sinophile, I was of course disgusted by the brutal treatment of Lu Banglie at the hands of thugs hired by the corrupt local government he was campaigning against. (Quite legimately as an elected representative, in fact.) That said, the attempt to shut him up may have backfired as world attention is now focussed on the Taishi situation, making Beijing look very bad if it doesn't do something to slap down its more crooked local administrators. In fact, Banglie's ordeal may have made him a semi-martyr, but, fortunately, not a full one. And even half a martyr can be dangerous.

Perhaps the best metaphor for what's happening in China right now is the story of what happened to a bear farmer in Jilin province. Having spent years abusing and sucking out the raw essence of his bears while they were held in cramped cages, the farmer's ursine captives quite rightly turned around one day and ate him. History shows that the Chinese peasantry is a bit of a caged bear itself, something its 'owners' in Beijing might care to remember.

In the meantime, the rest of China is reaching for the stars. Coincidence, or a well-timed, well-publicised distraction? Good luck to the Taikonauts, anyway.

While I am, partly, Scottish, I don't subscribe to all that thinly-veiled racism, self-pity and arrogance that typifies the breed. The fact they claim to be so hard done by but pretty much run the country is another bugbear. Maybe I'm glad I'm not Scottish...

Not least when, on today's BBC News Online, the Scottish page has stories on murder, rape, child abuse and a scheme to let wolves loose in the Highlands. (There are already plenty of dangerous animals in Scotland, and indeed, the whole UK. Alas, they mostly live in Council Estates.) A quick scan through the archives reveals that there's also plenty of assorted acts of violence, drug abuse and poverty to enjoy 'over the border' too.

Ah yes, Bonny Scotland. It never disappoints in disappointing you. It's enough to make one English...

Now, George W. Bush (do I need to give you a link to tell you who he is?) is not stupid. It might make some of the nutters in the Democrat rump feel better about themselves to think he is. But he's not. He didn't exactly crawl out of Yale without a degree - indeed, the big irony is, he did a degree in History there and that's no thicko's subject. If anything, his ability to manipulate and play to a crowd, to repackage himself as something other than the blue state aristo he really is and to scheme and plot in a tag team with one of politic's most utterly ruthless spin doctors suggests he has more brain cells than most of us, maybe even a subtle kind of genius. He may have some damage done to his brain through years of boozing - but that's not a threat to his IQ so much as his diction.

No, his biggest problem is that he's bloody lazy. He spends too much time at his ranch. His shock and suprise on first first hearing about 9/11 was more down to not ever having to think things through on the spot before than ineptitude. He turns up in a jet or in the middle of Iraq up to add a presidential seal of approval on his men's latest neo con adventure then buggers off for some more cycling. This article claims he's running on autopilot now. Vive la difference. He is lazy - he lets other men do the dirty work and that's probably why there have been so many fuck ups. If Bush II actually put as much effort into running the Presidency as he has in winning it, there might not have been nearly as many disasters, quagmires or absurd deficits. But then again, the man's been dossing about since his school days, through his time in the Texas national guard and into the White House itself. If Clinton showed how some Baby Boomers squandered their potential in a storm of self-indulgence and bad habits, so Bush is the archetypical man (or woman) of that generation who turned slacker and casually waved at opportunity while it dashed by. Dubya's big sin is sloth, not stupidity.

Which brings us to the lovely Harriet Miers. She may well be very clever, have lots of legal qualifications and may even do a good job in the SCOTUS. (Depending on how you look at it.) But the fact of the matter is that Bush made an error in trying to foist a non-Judge onto the most powerful judicial outfit in the USA, nay the world, not least because she's also a good friend of his. The ragged banshees of the left have been ranting away about it, of course. But so have the right, who are either shocked and surprised that GWB has made a mistake that even they must acknowledge, or have used this as a catylist for venting all their hidden frustrations about the administration not being loonoid-right enough. It's as if he didn't think it out first, or, just couldn't be bothered to... One of the more sensible newsbloggers in the US believes this shows Bush may just be coasting from now on as he doesn't have to worry about the 2008 election bloodbath. But if truth be told, given what has happened before, perhaps he couldn't be arsed in the first place.

I've just found out that a good cure for being miserable is 30 minutes on an exercise bike. You will having such an intense near-death experience that misery won't get a look in.

Speaking of decrepitude, has David Davis just smeared himself in Major Grey and done an IDS? All of a sudden, the Ken Clarke long shot starts looking ever more likely...

Meanwhile, on the government benches a certain pie-loving Blairite stooge needs heart surgery after too many decades of oral love with lard. I do wish him well, of course, but only by default: it's not as if him being a two-faced, mercenary, craven shit (i.e, Old AND New Labour all at once) makes him any more worthy than any other heart patient.