Rhyme Or Reason?

Napoleon Blownapart

Ra Ra Rasputin's, pickled penis pulls them in...

[guitar chords]

Or so the curators will be hoping when Rasputin's ramrod goes on display at the St Petersburg museum of erotica:

Russia's first museum of erotica is to open in St Petersburg - with Rasputin's penis reputedly among the exhibits.

Museum founder Igor Knyazkin says the 12ins organ will be the star attraction, reports Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

Mr Knyazkin, who is also the chief of the prostate research centre of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, said he was particularly proud of the pickled penis.

He said: "Having this exhibit, we can stop envying America, where Napoleon Bonaparte's penis is now kept.

"Napoleon's penis is but a small pod - it cannot stand comparison to our organ of 30 centimetres."

The gossips said that the mad monk had seduced the Empress. Quite plausible, I suppose. After all, why would she object to being shagged by the ruler!

A Picture Paints A Thousand Words

'War President'

It was inevitable that the recently posted Bush mosaic would cause controversy. Pro Bush Americans that have lost relatives in the conflict will believe their loved ones gave their lives in the name of freedom. It is natural for them to be deeply concerned about their images contributing to such an effectual, anti-war statement. Chants of "exploiting the dead" were also a foregone conclusion from the outset. However, freedom of speech and self expression are at the heart of the democracy they strive for. Therefore, is it not with crass hypocrisy that they consider the image inappropriate?

It is, however, encouraging to note that the image is attracting far more positive feedback than negative. Furthermore, the artist, Joe Wezorek, who says he will never seek to profit from the work, has been contacted by several of the soldiers relatives, all confirming their support for the image and the poignant message it conveys.

As the montage is made up of more tiles than there have been US casualties, the images have been replicated to achieve the desired effect. Perhaps a similar image will be produced using the pictures of the Iraqi civilian casualties? There certainly wouldn't be a need for duplication there. However, if it included the 1.5 million deaths attributed to the US / UK sanctions imposed after the Gulf war, you would need a monitor the size of a football pitch to view it. It is unlikely though, as there's not likely to be many photo's around in memory those unfortunate souls.

Of course, the web being what it is, this is only the latest of Bush mosaics that have blessed us with their presence. This one is made up of the presidents character traits. All of them.

The Innocence Of Youth

My ten year old daughter, Hannah, has just asked me if the war with Iraq was the Gulf War. Before I could answer, my seven year old son, Matthew, said... "What did they do, throw the sticks and balls at each other?".

Toothing - A Travel Pursuit

What is it with us Brit's and random, anonymous sexual liaisons?

First came dogging:

Dogging is a predominantly British activity that involves outdoor exhibitionism in car-parks, wooded areas and the like. The term dogging originated in the early Seventies to describe men who spied on couples having sex outdoors. These men would 'dog' the couples' every move in an effort to watch them. When the swinging scene discovered that open-air sex has its own special thrill they began meeting in car-parks, and the doggers found a new and rich supply of voyeuristic fun. Moreover, the doggers soon realised that these couples were actively encouraging them to watch, even performing for them, and sometimes allowing them to join in.

I must be naive; I thought that this kinky stuff was only going on in other peoples backyards. However, a quick search for local dogging venues returned 10 locations within an hours drive. Two of which are 5 minutes from my humble abode. I'm shocked!

I'm also a little peeved. In my pre-coupled days, rumpy hunting was a learned skill. We had to invest time and money in order to secure the odd friar tuck. Friday and Saturday nights existed exclusively for the purpose of identifying a possible mate, plying the suitable prey with alcohol and false promises and then paying for the taxi home. All without any guarantees. I always thought that the fairer sex had it pretty cushy; not only were they the beneficiaries during the wooing stages, they also got to call the shots at the final hurdle by deciding whether you should go home with a Cheshire grin and a spring in your step or nursing a pair of elephant balls and an empty wallet. If, like me, your conversion ratio never managed to get beyond 1:10, it became an expensive, tiresome, yet somewhat obligatory pastime. Nowadays, you can locate your nearest dogging spot on the net, jump in the car, do a little window shopping and then hop in to get off where you fancy. If your fine tune the timing, you could be back in the pub playing pool before happy hours finished. That's progress! I am, of course, only joking... My conversion ratio wasn't really that bad ;-)

Now, it would appear, technology, and in particular bluetooth, has aided the evolution of a new breed of anonymous shaggers, aka: Toothers:

'Toothing is a form of anonymous sex with strangers - usually on some form of transport or enclosed area such as a conference or training seminar. 'Toothers meet by first connecting suitable equipment - such as a modern phone or palmtop computer. Users 'discover' other computers or phones in the vicinity and then send a speculative message. The usual greeting is: 'Toothing?'.

If the other party is interested, messages are exchanged until a suitable location is agreed - usually a public toilet, although there are tales of more adventurous spots such as deserted carriages or staff areas. What happens next is up to you!

But what happens next if you arrive in the lavy for a quick rest-room rogering, only to find that the purveyor of all those titillating foreplay messages resembles a cart-horse in a mini-skirt or a gurning champion in a business suit (I'm trying hard not to be sexist here)? It must happen quite frequently, musn't it?

