'By the way, sorry about the slavery...now watch this shot': On Apologies For Slavery

The US senate offered apologies for slavery and Jim Crow laws recently, following the Church of England and Tony Blair's administration, who made their apologies some 3 years ago.

So what does this largely symbolic gesture accomplish? Well, practically speaking - nothing. And even though an  apology can provide some cultural healing, the very low key event greeted with marginal media coverage suggests not many people will benefit from the 'healing'. Also, the fact that the resolution comes with a disclaimer that prevents any claim against the United States takes the teeth and sincerity out of the apology.

Cold Case

One can't help but feel, with the considerations made to Native American Indians and Jews after the Holocaust, plus the pursuit of Nazi fugitives and outlawing of Holocaust denial (indeed the Holocaust is a mandatory aspect of school curricula in Germany) , African Americans (and the rest of the African Diaspora) have gotten a raw deal...again. Some say that enslaved Africans and their descendants weren't freed but 'let go', true when you are freed to a life of poverty, segregation and debt. Even though there is no difficulty in connecting the path of US race relations (indeed Global race relations) and the brutal history of segregation and exploitation, no individual, corporation or Government has ever faced justice for one of the most public and prolonged crimes in the last several hundred years.

Beyond race relations, the very prosperity of today's First World is firmly founded on its exploitation of the Developing World (that would encompass slavery and colonisation). In fact, both are products of each other with the exploitation far from over, only morphing into ongoing economic colonisation and 'economic apartheid', to borrow a term from Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine, Penguin 2007). Even though it's been 200 years since the abolition of the slave trade, the fall-out is very much evident in countries like Haiti and many African nations that have never truly become viable states. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the present instability in many former colonies is a direct result of their colonial and slave history. In some cases, even while Governments may be run by Black Africans, the money and resources still lie in the hands of the former colonials and Caucasian Africans. Klein finds evidence for this in her damning expose on 'disaster capitalism', The Shock Doctrine, describing a South Africa that moved from the overt institutional racism of Apartheid to the covert retention of the Country's money in the hands of the former 'minority masters'. Haiti, one could argue, has been paying for its insolence in freeing itself from slavery beginning with a levy 150 million francs in 1825, in exchange for recognition as a sovereign nation by the French. To be sure, the French left the fledging nation with little or no resources.

But slavery has been rendered a cold case in the history of crimes against humanity, and the recent apologies confirm this. Some argue that the passage of time and generations has left no smoking gun, no immediate victim and no red-handed perpetrator, hence seeking any sort of justice is pointless. Who would be held accountable? Who would the plaintiff be? What would be the just award for the crime? Good questions that all have very reasonable though inconvenient answers.

The Status Quo

That the rules are made by the rulers has always been the case, but to be fair  many former colonies have been independent long enough (some not so long at all) to be guilty of self-inflicted wounds, both economic and social. If there is to be some restitution for slavery and colonisation this should be taken into consideration. But we aren't speaking about the sins of the victims at this this stage, and the status quo that allows the crimes of the past to go unchallenged is what allows the crimes of the present to go unchallenged. Deal with the status quo and the sins of the past and present can be faced with some modicum of justice and equanimity. What are the crimes of the present? Continued plundering of natural resources of the Developing World (acquired in large part through colonisation) by First World corporations (with the assistance of governments on either side - especially in Africa and South America), onerous IMF and World Bank conditions and First World agricultural subsidies  that undercut local producers and economies. The consequences of these tactics are far reaching and include anything from unemployment and inflation to low exploitative wages and deforestation. Not only are economies destroyed but also local culture and social structure, according to Jeremy Seabrook's Consuming Cultures (New Internationalist, 2004).

That some Governments and leaders of plaintiff communities are complicit in this kind of 'legalised' exploitation is understood, but this doesn't absolve the accused, only impugns others. And the power of scarcity to force persons into 'selling out' shouldn't be underestimated. But that sounds like victim/slave mentality; the attitude that someone else is responsible for the failings of now autonomous groups and communities. To be sure if said communities find prosperity it will be in spite of the actions of the accused and indeed an issue of overcoming the actions of the accused rather than making use of assistance provided by the same. Still commendable if it can be done (and progress if very evident in the African American community) but doesn't mean that there aren't actual victims. Using the logic applied to the impunity surrounding slavery and colonisation, any crime  can be overlooked given enough time and neglect. Any group living in the wake of injustice can be labelled lazy blame shifters when they become the victims 'once-removed'. But this is the cheapest way out for the accused. It costs them nothing to apologise. And cost is very important because in today's consumerist/capitalist world economy, money is the first love of the body politic (ok, always has been). Wars are invented for it, blood is shed to to keep it - nothing, it seems can keep a nation of means away from its money - and other nations money.

It follows then that the US should protect its Beloved from being 'plundered' by folks who may have a right to it. But money is the unimaginative approach to justice, albeit that many find it to the most desirable. When it comes to slavery it's not just one state accountable to another state or community, but corporations are also beholden - maybe more so. Either way, tracking the profit shouldn't be that hard and finding ways to pay for the crime could be spread across methods including debt cancellation, relinquishing of resources, provision of resources without condition, and so on. The truth, however, is that the price of justice in this case is just too high to pay, partly because the crime is still in progress (and so for centuries) and the profundity of the crime warrants an exceptionally heavy sentence.

