Rise of the Idiots

A new and horrifying beast stalks our land. Young people everywhere are falling victim to the monster's ceaseless hunger for human minds. I speak, of course, of the rise and rise of the (mis)use of the term "literally".

Regular readers, both of them, will know me as something of a pedantic fascist (or, more accurately, a fascistic pedant). To this charge I can only plead guilty, but I still think this is a uniquely grave situation. Don't make this about me.

Thing is, poor English has been around for ever, but this is new. A ridiculous number of the people with whom I associate (and can't just kill - some of them are actually quite nice) use literally to mean virtually/almost/very much. I've even, gulp, done it myself. People these days do seem to exaggerate ("it was the biggest glass of wine I have ever seen") and literally seems have become the exaggerator's weapon of choice ("it was literally the biggest glass of wine I have ever seen"). For all of them. All the time. Not to exaggerate.

The worst offences I've ever seen (literally) are the following (from football - an incomparable source of stupidity):

• "He's literally on fire at the moment" - Jamie Redknapp, discussing Robin Van Persie's good form

And, most awesomely of all:

• "The defender is literally, literally right up his backside" - Andy Townsend, discussing some close marking. He said it twice!

None of my associates have quite reached these heights/depths yet, but it doesn't matter - I am jarred by the word's misuse about 15 times a day. I'm (not literally) going round the bend.

*Update* - While hunting for the above graphic I stumbled upon this article, which (literally?) blows my argument out of the water.

Kings of the Road

In the most recent of many vain attempts at self-improvement, I am cycling to and from work. I live at the top of a hill, so the way to the office in the morning is a breeze. The way back, however, is a beast. I seem to be sticking with it, though, at least so far, because of both my awesome levels of determination and the happy realisation that I can afford to give up on my existing press-up routine now that I’m getting some other exercise. Possibly more the second thing.

Some insights:

1. It is impossible for a cyclist to avoid being overcome with self-righteousness. I’m greener, leaner and meaner (in the economic sense) than all the bastard cars swarming around me and only partly because I can’t afford to run my own car and wouldn’t know how to operate one even if I could. This is a great feeling and one that frequently affords me the chance to swear loudly at (or at least think murderous thoughts about) my fellow road users, whose fault it almost certainly isn‘t, whatever it may be. A cyclist is quite simply never in the wrong.

2. Car drivers are more aware of the safety of other road users than cyclists. Because it isn’t our concern. We can’t hurt people (at least not really), but we can certainly be hurt. I have to say, though, that I expect a great deal more awareness and, well, competence from car drivers than I display myself. Me wobbling around (albeit at hilariously and possibly illegally low speeds) on a bike is basically the equivalent of a toddler behind the wheel of a car. Thank God most drivers seem to know what they’re doing, because I certainly don’t. I’m terrified that they will assume the same level of competency in me that I do in them. So far they don’t, possibly because of the aforementioned wobbling.

3. Good (by which I mean indulgent, patient and most likely pitying) car drivers treat cyclists like idiots. We require at least 1.5 metres of wobble room, dramatic reduction of your speed and probably a few extra minutes added to your journey, as well as constant vigilance. We offer nothing in return. Why, questionable moral superiority notwithstanding, do cyclists have the right to expect such indulgence from car drivers? We offer nothing and expect everything, it seems to me. Mystifyingly, this deal seems to be upheld on our nation’s roads. Flip knows why.

Cycling, then: practised by self-righteous, reckless and incompetent fools for their own benefit entirely. And car drivers get a bad press.

(Radio) One for all and All for (Radio) One

In the office this afternoon, there was a movement to fire up the aged communal hifi in order to listen to some music. A slightly awkward attempt was made to find a station palatable to all of us, which was eventually settled in favour of Radio 2. This was shortly dropped for Radio 1, but no matter, my point (there will be a point) applies to either.

I enjoyed approximately 5% of Radio 1. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but none of them were moved to dance either. It can’t have been that it was bad (though it was, dammit), because other people seemed to enjoy it immensely. Not my colleagues, but the endless stream of, to my mind, idiots that repeatedly and at their own cost called and texted the DJ. Dave in Godalming, for example, was having a whale of a time. “Heavy tune!”, he theorised. Someone else even went so far as to describe the tinny popfart that we’d all just gritted our teeth through as the “best tune in history” (I in no way exaggerate). That these people seemed to me to be actual cretins is neither here nor there. I dread to think what they would think of the stuff I listen to. Taste is subjective, which is news to nobody.