So, if you're into a bit of, no-ties, self-gratuitous humping, and you're not too fussed as to who it's with; here's the forum, here's the faq's, here's the blog and here's where you may need to go if you don't take note of this.

Who's The Diplomat?

Osama bin Laden's taped truce proposal offered a 'get out' for European countries today. Predictably, Tony Blair dismissed it without question, preferring to remain firmly impaled on George Bush's raised forearm; content in the role of big brother's little brother.

I have no sympathy with Al Qaeda's cause, mainly because I have no empathy with their culture or belief structure. Also, my conscience tells me that influential figures peddling death and destruction can be nothing short of barbaric murderers. I can, however, understand their motives for hating the west and, in particular, the USA. Your average hardline muslims are unlikely to have read the same history books as those educated in the land of apple pie and drive-in movies. Their perception of the USA's rise to fame and fortune is more likely to be in in keeping with this version of events - written by an American, incidentally. They're also more likely to interpret America's current handle on human rights very differently to the rosey picture portrayed by the Bush administration and those who have gone before. And, of course, there's McDonalds; undeniable proof that something is horribly wrong.

Naturally, the official line on the bin Laden tape is that it's propaganda designed to drive a wedge between Europe and the US. I couldn't agree more. However, propaganda is perfectly justified during times of conflict; the way our intelligence is consistently insulted by Messrs Bush and Blair is a reliable precedent for its acceptability. Furthermore, there's a couple of differences between bin Laden's proposals and those of the coalition a year or so ago:

1. Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein centered around the surrender of WMD that never existed. Whereas, bin Laden's requires the removal of our, very real, forces from muslim countries.

2. Bush gave Hussein just 48 hours to get out of his own country for not surrendering the non-existent WMD, thereby breaching resolution 1441 when, it would appear, he had actually complied with it. bin Laden, however, has given European leaders a full 3 months to get the troops out of their lands, to stop killing their people and to stop meddling with their culture.

Yes, bin Laden is worthy of the noose for the atrocities he has unleashed on mankind, as is Saddam Hussein. But, by the same measure, so are George Bush, Tony Blair and all parties complicit in the mindless, unnecessary and wanton blitzing of the Iraqi and Afghani populations. How anyone could be at all surprised that they are not taking the occupation of their homeland graciously is, quite frankly, incomprehensible. To me, anyway.

Before the war started, those opposed were branded the 'loony left' and 'whinging liberals'. It's interesting to read those loony, whinging viewpoints again, now that history is set to record another abysmal mess at the hands of America and it's misguided posse.

As an Englishman, bringing up English children, it would certainly be in my interests for the government to heed the warning and get out. The US have sufficient military might to fight whatever wars they deem justifiable, on an independent basis. Our government's first priority is national security. The 'hit and run' tactics we have been party to have gone a long way towards destabilising our security and jeopardising the lives and freedom of every UK citizen.

I believe it's time to stop listening to the big boys and start thinking for ourselves again. It never failed us before. We need to rethink our logic, re-establish our reason and, most importantly, resurrect our humanity.

Reported Iraqi civilian deaths as of 16th April 2004:
Minimum 8865
Maximum 10715

Plotting Your Politics

Where are you on the political compass?

I found this whilst dipping into greenfairy's 100 things. It takes a little time but, it does make you consider your stance on issues you haven't pondered for a while, and it's interesting to see who you're likened to.

It turns out that I am: Economic Left/Right: -5.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90, which plants me almost squarely on top of Nelson Mandela and just a tad to the right of The Dalai Lama. Fine company, if I do say so myself.

It comes as no surprise to find Tony Blair nestled in the heart of the authoritarian right. When did he abandon his socialist values? If, in fact, he ever had any?

"'You have to remember,' says someone who knows him, 'that the great passion in his life is his hatred of the Labour Party.'"

Confusing Chemistry

The threat of a chemical attack in the UK is back in the news. This time it's osmium tetroxide that's suspected to be the dirty bomb builders agent of choice.

So, being a Brit living with the constant 'It's not if, it's when' cloud hanging overhead, I ventured forth to establish the likelihood of such an attack, and the ramifications should we ever have to endure one. Here's a few of the facts I found :

Would it be a viable chemical for terrorists to use?

Financial Times

"Scientists say that the material would be an almost ideal chemical agent for terrorists wanting to cause casualties and mass panic in a confined space"

BBC

"Scientists believe it is an "extremely unlikely" candidate for use in a dirty bomb... handling the chemical would be difficult for any terrorist".

Hmm... there appears to be a slight difference of opinion.

OK, let's assume that the terrorists decide to give it a whirl...

Would it be cost effective and easily available?

Financial Times

"Terrorism experts and security officials say ... osmium tetroxide can be bought over the internet for £17 per gram.

BBC

"One gram costs about £96-£130... You wouldn't get a lot of osmium for more than £30,000"

Have the BBC not cottoned on to Ebay yet?