Promising Compromise

So what's the next most reasonable step? It can only be that the concerned former perpetrators and victims take the possibility of justice for damage caused by colonisation and slavery seriously. That might mean finally including the slave trade in British secondary education curricula, for example, and an effort to genuinely support affected nations and communities in sustainable ways - not handouts, but leg ups. I don't claim to have the knowledge or expertise to provide all the answers - but I'm sure that if those with the know-how actually apply themselves to the task - something could be done. A lot of expense, manpower, technology and brainpower go into war, exploitation, profit-seeking and downright criminality. Perhaps some of that ingenuity, creativity and energy can be put in the direction of healing. Apologies are decent gestures but words mean little when they weren't the problem in the first place.

EDIT: The Madoff sentencing made waves throughout the media with a hefty 150 years to his name. This blog entitled 'When Sorry Isn't Good Enough' makes a strong statement: money matters most. Mind you, the effects of Madoff's greed are real and go beyond a simple loss of cash, but there in the background is a lesson. Swift justice is meet here and it should be. But one wonders why, with situations like Katrina, Iraq war crimes and yes, slavery, the justice is either very slow or non-existent. What really matters more, human lives or dollar signs?

Transformers 2 Post Mortem: Entertaining! Exciting! Crap!

On its face Transformers 2 was exactly what it was supposed to be: entertainment, action, pointless shots of cool dudes walking in slo mo, everybody running from explosions in slo mo, scantily clad anorexic white girls & badly formulated premises moving a shaky plot-line forward with the help of dopey slapstick characters.

It was a badly edited string of action clichés in CGI. Awesome! Total guy movie.

Now what was Transformers really about? It was about 1 thing: Advertising. What were they advertising you ask? 3 things:

1. The American Military Industrial Complex
2. General Motors
3. The Republic Capitalist Agenda

No I'm not nuts and no I'm not reading into things too much. Trust me, I'm not paranoid they are really after you! ;O).

Ok seriously. America's military is comprehensively paraded throughout the film: satellite technology, nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, attack drones (which, by the way, routinely kill mourners and their families in Pakistan), tanks, aircraft, response time and more, all conveniently in the Middle East - or a place that looks just like it (Egypt really but who's counting?). The advancement of tech was even illustrated in the geriatric Blackbird, JetFire. They made being a soldier look very cool and dying for your country a very action-packed career option! So kids, join the army - now!

General Motors gets some great mileage out the film too. Primarily through the twins and Sideswipe. The twins are the Chevrolet Trax (Mudflap - the red one) and the Chevrolet Beat (Skids - the green one) and Sideswipe is a concept car (according to this site). The compact cars are no arbitrary choice. With the market wanting more fuel efficient cars and not the massive gas guzzlers GM usually turns out of the assembly line - Skids and Mudflaps are the hope of GM - even if they are the most embarrassing black stereotypes since JJ in Goodtimes.

Now the fact that these two commercial entities (yes the military is commercial) are getting massive airtime is no accident. They both need and make lots of money. And that brings us to the Republican Agenda.

The philosophy embedded in Transformers (that you, the weak in mind have been thoroughly programmed to accept and that I, with my superior paranoia, can detect from miles away) is anti-diplomacy, kick-butting military might at all costs whenever and where ever we want. Kinda like what happened with Iraq.

The movie even took shots at Obama, having him hid in a bunker and his emphasis on diplomacy trashed obliquely by Optimus Prime and squarely by Sergeant Lennox. The Main message via the Suit, eventually sent parachuting into the desert, was that diplomacy sucks and gunshot fi bus! Why? Cause war makes money. That's right Transformers is all about selling cars and making war. Or as the neo-cons would put it - business as usual.

Yes people, after Transformers 1 and 2 you will happily accept that war is life and America (and one British soldier) is the saviour of the world. Just give it time. Now if you don't sell out completely you will at least have developed marginal sympathy for the American Commercial cause. Trust me, right after the movie I had an inexplicable urge to enlist with marines and buy a Chevrolet. How do you explain that?!

MJ is Dead BUT...

Ok, for those who are balking at the frenzy around MJ's death and befuddled by the attention in the face of more important things I have one word: MULTI-TASK (ok one word in two parts).

That's right. We all know that Iran still demands our attention as do oil prices, famine and suffering around the world of all kinds. Guess what? We can mourn MJ's passing AND attend to these causes. Amazing huh?

But there is nothing wrong with pausing to acknowledge and celebrate a life that made such a deep impact on so many for at least 2 generations. Nothing wrong with it at all.

MJ is one of a few people in this world that was loved by people of all races and cultures. He blazed a trail for Black folks all over the world - but if your not black, maybe you won't understand that. It's ok. He technically blazed a trail for white folks too ;O). But in a world as fragmented as ours a unifying rallying point of any kind is a good thing. And we just lost one of the most powerful.

Are there more important things than MJ? Sure, but don't tell his family that.

Rest in peace MJ.

MJ

There are some people you don't think of as dead and Michael Jackson was one of them.

What I mean is that you assume they will live out their lives to a predictable outcome full of years and perhaps half forgotten, then you hear about their death which you respond to with a brief moment of sadness and fond nostalgia. But Jackson's death was so sudden and unexpected - what with a new tour just about to kick off - that there's almost  a kind of 'phantom limb' effect. A sort of static image left in that space in the collective psyche into which he was firmly placed.

The only other time the world seemed to gasp in disbelief and shared pain on this level, was when Princess Diana was killed - an event that lingered long with the Senior Fayed seeking his own brand of closure for years after.

For the generations that grew up entertained and educated by MJ's culture (and he was a centre of culture) his passing has revealed just how an individual can so perfectly fill a need, which perhaps we didn't even know we had, but was completely satisfied. For years he determined what we listened to and watched, how we danced, what we spoke about and even how we dressed.