Although most people understand this, they fail to take the next logical step – that, in this wonderful market economy we live in, cultural output isn’t actually made to be everyone’s cup of tea. If I hear one more Guardian journalist ripping into the X-Factor, I may combust/roll my eyes, make inaudible tutting motions and carry on with my day. Yes, of course it’s shit, but that’s because pre-teens and idiots, who make up a huuuge percentage of the population, really like shit. It’s not for you, Mark Kermode. Similarly with the middle class's hatred of the Daily Mail. I mean, I find the bollocks they write as unpleasant as anybody. Doesn’t matter, though, they aren’t after what passes for my money. They get theirs elsewhere – from the thousands of angry, narrow-minded, moderately-educated (or they’d be reading the News of the World), lower middle class suburbanites that infest, sorry, reside in every area of the country. Everyone knows this, too. Marketing types even categorize people by their wealth, class, education, tastes and God knows how many other variables and attempt to flog them things accordingly.

What I find ridiculous, though, is the interest we all seem to take in what was clearly intended for others. Why are my middle class lefty friends (all of them, then) so hot under the collar about homophobic writing in the Mail? Alright, I’m being disingenuous – I know it’s because they (mistakenly, in my view) think the Mail influences what people think, but still. A better example is the X Factor. Why are you talking about how crap it is? Or how boring Radio 1 is? You’re right on both counts, of course, but what the devil’s it got to do with you? I think it’s a hangover from the days when there was so little cultural content produced that we all watched and listened to the same stuff/had the same experiences. Either that or we have nothing else to talk about. It’s probably that.

Bigotry on the Beeb cont...

23.27 - Dimbleby doesn't want the show to be all about the BNP, so invites a question about Jan Moir's homophobic article about Stephen Gately. Greer points out that freedom of speech trumps whatever we feel about the article/paper/views espoused therein.

23.30 - Turns out Warsi's no friend of the gays. Bigotry off all different shades. Stunningly, Griffin isn't either. Everyone pays lip service to free speech, though. Griffin says that men kissing in public is "really creepy". He also talks about "militant homosexuals". I'm blown away by the bullshit here. Nothing about Griffin should be a surprise , but that was. Gay audience member tells Griffin that the feeling of repulsion he has about homosexuals is mutual. Zing!

23.35 - Next question is about whether Griffin's appearance is "an early Christmas present for the BNP". The panelists think it wasn't, because they've cleaned his clock so thoroughly. Straw says it has been "catasrophic" for the BNP. Greer makes the best point: that people don't make up their minds on the basis of TV shows.

23.37 - Dimbleby draws things to a close and plugs for the next show. Everyone's shilling for something.

It's been emotional. Night.

Bigotry on the Beeb cont...

23.02 - Cracking question from a British Bangladeshi muslim: why risk alienating muslims, rathen than targeting fundamentalist Christians, for example? Dimbleby moves the show along before Griffin gets a chance to answer though, sadly.

23.04 - Audience member puts someone else on the spot for once, asking whether the rise of the BNP is due to the current Government's policies on immigration. Straw disagrees, obviously. He attempts a valiant defence of Labour's record, just like you knew he would. Dimbleby tries hard to get him to answer the question. He's a pro, though, so he won't.

23.08 - Warsi interrupts Straw to say that "there are some things politicians need to be honest about and that wasn't an honest answer". She says, quite rightly, that there are underlying reasons, quite apart from immigration, that have caused the BNP's rise (have the BNP really risen, though? I'm not convinvced). Warsi's shilling for the Tories now, sadly.

23.11 - Some toryboy in the front row says something smarmy about "liking the Conservative position on this". Why do they let these people in? It's like planted questions at PMQs.

23.13 - Everone's putting the boot into Labour for losing thousands of immigrants in the Home Office's systems. Griffin hasn't spoken for quarter of an hour. They're still talking about him, though. He's the belle of the ball.

23.16 - "Skin colour is irrelevant" says Griffin, to jeers. He's talking about the meaning of "indigenous". He's accusing the others of racism, which is an intriguing tactic. Bonnie Greer, who Griffin has repeatedly attempted to cosy up to, won't even look at him. She's literally turning her back to him.

23.21 - Griffin tries to claim that 84% of the British people support the BNP's policies on immigration. That is some seriously creative statistical interpretation.

23.22 - Straw mentions for the 2nd time that he "comes from immigrant stock". An Asian man asks Griffin where he wants him to go. Griffin very generously says that he's "welcome to stay". Such charity.

Bigotry on the Beeb cont...

22.47 - Bonnie Greer is American. I didn't realise that. She says her background is in culture and "knows nothing about politics". She comes across pretty well, though, despite her normalcy.

