'Barrel', 'fish' and 'shooting' come to mind...

When one reads this sanctimonious tosh from Neil Robertson on the Liberal Navel-Gazing site:

"I cannot, in good conscience, exercise my legally-guaranteed right to participate in the democratic process when tens of thousands of Britons are illegally deprived of theirs. For that reason, I will be staying at home come election day. Not out of apathy, nor out of a lack of available alternatives, but as a small protest against a big injustice."

As for myself, I'm not going to brush my teeth for a week in a protest against world poverty. Of course there's the problem that no-one will notice - and even those who do are unlikely to ask why. Most likely I'll be lumped together with those lazy bastards who can't be arsed with dental hygiene. There's the same problem with Mr Roberston's 'protest' - only more so.

Galloway vs Toube

George Galloway is a very sensitive man. I hope it isn't libellous to suggest perhaps a tad too sensitive? It's just that it is difficult to know what other conclusion one could draw from his apparent belief that a comment left on some stupid blog is so damaging to his reputation that it is worth £50k?

The whole thing is so ridiculous that one wonders if the whole thing isn't an elaborate spoof. But assuming it isn't, there is no alternative to backing David T on this one. For as Voltaire said: "You really can be something of an asshole at times - but I defend unto the death your right to be an asshole".

By pure co-incidence, around the same time, the carrier of the offending comment - the apparently unironically named 'Socialist Unity' blog - posted a video of Toube indulging in what they describe as an 'Islamophobic Rant'. Well, it was certainly a rant. But Islamophobic? Given that it is not only described thus without much in the way of evidence and that he is also accused of fuelling the 'growth in xenophobic hatred' in the text above the clip, I was wondering if Mr Toube might consider this libellous enough to take some action of his own?

If you're going to leave a comment, please check your bank balance before you do.

Actually, on second thoughts - no need to bother: I have comments moderation and a delete button that will take care of anything untoward. But take more care over at Socialist Unity. It seems they have no such facility.



Galloway has always claimed he was addressing the Iraqi public rather than the leader, and that it was most infelicitous to use "you" instead of "youse" - Guardian, 2002.

'Youse' is the Scots' second person plural.

That would render it, "Sir, I salute youse courage, youse strength, and youse indefatigability".

Which doesn't make any goddamn sense because 'youse' isn't used as the second person plural possessive.

In fact there isn't a specifically Scottish second person plural possessive.

I'm so confident on this point, I feel a Zen-like calm.

Although obviously it would be outrageous to suggest that Mr Galloway was lying. Given he has repeated this more than once, one can only conclude that he is genuinely linguistically-confused.

The joys of research

Not so much from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious - more the Quite Well-Known:

"Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write."

You can observe this on a daily basis. Cyclists, not content with having lanes painted everywhere to accommodate their perversion, routinely feel free to jump lights or board the pavement whenever tedious interventions like the Highway Code interfere with their path of righteousness. My own view is that the lycra-wearing freaks should either pay road tax or face being hosed off the streets.

But the all-too-human feeling that do-goodism in one area of a person's life more than compensates for being something of an asshole the rest of the time has been noted before. I once read a particularly interesting, albeit unverifiable, argument from Neal Ascherson suggesting that it was Albert Schweitzer that provided the modern pattern for people like Bob Geldof: not only did good works excuse obnoxious behaviour - the latter came to be seen as somehow intrinsic to the former.

In other news, apparently the average Briton thinks 'middle age' begins at 35 and ends at 58. It seems people at the end of this inexplicably long scale get a bit defensive about this - but unless they think they're going to live to be 116, I can't see any good reason for this. My own response to anyone accusing me of having a mid-life crisis is that I have absolutely no intention, or indeed likelihood, of living beyond 88.

Finally, from the Department of Way Too Much Time on Their Hands. Scientists: working on a cure for cancer? There are more pressing concerns:

"As pubs stocked up with extra supplies of the black stuff in preparation for Ireland's national celebrations on Wednesday, scientists offered an explanation for why the famous Irish brew behaves so oddly.

Pour just about any other pint of beer, and the bubbles can be seen to obey the normal laws of physics. Filled with buoyant gas, they rise to the surface and form a frothy head.

But Guinness, in the best Irish tradition, does things differently. The bubbles in a freshly poured pint appear to be cascading down the side of the glass - yet the creamy top which is the drink's trademark remains.

Members of the Royal Society of Chemistry set out to investigate the puzzle over the course of one lunchtime."

They did this over lunch? That's one long lunch. But it was in preparation for St Paddy's Day after all. Are you Irish? I wish you happy St Patrick's Day. And if you're one of the fake Irish we have so many of in sunny Glasgow, happy mawkish Celtic sentimentality day to you too. Enjoy. I'm staying in.

Pedant queries

I was brought up to think you should kill yourself - or at least indulge in a prolonged period of self-flagellation if you described something as being nearly or almost unique. Because the state of uniqueness is absolute; something is either unique or it isn't.

But you could say the same about perfection - yet no-one gets worked up about it if someone uses the expression, "near perfection", or something similar.

Can anyone shed any light on this sematic puzzle - or are grammar pedants merely insane?

Pre-empting the usual "you're racist, or at the very least prejudiced, if you don't want England to win" bullshit prior to World Cup

Kevin McKenna goes for this in Comment is Pants:

"Nor can we justify our anti-Englishness by citing historical grievance. We willingly entered a union with them which, economically, has been extremely advantageous to us and England provides the biggest jobs market for us outside Scotland. Our tourist economy is built on the Bank of England pound. We even run their government and many of their biggest institutions. More distressing still is that most English people will support Scotland in every endeavour we undertake."

Listen fuckface - I'm an economic historian - I know all this. I've just realised I've been blogging for so long, I had to make this point the last time round: I'm not anti-English. My mother is English. So is my brother-in-law and my nieces. So are just about all of my living relatives, come to that. I feel relatively well disposed towards the English. Goddamnit all, I'm the only living human being I know who actually likes London.

But I still don't want you to win and here's why: the English win something, they don't half go on about it. Take the 1966 World Cup, for example. This was the year I was fucking born, ok? But you're still going on about it. David Baddiel sung, "I remember that tackle by Moore...". No you don't, you fucking prick - you're the same age as me! So if you were to win it again, this would mean that my entire stay on this ball of dirt would be dominated by the English going on about how you won the goddamn World Cup. This would never do. So I hope you lose - to Germans.

P.S. It's only a game. A fairly stupid one at that. I realise this is a minority view amongst the male of the species, particularly in this part of the world, but I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side...