Even though the footprints he left behind weren't always in perfect step it didn't matter, it was all a part of the mosaic that contributed to our cultural landscape. Whether it was his latest music video or surgical procedure or lawsuit - we followed it, and if we didn't follow it the media made sure that it followed us. No doubt his passing will be debated for months to come, and based on family spokesperson (though I suspect he is not in any sense official) Brian Oxman's tirade about 'enablers' and 'drugs', there will be those who will attempt to get as much mileage out of his passing for personal gain.

Oxman, speaking on CNN, began what sounded like a tearful, sincere report on the latest developments  from the hospital, ended his interview by turning the attention on himself, claiming to have predicted MJ's demise. Oxman referenced Anna Nicole Smith's death as a parallel for Jackson's situation - a star surrounded by people who meant him no good, plying him with drugs eventually leading to his death. Oxman vacillated between not knowing the cause of death to declaring near certainty. I suspect we will see much more of him.

In this age we are rarely given a moment of pause to digest events such as this. The irony is not lost on me that even now I am contributing to the ceaseless conversation. But perhaps, for a change, our writing and reading and watching and listening will be a collective mourning rather than just a media frenzy. For the media frenzy is sure to follow fast and furious. But whatever we think of MJ he spent himself on us. He seemed to pour himself out from near infancy to this day...for us. There is an undeniable ache of pity, gratitude and sympathy we feel for the dichotomy of his life: The breathtaking stage legend and the awkward even reclusive man-child. I can't imagine that there isn't a person wishing he is in a place where nothing painful can touch him.

Many of us may feel that a part of our childhood has died. It has.

Michael, you made us dance. Thank you.

5ive Women You Should NEVER Marry...or date...or carry on casual conversation with

Gentlemen - this is vital to your survival as a normal functioning member of society. Should you encounter any of the following women - RUN LIKE HELL! Or pay the price. As for the Ladies who will inevitably read this out of curiousity or to find out if they made the list...you know I'm right.

1. Manny Manny This one is obvious and is known by other names. Fill in the blanks: H_e and Sk_t_l. Got it? You may have been initially attracted by the strategic absence of clothing and come hither looks. She is a recipe for disaster as her prime motive is to attract men - any men, all the time. She is charming, funny, sometimes appears innocent and features in Proverbs 5-7 (she may or may not bite her nails while waiting at the stoplight with a 'I'm lost' expression). You are only one of the many victims. Your only escape is to think with your brain - your brain. Got it?! If you fall prey - it's your own fault. You will eventually be attacked by the guy who thought he was her one and only. She has never had - nor will ever have a 'one and only'.

2. Psycho-Me Me The Psycho first catches your ear by somehow getting you into an argument. Her main means of appropriating attention is anger & conflict. She can turn anything into an argument with her power of super-attention-getting. She behaves like she hates your guts and hence targets 'nice guys' who will want to quell the conflict she artificially created. Like a piece of unwanted sticky-tape, you try to shake her off only to find she is stuck on the back of your head. She manipulates via anger & guilt and shouting is standard communication. Once she gets an emotional reaction from you - she has won!

3. Daddy Eyes If she mentions her Dad within the first 10 minutes of meeting you - RUN! This lady thinks her Dad is perfection and whether she knows it or not, wants to marry him. This means that no man is ever good enough for her. Dating her will lead to continuous comparison of yourself against the maginificence of her Dad and your self-esteem will dwindle to mere burning embers. She is likely to be spoilt and used to getting her own way, so the only solution to engagement with her is to say 'look your Dad', then make a mad dash for the door.

4. Histrionic Hottie Histrionic personality disorder is a real psychological affliction. The patient looooooves attention and will do anything to get it include getting sick. If she senses your attention being drawn away from her by petty things like work, family, the game etc. she will not just feign illness but present real physical pain/symptoms in order to get the attention back to herself. She will not be happy until every waking moment of your life is dedicated to her whims and fancy. Attending to this one is a full time job and everyday demands overtime.

5. One-Up Control Freak This Freak is characterized by an intense fascination and love for herself. She is constantly amazed by her own intelligence and ability to be correct 100% of the time. Her desire is to prove her greatness to you by outdoing you in everything. If a woman challenges you to arm wrestle it is likely she is the OUCF. She thinks your faults are proof of her own greatness and believes completely unrelated facts, like some female spiders eating their male counterparts, are sufficient evidence for her to dominate and rule you with an iron fist.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

Homophobia Jamaican Style

Fear VS Fair

Jamaica's hostility toward homosexuality is world renown. It was in 1992 on a British programme called The Word, that the Island hit the homophobe map with a resounding Shabba Ranks sounding thud that can still be heard today. Shabba famously called for homosexuals to be 'crucified', and well the rest is history - and so is his career. Buju Banton also featured on the programme with his anti-gay song Boom Bye-Bye, and has also been paying for this statement to this day, effectively banned from performing in certain countries and venues, along with other Jamaican DJ's.

One of the latest moves against Jamaican homophobia is an initiative called Boycott Jamaica where people are encouraged to boycott all things Jamaican including Jamaican-made products and even visiting the Island. The two-fold goal of the site is to force the Government to 'Publicly commit to end gay bashing on the island and improve the human rights situation' and get 'A statement from the Prime Minister clearly and unequivocally condemning violence against GLBT people and expressing regret for past violence'.

The goals are fair enough, but the method may not be the best. Indeed, this method may very well work against the initiative, after all the economy isn't the cause of homophobia and shouldn't be the target. Why should businesses with no relationship to Jamaica's homophobia be targeted? In fact Red Stripe Beer which features on Boycott Jamaica's site is no longer a Jamaican product, but a part of British multi-national Diageo's portfolio. Poverty begets violence, and effectively creating more poverty is not likely to generate sympathy for the gay rights cause. Indeed, the potential backlash against this strategy of economic embargo might exacerbate anti-gay sentiment. In short, a cultural problem can't be solved with a purely economic or legislative effort.