22.49 - We're still on Churchill. Will this QT be entirely about the BNP? Chris Huhne brings up Griffin's past quote about Hitler "going a bit too far". He wants to know which bit. Gassing the jews? Griffin says it's another misquote. He looks like he's enjoying himself. Dimbleby tells him to stop smiling.

22.52 - Griffin gets up Greer's nose by admitting that he's shared a platform with a Ku Klux Klan speaker. It goes down very, very badly.

22.53 - The panel members have all done plenty of homework. They keep bringing up quotes from the BNP constitution and website.

22.55 - Griffin drops the ball pretty tragically, saying that he "cannot tell you why I said these things". To be fair, he's making a point about the illegality of holocaust denial. Griffin says he's "changed his mind" about that, by the way.

22.57 - "Why is Islam a wicked and vicious faith?" asks an audience member? Griffin kicks off, smartly, by pointing out Islam's record on the treatment of women.

22.59 - We are a "fundamentally British and Christian" country, says NN, founded on Western principles that are incompatible with the Koran. Probably incompatible with the Bible too, I would have thought.

Bigotry on the Beeb cont...

22.35 - The panel are introduced. Dimbleby has what can only be desribed as a "loud" tie.

22.36 - We're straight into it with a question about Churchill and the BNP. Jack Straw fields it. Easy peasy. They're all going to stick the knife into Nasty Nick, I'm quite sure. Loud cheers for Straw's point about black and foreign soldiers in both world wars.

22.37 - Griffin asked why he thinks Churchill would be a BNP member were he around today. He answers reasonably well, but is still booed by the audience. I think how that's how it's going to be.

22.42 - Black man asks a slightly angry, but fairly articulate, question. He gets wildly cheered for pointing out that the majority of people in the studio find Griffin's views disgusting.

22.44 - Griffin says that there's a lot of misunderstanding about what he actually thinks. Dimbleby asks him to be specific about where he is misunderstood/misquoted. He struggles to do so.

22.45 They all have poppies, obviously, but Warsi's is the biggest. Score for Team Diversity.

Bigotry on the Beeb

I'm astonished how much attention Nick Griffin's appearance on tonight's Question Time has got over the last few days and weeks. Obviously, though, it's big news for the far right to be granted such an official platform, as all the main parties have up until now refused to share a stage with them.

There's been a great deal of comment for and against letting them appear, but I'm 100% behind it. Let's give these thugs a nice bit of rope to hang themselves with. That aside, though, the BNP have got 2 MEPs and 56 councillors. They should get a voice. That's democracy for you. This is British politics growing up.

Griffin, the leader of the BNP, will be joined tonight by Jack Straw, Conservative peer Baroness Warsi, Chris Huhne and black playwright Bonnie Greer. The host, as ever, is David Dimbleby. There have been huge protests outside the studio all day and it should be an inflammatory evening. Kicks off at 22.35.

BNP on the BBC

Really looking forward to this. Will attempt to liveblog the show. Tomorrow night from 22.35.

Getting Gone

In The Times today Matthew Parris thinks the UK might be shuffling nervously towards the exit door in Afghanistan.

One Giant Leap

Outstanding article from Simon Jenkins in Thursday's Guardian. To wit:

"The greatest social menace of the new century is not terrorism but drugs, and it is the poor who will have to lead the revolution. The global trade in illicit narcotics ranks with that in oil and arms. Its prohibition wrecks the lives of wealthy and wretched, east and west alike. It fills jails, corrupts politicians and plagues nations. It finances wars from Afghanistan to Colombia. It is utterly mad.

From the the deaths of British troops in Helmand to the narco-terrorism of Mexico and the mules cramming London's jails, the war on drugs can be seen only as a total failure, a vast self-imposed cost on western society. It is the greatest sweeping-under-the-carpet of our age."

This comes in response to the news that Argentina and Mexico are, at long last, standing up to the US and ending the War on Drugs. Of course, our own politicans aren't so brave. Jenkins has the last word on them, too:

"I sometimes realise that, if Britain still had the death penalty, no current political leader would have the guts to abolish it."

I really recommend the full article.

Chris Grayling - "Hopelessly Full of Shit"

I'm several days late on this, as I've been busy, but I just can't let such rubbish pass without comment. On Tuesday, the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, gave a speech comparing parts of "Broken Britain" to Baltimore, as seen in The Wire. Basically, crime is rife and our society's going to hell in a handcart. The remedy for this, as ever, is to hang 'em and flog 'em (more prisons, tougher sentences, the same old Tory bollocks).