Anyhow, using their figures, £30k...Incidentally, I wonder where they plucked that from?... Is it the standard bomb makers budget? And, what a peculiar turn of phrase: "You wouldn't get a lot of osmium for more than £30,000" - I would say that you could get as much as you like, governed only by how much more than £30k you're prepared to pay. Anyway, back to the calculator... using their figures, £30k would buy you somewhere between 230g and 312g of osmium. If, however, the terrorists have a webwise buyer that sniffs out the FT's source, they could procure 1,764g or 1.76Kg. Let's hope they are all supporters of High Street shopping, eh?

Right then, now we know how much can be bought with the assumed budget, give or take the odd one and a half kilos ...

How much would be required to pose a serious health risk?

Financial Times

"Just a few millionths of a gram in a cubic metre of air would have corrosive effects on the eyes, skin and lungs."

BBC

"Given its reactive nature, it is likely to be destroyed in any actual explosion... If you had 10g and you opened it up in a normal-sized room, within a couple of minutes it would cause people's eyes to stream... Some people might feel a bit tight in the chest.... Osmium tetroxide is not a fatal substance"

Hold on a mo; I need to get my head around this.

Right, I think I've got it. The true effects lie somewhere between a few millionths of a gram causing eye, skin and lung corrosion and 10 grams, some several million times greater, generating watery eyes and, if you're unlucky, a bit of a wheezy chest. Fine!

Perhaps the guys who ran the original exclusive can better inform me:

ABC News

"It's a nasty piece of work.... It irritates the eyes, lungs, nose and throat. It leads to an asthma-like death, what we call a 'dry-land drowning... for example, if the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack had produced such fumes, they would have wiped out the first police and rescue workers on the scene."

I'm seriously confused now, so I'm off to bed to dream about tangerine trees and marshmallow pies; I need to get closer to reality.

Al Who?

#

In the wake of the arrests of eight (now nine) suspected terrorists in London, a snippet of today's coffee time conversation went something like this:

'A' said: "They're all so young. Do you think they were really recruited by Al Qaeda? Perhaps they're just disillusioned and misguided muslim kids, trying to plan something off their own bat?"

'B' said: "Who's Al Qaeda?"

'A' said: "Y'know... Osama Bin Laden?"

'B' said: "Oh sure, I've heard of him, but not Al Whatsisname... who's he?"

I was gobsmacked, to say the least.

GGG's

First came the G string, then we found the G spot, now comes along the most exciting 'G' to date:

Gmail!

"As part of Google's mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, we're testing an email service called Gmail.

Gmail is a free, search-based webmail service that includes 1,000 megabytes (1 gigabyte) of storage. The backbone of Gmail is a powerful Google search engine that quickly recalls any message an account owner has ever sent or received. That means there's no need to file messages in order to find them again.

When Gmail displays an email, it automatically shows all the replies to that email as well, so users can view a message in the context of a conversation. There are no pop-ups or banner ads in Gmail, which places relevant text ads and links to related web pages adjacent to email messages."

If this is as good as it sounds, it leaves Hotmail and Yahoo in the dark ages. A gig of mail storage... Mind you, that's one helluvalot of spam!

Maybe it's an April fool?

Apparently, not.

Finally, I Have A Label

Since I decided that thinking for oneself was the best way forward, I have never subscribed to a particular faith or religion; I adhere to the notion that man created God and support the theories of evolutionists over creationists. However, I have never felt entirely comfortable describing myself as an atheist or agnostic. The former defines me for what I accept to be false, but says nothing of what I believe to be true. It is also synonymous with infidel; a derogatory title I have no desire to hold. The latter I consider to be a rather ambiguous label, attracting those that are indecisive and/or afraid to get it wrong and wind up in the naughty queue come judgement day. A 'get out of jail free' card, if you like. A cop-out, if you prefer.

So, I have been lacking a category in which to slide. Until today:

Earlier, I was reading one of the many tributes to the late, great Peter Ustinov and, after a little link hopping, found myself here. I'd heard of humanism before but confess to being ignorant as to it's foundations or philosophy. Intrigued by the taster, I was compelled to find out more:

Humanism

"Humanism encompasses atheists and agnostics, but it is an active philosophy far greater than these passive responses to one particular idea. With an approach to life based on humanity and reason, humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. We value the truth, and consider facts as well as feelings in reaching a judgement. Humanists reject the idea of any supernatural agency intervening to help or hinder us. Evidence shows that we have only one life, and humanists grasp the opportunity to live it to the full.

Humanists retain faith in the idea that people can and will continue to solve problems, and that quality of life can be improved and made more equitable. Humanists are positive, gaining inspiration from a rich natural world, our lives and culture.

Humanist thought found particular expression during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and in the scientific, social and political revolutions of the modern age. Many people are tacit humanists, reaching similar conclusions without meeting like-minded people or reading particular texts, because these ideas are founded on knowledge, not beliefs.

Humanists think that:
this world and this life are all we have;
we should try to live full and happy lives ourselves and, as part of this, make it easier for other people to do the same;
all situations and people deserve to be judged on their merits by standards of reason and humanity;
individuality and social cooperation are equally important."

The more I read the more I agree with the refreshingly logical and rational philosophy.

At last, I have a pigeon hole in which to roost.

Hallelujah! I am a humanist.