Culture War

This is not to say that legislation has no place, but that the Jamaican problem goes beyond homophobia and into a dysfunctional attitude toward sexuality in general - something legislation can't solve. Jamaican society is uncomfortable not just with male sexuality but human sexuality. There is an immaturity in the approach to male sexuality that was almost humorously illustrated by the public reaction to a work of art erected in a park in Kingston's commercial district. The sculpture, pictured below, drew hostile cristicism due to the depiction of the male phallus. The well-endowed female figure seemed to sit well with the public, but apparently the size and overt display of the male organ was too much to bear.

The offending member - Emancipation Park, New Kingston, Jamaica

There is nothing homo-erotic about the statue given its subjects, but nothing overtly sexual either, save for the nudity which doesn't necessarily have erotic overtones. Indeed, the reaction toward the statue says something about the society. At least some Jamaicans see nakedness in a purely sexual way - the artistry is lost on them.

The depiction of sexuality through some aspects of Jamaican culture can be extreme, bawdy and caricatured. A popular a song called Rampin' Shop set the Island's Broadcasting Commission into action getting banned from airplay and bringing more stringent regulation of Jamaican airwaves. The song was also tied to the dance phenomenon called 'Daggering', a violent choreographic simulation of sex that even featured in two recent Newsweek articles. Now bawdy depictions of sex are not unique to Jamaica, the peculiarities lie in the attitude to male sexuality and the general insecurity surrounding the male sexual role even in heterosexual relationships. Daggering is unquestionably an exaggeration of virility, unrealistic and apparently dangerous (the Newsweek article reported an increase in 'broken penises' in Jamaica, apparently related to the Daggering craze). Extreme representations of sex in any culture tend to betray an insecurity that stifles a mature and healthy approach to sex and the related issue of the human body. But this fear of male sexuality is taken to the extreme when some Jamaican men, choosing to avoid saying the word 'man' altogether wherever it appears in the English language, take words like 'manifesto' and 'Manchester' and 'feminize' or 'de-homosexualize' them to 'wo-manifesto' and 'wo-Manchester'. Decidedly juvenile.

Get it straight

Jamaica needs to be acquainted with healthy, normal sexuality, before it can learn to embrace or at least tolerate homosexuality. Indeed the homophobia may be a result of the deeper heterosexual male insecurity. Some aspects of Jamaican culture suggest men are to be hard, emotionally detached and agreessive and hence angry and isolated, as well as exceptionally virile and able to satisfy multiple partners. A sensitive approach to sex isn't compatible with this destructive macho ideal.

Despite the fact that Shabba's tirade and Buju's Boom By Bye are almost 20 years old, they still feature in contemporary gay advocacy material. British physical theatre group DV8 featured Boom Bye-Bye and Jamaica's homophobia in a recent production, To Be Straight With You. Based on transcribed interviews the production illustrated, with stunning effect, the plight of homosexuals in Jamaica, Pakistan and African nations. With no overt references to sexuality itself, it was ideal for a society that is still undecided about same-sex relationships. It might be wise to fight culture with culture, and this may have already started.

Jamaica's energetic theatre scene featured at least one very popular character that oozed homo-eroticism (a male actor played a homosexual cross-dresser) and celebrated a very well known choreographer (now deceased) who was allegedly on open homosexual or even bi-sexual. This suggests a disparity between public assertions and private opinions and experience. Indeed, some believe much of the most visible anti-gay sentiment arises from closet gays (a vicious circle?). At any rate, attacking a nation, an economy and a culture that is already suspicious of Western intent (given the colonial and slave history) may not be the best method of seeking equality - and certainly not the only method available.

(Since this article another a gay rights group out of Spain is lobbying for the EU to boycott Jamaica)

Senate Apologizes For Slavery : NPR

Senate Apologizes For Slavery

via Senate Apologizes For Slavery : NPR.

The UK did something similar a few years back with Tony Blair issuing a statement of 'sorrow' for slavery and the Church of England offering a similar sentiment.

What do you think: To little too late too much for nothing? Many think slavery is of no consequence today, others think it is impunity at its very height.

Iran Election VS American Selection: an outsider's perspective

The Iranian people are stuck between a jerk and a hard place. That is what it seems like anyway.

The problem they face is getting the rest of the world to believe that their protests against the election outcome, accusations of election fraud and demand for change are truly the voice of the majority, and not the result of US backed reformers and a highly biased Western media.

The world is still smarting from the sting of the Iraq War. As far as we can tell, flaccid media inquiry, incompetent intelligence (or downright lies?) arrogant executive power and an unstoppable American agenda made Iraq and its people far worse off than they ever had been under Sadaam. They are now free to choose between poverty and death by suicide bomber. Have the thousands of deaths, dislocation, social instability and unemployment really been worth the 'fight for democracy?'  Some would argue that the greatest beneficiary of the Iraq conflict has been Halliburton, not Iraq.

So who should the outsider believe? The Bush Administration attempted to make a case against Iran that was eerily similar to that of Iraq and even seemed to toy with the idea of an invasion. First there were the allegations of arms smuggling into Iraq then the accusations that Iran wanted (wants?) to manufacture nuclear weapons. Truth or just a pretext to gain control of more Middle East oil? Indeed, the ambiguity of the election results can be seen merely  as ammunition for a US led invasion. Despite Obama's apparent equanimity, corporate interests might have more sway in decisions about war than the President. Hardly anyone really believes that Bush was 'The Decider' - it's more likely he was the decoy for a fait accomplis.