The politics of it irritates me, of course, but what really gets my goat is Grayling's deployment of my favourite show as an argumentative prop. Some enterprising Beeb journalist asked him how much of the show he'd actually seen and was rewarded by Grayling's admission that he'd seen "most" of the first season. There are five, by the way. Had Mr Grayling bothered to delve a little further into his own source material, he would have found that the show's writer, David Simon, has little or no time for the kind of "remedies" Grayling espouses. That's the point of the show.

Here's Simon on Graylingesque tough guy politics:

"It is possible that a few thinking viewers, after experiencing a season or two of The Wire, might be inclined, the next time they hear some politician declaring that with more prison cells, more cops, more lawyers, and more mandatory sentences that the war on drugs is winnable, to say, aloud: "You are hopelessly full of shit."

Grayling likely wasn't aware of the show's message, as, by his own admission, he hasn't seen it. It takes a certain kind of arrogance to use the work of someone completely opposed to everything you stand for to buttress your own "argument", though. That's the Tories, though, I'm afraid.

Death by Bullshit

I'm knee deep in job applications at the moment, which is an inevitable and necessary, if tedious, part of life, but the process is rendered all the worse by so many organisations' love of management bullshit.

The language slays me. Yesterday I was tapping out a cover letter addressed to a Director of Continuous Improvement, for crissakes. That isn't a job title. That's meaningless. You might as well call yourself the Officer for Being Good. A small piece of me dies every time I have to deal with such an organisation and, worse, have to do so seriously.

Sometimes I even have to attempt to play their stupid game myself, never more so than when, shudder, filling out an application form. These companies are the absolute worst. Instead of the old CV and cover letter routine, these organisations, some of whom contain literally thousands of people and positions, make you fill out a generic application form with the same questions for all their positions. They have horrendous, generic questions like Show how you have exercised tolerance of diversity, with examples. By not being a racist? Isn't that enough? I once managed a meeting with a black person without assaulting them? Do you really want me to say that? It's humiliating. I'd absolutely love to be able to simply ignore organisations that require you to fill in application forms, but I'm nowhere near that secure in my "career", tragically.

Then, assuming you manage to hold your nose for long enough to wade through the rivers of bullshit and actually get the job, you get someone with such dreadful "communication skills" that you literally can't understand what they're talking about a good proportion of the time. I insist that it's not just that I'm too stupid to understand them, either. I've got a bloody Master's (he cried in anguish, more to himself than anyone else)! In theory! I've sat through enough waffle in my time.

I detest it. Why do they do it? Surely, surely they can see the ridiculousness of speaking in such a way? Thank God for the Campaign for Plain English. I need a job with them. Failing that, my sincerest wish is to somehow get myself into the position to influence an organisation's communications. My only Mission Statement will be to do away with all facets of management studies and what passes for its language.

Places to Visit on your Gap Year

Interesting addendum to this post: the world's first cocaine bar. It sounds like a speakeasy to me.

Also, note the prices. Outrageously cheap.

The Health of Nations

So, the Democrats are in charge of, well, everything, at the moment and what they want is healthcare reform, dammit. Unfortunately, they, led by the Pres, have run into typically staunch opposition from the American right.

Ever was it so, but this fight is of particular interest to Britons (well, a couple of us) because one of the weapons in this particular war happens to be our very own National Health Service. Derided by the right, or, specifically, by the Club for Growth (as opposed to the ever popular Club for Recession), the NHS is being held up as the very model of "socialism" and all things godless and evil.

Now, there's more than enough commentary out there in support of the NHS, so there's no need for me to dwell there, but I would say that this has just been a fascinating case study in cultural difference. Of course not everybody in the States thinks of the NHS as a Stalinesque socialist monstrosity and neither does everybody in the UK think particularly highly of the system, but the coming together of even the more moderate right-leaning political analysts with, frankly, the majority of the British people is something to behold. There is absolutely no common ground between these groups (language aside). There is very, very little trust towards anyone approaching the US right in this country. It seems they've all been tarred by association with their swivel-eyed extremist ideological associates. It makes me wonder whether this country was ever particularly pro-American, as is often said. We are literally and figuratively miles apart.

Love this City

In the spirit of the last post, I snapped this as I was going over Blackfriars Bridge yesterday on the 63 bus.

London by Night

I stumbled across these a while back. Lovely photos. Makes me think we might as well pack up and go home as far as energy conservation efforts are concerned, though.

The Horror of Helmand

This post has been along time coming, partly because every time I sit down to write something about the number of fatalities the number seems to have grown. The rather excellent http://www.icasualties.org/ informs me that the figure is now 191 for the UK (more than Iraq - though you already know that, unless you've been living in a cave). The US figure is 758. Nobody counts for Afghans.