Still, word from within Iran (I am fortunate to know at least one person with intimate knowledge from individuals therein) is that election irregularities began to take place early on in the ballot counting and even before,

This is really doesn't look like an American interferance, there was dodgy goings on as the results came out, and even before they were announced, even before the Western media began reporting on the situation. People all over Iran are pouring into the streets risking their lives to protest against the result. And yes, that's ALL OVER Iran, not just the rich neighbourhoods of Tehran...

...all the communcations in Iraq, mobiles, texting, facebook, news sites, reformist sites, were shut down as the election results started to be announced. Why would these things happen if it was a fair vote? - SJ

These comments may very well represent the voice of the Iranian people, but when filtered through the Westerm media we are left with suspicion and cynicism.

While Iranians battle for democracy, the rest of the world wonders if said Iranians are destined to suffer the same fate as their neighbours. Would they opt for that fate? It is unlikely,  after all the ideal would be progress to democracy on the terms of the Iranian people themselves not Western powers. Indeed the term 'Westernization' is often used interchangably with 'progress', but American culture isn't better, just different - and capitalism isn't democracy. These distinctions are of utmost importance in a post 9/11 world where the US claims the noblest of causes and purest of motives as rationales for violating the most basic human rights.

I might be jumping the gun, but while the people of Iran deserve better than what they presently endure, they also deserve better than Western occupation. And knowing the US propaganda machine it will soon find a way to formulate an artificial choice between invasion or the 'wickedness' of spectator politics. Shortly thereafter America will have to invade for  the sake of 'freedom'. Outsiders fear that it's just a matter of time before the self-righteous rhetoric starts and Uncle Sam shines up his curb stompers to go force democracy up another nations rear end.

The best source for information may be direct from the people of Iran themselves or independent jouranalists, and as my source queried, 'It's as if people outside of Iran can't believe the Iranians want change? Is it so hard to believe?' No. But Iran is caught between a jerk and a hardplace. Now we just have to determine who's who.

CAY

Peace. Freedom. Dignity.

Living in the UK: what you need to know if you're going to study/live in the UK

Right, I'm a Jamaican who is in the UK for the purpose of study - a Masters to be specific. I went to Warwick Uni (they call them 'Uni' for short), which is a very cool uni indeed! It's among the top 10 (2009) in the UK and perhaps the most modern and multi-cultural tertiary institution they have, I recommend it very highly. But note well one of the things I discovered whilst here is that a UK education is 85% branding. Although there are great resources, modern conveniences and prestige - the best of the universities where you are from will have equally bright and incompetent staff as in the UK. Still, the point of getting an education in the UK is to take advantage of the branding.

Enough background - here's stuff you need to know if you're moving here (and students might benefit from this in particular):

Banks
Some banks charge a monthly fee to open a student account with them - don't! Just open a regular account, there's no need to open a student account. With the economic downturn it has come to light that banks are criminals (duh!) but since I have to recommend one it might be Lloyds TSB. Whatever you do don't make late payments or get charged for overdraft - they rip you off with the charges! When you start to make some money the monthly charge might help because it comes with some amount of insurance. Your debit card is very useful and is used just like a credit card for online and point-of-purchase transactions.

Mobile Phones
DON'T GET PAY-AS-YOU-GO! Way too expensive. As a foreigner you can't get a contract phone without paying a hefty £100-£300 deposit (i.e. a package that last 12 - 18 months and comes with free minutes and other perks) because of your lack of credit history in the UK. There are monthly roll-over plans where you can get free minutes and lower charges for about £15-£20 per month. I use Vodafone and pay £15/mth for 225 free minutes (+ 100 texts). My wife and I talk for free (as another Vodafone customer) for £5 extra. It has worked fine thus far. Other deals include monthly contracts for about £45 and you get a free iPhone. Depends on what you can afford.

Accommodation
If you're not living on campus (and Warwick Uni has excellent facilities and service) you have a couple choices (I will tell you about the Midlands/Coventry area): 1. Week to week rental - usually shared accommodation and varies in cost (£20 and upwards in the Midlands - everything is more expensive in London) but you can usually leave with no to a couple weeks notice. 2. If you don't like sharing there's always apartments and houses that will run you more money (£400/mth and upwards) and accommodation for students in particular - but your uni will likely have links to vendors - go with them to protect yourself. If you're going to Warwick or in the Midlands, Leamington Spa is a very nice town (and where I live), then there's Kenilworth and last and dingiest (hence cheapest) Coventry. But there are nice neighbourhoods in Coventry - you just have to look. At Warwick international students get priority for accommodation so you are guaranteed a room - recommend that route. My wife and I stayed in one bedroom family apartment and it was fantastic. Note that as a student you don't pay Council Tax (like a maintenance fee for your locality that varies depending on the desirability of the area), but if you choose to stay on after graduation, remember to calculate that cost in your rent.

Travel
Travel is deceptively expensive but usually reliable (however it can mess you up too). For cheap long distance travel check National Express or Mega Bus, but be warned - you get what you pay for. There are deals for the train available usually to the most popular destinations like London. You can get a 2-way ticket to London for a s low as £10 for example. Visit this site or this one to check it out. If you're at Warwick your magic number is bus #12. If you call Virgin Trains and ask for their special price for wherever you're going you can get a hefty discount too - so ask. Warwick bus travel is much more reliable and frequent during the term so take note. It might be worth it to buy an Oyster Card or a monthly/annual bus pass. In the midlands you will travel by bus on Travel West Midlands or Stagecoach. If you drive you might very well need a SatNav. RAC is an affordable brand but TomTom and Navman are better.

Shopping
As a rule don't shop on campus, it will be more expensive. The places to go for groceries are ASDA, Tesco and Wilkinson's. You can also get very good deals on printers and other school material just before school starts from these places. Every town has a market and there are plenty of deals to get there. Coventry Market has good ground provisions and dry goods, as does Birmingham Market. In terms of clothes (and you will need warm clothes, scarves, gloves etc apart from daily wear) Primark is the most affordable place and a haven for students (again - you get what you pay for, but some things are decent). With a bit more money you can step up to Topshop, H&M, Next or Debenhams among others. In Coventry you want to go to West Orchards Mall and the really cool shopping centre in the Midlands is The Bull Ring in Birmingham. In London it's all about Camden Market and Oxford Street - but be prepared to spend some serious pounds. If you're into tech Curry's and PC World are your huckleberries. For household stuff Ikea & Argos are the affordable goto stores, but the former is the better of the two.

Your Student Card
It is generally called your NUS card. Take it with you everywhere you go in Europe because you can get discounts for almost anything. We travelled in Greece and I was able to enter some places for free or deeply discounted because of my student status. Your uni should offer plenty of support during and after your studies. Make the most of what they offer. Again, Warwick uni's student support is fantastic - the student centre has been very helpful with our postgraduate visa application.

Buying a Car
Cars can be quite affordable. Get a copy of Friday-Ad or if you have di dollas - go to a local dealer. You can get some parts for next to nothing from a junkyard. But never buy sight-unseen. We got a decent Ford Ka (which I recommend - a Ford Mondeo or Focus) for £1000 and it did the job. You can get a run-around for as cheap as £150 and it will last for the year you are studying.

People & Places
The British are polite folk and will be very helpful if you need directions or anything really. But polite doesn't mean nice in every instance. At their best the Brits are delightful and warm - at their worst they are drunken hooligans (they invented football violence). Friday and Saturday nights can be risky only because you are bound to encounter drunken and sometimes aggressive pub-goers. I don't recommend public transport late night on the weekend - unless of course you are blind drunk. Most are very nice people, some are racist - very few will ever be rude to you overtly, but once you understand the culture you realize that they can be rude in the most polite way possible. It is a beautiful country and there are many places to see. A simple trip to a town or village can be blissful (Bath, Cornwall and Bradford-Upon-Avon are our faves). When the sun shines - GO OUTSIDE - you never know when it will shine again.

Weather
Typical British weather is fairly cold (depending on where you're from) and never consistent. Bright sunshine one day - rain for the next week. You should never go anywhere without some rain gear or a coat. The sun will be out and warm - then a single cloud can render you frigid. You need to wear layers and get proper coats. I recommend Go Outdoors - not the cheapest but good quality protection is better than pneumonia. Wearing too many clothes is frustrating and I messed up by wearing many layers that didn't insulate. Now I can wear one jacket (with removable inner lining) and a shirt underneath for the most part. But if you come from tropical climes - don't underestimate how the weather can affect you. Winters can be depressing because it gets dark at 4pm. Summers make up for it by getting dark at 9 to 10pm.

Gum Tree and Freecycle
Gum Tree is a site you can find anything from a job to concert tickets on - check it out. Freecycle is a Yahoo network that allows you to get and give away items for free. You could furnish your house with it! I have a friend who bought tickets for a steal on Gum Tree and found a nice temp apartment and other friends who got stuff like TV's on Freecycle. We got some nice crockery for ourselves and gave a dining room table.

TV Licence/Cable/Internet
Yes to watch TV you have to pay for it. It's how the BBC is financed. Many get away without paying and watch to their hearts content - but our luck is such that we' be caught - good luck with it. Still, you can see lots of television on your computer for free. We subscribe to Sky for cable, phone and broadband for about £45/mth but you can get all 3 for as little as £26/mth. You also have to pay for landline rental to BT. It all depends on your package - but it makes sense to get all services from one provider. I think Sky is a good deal.

Utilities
These can be expensive. Generally you can choose your supplier but it does depend on where you live. You can be fully electric or gas or use a combination of both. British Gas is notoriously expensive - do your research to find out what providers you have access to then make your choice. Consult U Switch.com or one of the many intermediaries for guidance.

ID Theft
The UK has a huge problem with ID theft. Be wary with your personal info on networking sites like Facebook and otherwise. Your birthday alone or even a PIN number is enough for some adept thieves to get at your accounts etc. Be careful with your debit card and cellphone among other things.

Visa & Immigration
The most complex issue for last. Presently, the economic downturn has made it hard for non-EU immigrants to find work - but it isn't impossible. I'm still looking but my wife found a great job lecturing and, for now, I'm a kept man ;O). Your uni will offer a lot of help once your studies are done so get as much info from them as you can. The visa rules change constantly so you have to stay on top of that here. The key is to provide only what the Border Agency requires and no more or less. We provided more funding accounts than necessary but it worked against us. It is better to have the required funds in UK accounts rather than foreign ones. The slightest deviation from requirements will be penalized and there is no leniency. It can be very bureaucratic. When you are applying to extend your stay as a graduate the application form is regularly updated - do not print a copy unless you are sure you have the latest version - save the trees.

If you have any specific questions the .gov site has plenty of answers, but feel free to drop a question on this blog!

'An Eye for an Eye': Getting Even vs Getting Over it - Biblically Speaking

Where Do Eye Start?
Often the Biblical reference of 'an eye for an eye' is used to justify revenge - some even say that God endorsed revenge in the Old Testament through this teaching, while Jesus revoked it in Matthew 5: 38-42:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now Jesus is referencing scripture itself - so is he telling us to turn away from the practice of revenge encouraged by Old Testament teaching? The best thing is to go to the texts in the OT that make the initial statement. The first scripture is Exodus 21, and much of Exodus and Leviticus are spent giving specific instructions on delivering justice and fairness to the people of Israel. Indeed, some believe much of the modern day justice system in the West is built on the Judaic judicial structure.

Exodus 21:22-24 reads,

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Sounds pretty much like revenge right? Someone lops your hand off - you lop theirs right off and everybody goes home left-handed, whether they like it or not. But if you think about it, going home with someone’s severed hand really won't help you (especially if you live in a time when advanced surgery like face-replacement isn't around just yet). It would probably be better if the victim was somehow compensated - sounds very familiar right? You might be thinking of all those frivolous lawsuits in the US where people are awarded millions for burning themselves with their own coffee, or sue a burger joint for making them fat.

More Even-handed Than Previously Thought

The whole point of the lengthy and often boring detail of books like Exodus and Leviticus was to avoid frivolous cases by covering as much of the possibilities as could be done. So, what does the rest of the scripture say? Verses 26-29 read,

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

Wow. This sounds more reasonable doesn't it? There is no reference to taking out someone's eye if they take out yours at all. Other references to this type of judgement are made in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 but in very much the same vein as this Exodus passage. Now we already know that capital punishment was part of the Judaic justice system and some crimes that attracted the death penalty may be questionable, but if one considers the detail that went into the laws it might be fairly easy to avoid such crimes. Just as easy as it is today. It might not be too common to be accidentally involved in a pre-meditated murder.

Even in today's society the death penalty is still carried out - and I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq but USA, Texas. Our challenge has always been in determining the just punishment for a crime. So many factors come into play: intent, remorse, self-defence, motive and so on. But one thing is for certain - we need a system of justice if society is to function normally - or as close to what we can call 'normal' as possible.

The Price is Right?

The problem with crime or sin is that when it is committed it cannot be 'un-committed'. Stolen goods can be returned but the violation is already done - the house broken - the peace-of-mind and security of the family shattered. What is the proper sentence? Not even apologies make true recompense for insults or affronts. Unfaithfulness in relationships destroys trust in profound ways - even genuine remorse cannot completely restore trust to a person who has been so betrayed. Some wounds may heal, but still bleed, however, in our consumerist society money if often sufficient for the troubles of many. It might be worth asking if large financial settlements enhance or devalue justice. What do you think?

A crime that has been committed is done so forever. Indeed, in some societies we deem some acts as crimes that are less destructive than others we don't deem criminal. Adultery, for example, is punishable by a prison sentence in South Korea (no, not North - South Korea). In many, maybe most countries, adultery is not a crime - but when one considers the repercussions of such an act it might make you think a little about how we determine what is or isn't a crime.

Of course that is a debate about morality and the law. The two don't always meet by any means - and this is what terrifies us about religious law (like the Muslim Shariah) because the law is morality. How can we go through life and not break some aspect of the law, nobody is perfect?

It makes one think about the purpose of any moral code. Is it there to tell us what is right and/or wrong or to tell us what to do only when someone does something we innately know is harmful in some way? Justice usually seems simple when one is neither the victim nor the perpetrator, but if you are either, an objective or impartial standard comes in handy.

But then we are left to question the justice of the justice system. It may be that a moral code is the least of our worries - we might do well to be concerned about living up to a moral code - any moral code. The track record of humanity suggests that no matter how realistic a moral code, we manage to fall below it and break 'the rules'. Paul points out the part of our human nature that just wants to do something because we were explicitly told not to (Romans 7:7-10). Justice is indispensible when considering our propensity for wrongdoing - whether it is a violation of state law or Mom & Dad's law.

Living a Law

This points to something beyond law - rules don't make us better, only better informed and only then if the rules make sense. If we violate some aspect of morality by lying, for example, the solution is not just to speak the truth - it is to stop being a liar, or racist or violent as the case may be. What good is it to apologize for a racist slur when one continues to be racist?

Perhaps Jesus' intent - indeed the intent of most moral codes - is not to make people DO things, but to help people see the value of certain aspects of character and hence be things. But as for the initial passage referring to 'an eye for an eye', Spielberg's Munich suggested that the only true solution to violation, illustrated through the perennial Israeli/Muslim conflict, was forgiveness. But this is nothing new - only under-practiced. Surely it takes a depth of character to act in a just and righteous way - but pursuit of righteous character may be more progressive than pursuit of righteous rules. Indeed, when we come upon some undocumented situation that has no coded solution, what's left? Only our character and this is the difference between knowing a rule and living it - between avoiding an act of injustice or embracing acts of kindness.

It may be that forgiveness has nothing to do with the trespass itself or the perpetrator - but the attitude of the victim. Forgiveness doesn't preclude justice, but it may very well prevent a vicious circle of injustice.

One love.

5ive Things I Don't Get: UK'd Up in England

1. Fences & Thieves. In England you can't build your fence above a certain height - why you ask? Because if a thief, in climbing over your fence to terrorize and dispossess, hurts himself he can sue you (see 5th paragraph in second link)! Indeed you are discouraged from using barbed wire or any kind of fence-climbing deterrent due to the fact it makes the thief's job that much more incovenient. How very dare you! Otherwise, if a burglar enters your house and proceeds to rob, beat and intimidate - do nothing! If in defending his new property (formally known as 'yours') you injure him - he again can sue you. In which case is it really breaking-and-entering or just suing-by-breaking...or something?

2. Saggy skinny jeans. I've already registered my befuddlement regarding skinny jeans - but this is even more befuddlementizing - skinny jeans that are saggy. Now baggy jeans are...baggy, so they sag - a notably African American fad. But the Brit fad is to wear skinny jeans down to the knees. But how, what with all that bum squelching tightniss? The result is an I've-just-took-a-huge-dump-in-my-pants type of look. I strongly suspect that the trend started because of dump-in-pants-takers trying to direct attention away from the bulges in the wrong places. How they got folks not to notice the smell? Bathing once a month is a good cover.

3. Public drunkeness. A huge problem in the UK. In Jamaica, we don't get drunk in public,  drunkeness is for old men in bars and it's considered weak and wussy. Besides we don't need alcohol  to publicly humiliate ourselves in the Caribbean when we have Carnival (wink wink)! But in the UK getting drunk is the most important part of the week for many - it is how they have a 'good time' (though they cannot recollect it). It also seems that women are far more into this public inebriation than men. Indeed, it was in the streets of Birmingham that I first  I  saw a waggle (just made that up) of women actually harrass and grope two men - first time. Wow. But I must say that alcohol fuelled street rolling provides lots of fodder for police reality programmes. Hurrah for contributing to media content and by extension the GDP!

4. Racism? What racism? Yes apparently the nation that invented hating-people-for -profit no longer has racism. It is ignored and almost taboo to talk about - with a white British person. I've tried and they usually get upset. The in-thing is 'institutional racism'. This, as I understand, is the idea that British people (white people specifically) are not racist but British systems are. So if someone is discriminated against it's nothing personal, just that bloody system operating completely autonomously. The system apparently fell out of the sky or erupted from a wart on someones butt. Who knows? At any rate it should be noted that the 400 years of slavery is completely left out of the school curriculum - so the Brits who are racist (and they certainly are not all racist) don't actually know that they are racist because no one told them - fair enough then! Ironically, the closest thing to what can be construed as 'institutional racism' or systemic discrimination is Apartheid.

5. State sponsored irresponsibility. When a sixteen year old has a child she gets a stipend from the government as well as goverment housing. Now, this is good in that teen mothers get much needed support - not good because teens abuse the system and do use a child as their meal ticket. This might be the reason why the UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. I reckon we're now heading into the second generation of kids raised by kids, which might mean that Supernanny will have loads of work. It might also be the cause of points 2 and 3, and indirectly, point 1. Now, that said, teen pregnancy in Jamaica isn't state sponsored, but may have a more sinister motive (in some cases) - but that is another 5ive Things altogether.

5ive Things I Don't Get: Celebrity Edition

Rourke after a run-in with a bad-tempered surgical knife

Joan Rivers fighting nature with desperation

1. Elective Cosmetic Surgery. The fact is anyone who does cosmetic surgery, to their face in particular, doesn't look younger, poutier or perkier. They do look tighter, bulgier and weirder though. In short, they look like people who have had cosmetic surgery - not like people who suddenly and inexplicably experienced a reversal of the natural aging process. How in demand are actors who look like they've had surgery? Well, Mickey Rourke was perfect for The Wrestler since he already looked like he'd been beaten to a pulp in a dark alley by a wayward wad of collagen and a  scalpel with a disturbed past.

Feeding the feeding frenzy that feeds the frenzy

2. Celeb Obsession. Why do people follow every waking moment of celebrities lives? We give them nicknames like TomKat and Brangelina. We want to know when they have opened their front gate and the velocity with which it was opened.  We buy their saliva encrusted, snot infused tissue paper. We want to see them 'being normal' as opposed to hovering 6 inches off the ground and glowing that heavenly glow that celebs apparently have. We blog about celebrity...Doh!

Paris: looking so good you could peel and peg her

3.  Fake Tans. Granted, celebs aren't the only ones who explore the darker side of artificially synthesized melanine. But like cosmetic surgery, fake tans only make someone look like they have a fake tan. If the sun was meant to make us orange then Africa wouldn't be the 'Dark Continent' - it would be the 'Faaaaabulous Contintent'.

4. Amy Winehouse. What...happened...how...why...why...what? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

Cruise filled with the spirit...of looney-wack

5.  Scientology. The religion itself is weird - but why do so many celebs flock to its mysterious strangeness? Does it account for Tom Cruise's sudden and unexpected dumping of Nicole Kidman? His terrifying and over-enthusiastic grappling of Oprah? His prodigious diminutive stature? Maybe his diminutive stature accounts for Scientology? Perhaps he is just an alien?

One Mile - an Ode to Muntadar al-Zaidi

Ah, the left foot of justice - whither hast thou flown?
Past the ear & over the head of Dubya thy breeze hath but blown.
So close you came to meeting your mark
But worn souls did dim your spark.

Why Lord, did you not make man with three legs?
Then this hapless scribe could have delivered the defeat that history begs,
Or at least got another chance to adjust his aim thither.

Hast the powers of the pen lost all their might,
And the eyes of the world lost all her sight,
That men now must stoop so low to go where most dare not go?
To tread where angels dare not tread
And throw your justice at his head?
Alas! It seems it can only be just so.

He exchanged his pen for a shoe - nay for two,
But his land has no need for shoes because she is on her knees,
And she no longer walks but crawls,
She no longer flies - but falls.

And yes, Uncle Sam had promised this would come to pass,
His way, after all, is to '...put a boot up their ass'.
Perhaps, this irate and unfriendly neighbour,
Was doing his best to return the favour?

Mayhap he thought, 'The one way for George to know is to go where misery goes. Perhaps he will stumble upon the truth after a mile or two in my shoes? I shall lend him my weary souls'.

Who can judge this man for the steps he took? Life is always another way when the shoe is on the other foot.

C. Arthur Young