This recent surge in fatalties has stimulated much discussion in the UK media about whether the price is worth paying in Afghanistan, or whether we should cut and run. I'm going to consider the arguments on both sides before arriving at the position I was in before - we should scarper.

First of all, it is worth acknowledging that there are real and persuasive reasons for our continued presence out there. The first of these, it seems to me, is that pre 9-11 Afghanistan was a terrorists' playground. If we don't do something about it, they'll be free to make it so once again. This is a real worry. Even if the Taliban weren't able to gain control of Kabul again (and maybe they would - I don't know), they already hold large swathes of the countryside. Should they be so inclined, they could welcome Al Qaeda back with open arms. This is a horrible scenario to consider. The question, though, is whether it is within our power to prevent such a thing. We've been there for almost eight years. We've spent millions, if not billions of pounds that we don't really have at the moment. We've lost 191 men and women (not to mention the hundreds of wounded). How long are we really prepared to keep this up? How long would it take to "secure" the whole country, so that AQ, or any other terrorist organisation, would find it impossible to set up camp there? As you'll see, these questions are reocurring ones.

The second best argument for staying the course in Afghanistan is the humanitarian argument that we shouldn't turn our backs on the many, many ordinary Afghans who have already lived under Taliban rule for a crushing 5 years. Make no mistake, these people (the Taliban) are truly awful. During their period of rule, they allowed no political dissent whatsoever and banned, among many things, clapping during sports events, kite flying and beard trimming. They were and are hideous towards women. This being said, we as a nation do not have anywhere approaching the resources necessary to deal with every regime and "government" around the globe that we find distasteful. It's an open question, I suppose, whether we should spend all that blood and treasure fighting for our ideals alone, but I'm not in favour.

The third case for continued action is that, without our help, the Afghan Government would probably fall. Furthermore, our absence would allow the opium growers whose wares end up in Westerners' veins in the form of heroin to flourish. The first point here, about the Afghan Government, is a rubbish one. They're corrupt as all hell. Their fall would only matter for the reasons discussed above, about the security of the country as a whole (or partial) entity. The second factor, the opium production, is, arguably, more compelling, but, even if we did have the power to stamp the trade out at source, is that really a good enough reason for a war? Not for me.

In opposition to these factors, there are many arguments for getting the hell out of there. The best of these, though, is that this operation fails the Powell Test. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell listed the following questions (which he himself inherited for another former Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger), all of which must be answered, before a US military action can rightly be embarked upon:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our actions been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine, broad, international support?

This war fails a number of these questions, particularly the second and fifth, but most interesting is the fourth - alternative, non-military options. Our objectives in Afghanistan, as discussed above, are worthy ones. They're just not worth the blood, treasure and risk of "endless entanglement" that securing them requires. This doesn't mean that we should just give up, though. Instead, we need to look seriously at what can be done with policing, diplomacy and governance. We also need to be realistic - Afghanistan is a long, long way behind the West in terms of development. We are tens and maybe hundreds of years away from seeing liberal democracy emerge amongst the tents, goats and mountains. What is within our grasp, though, is basic security. The right deals struck with the right warlords should see AQ kept out of Afghanistan, or at least operationally incapable.

The biggest reason of all, of course, that we won't cut and run in Afghanistan, is that His Majesty Barack O would be slighted. Whether he privately believes in this war or not, the Yanks aren't going to be happy if their main allies leave them carrying the can on their own. You can make the argument here that British lives should never, ever be expended just to keep non-Britons happy and you'd be (morally) right, but welcome to geopolitics.

We should never have got in in the first place, then. We should get the hell out now. We can't, though, so we should do our best to limit the damage and get serious about the "soft" options instead.

Bat for Ashes

I was there when Monty Panesar showed true English courage to held out against the barbarian hordes and snatch a glorious, er, draw from the jaws of Ashes defeat. It, my friends, was yesterday.

Despite my love of sport, I've tried up to this point to keep this blog free of all chat of a sporting nature, for fear of alienating my huge female readership (not that women necessarily don't like sport, I'm just lazily generalising. I do that sometimes). I haven't posted in a couple of weeks, though, so I'll allow myself a little one (which will include no disscussion of a tactical nature whatsoever, I assure you).

It was a glorious sunny day yesterday, despite the near-unanimous prediction of rain (a fact which, while admittedly rather nice, didn't help England's attempt to salvage a draw much). I got burned to a frazzle. I look ridiculous. I don't mind, though, as it was a lovely day out, as (test) cricket matches often are. It's a wonderful thing, a five day sporting event. You hardly even have to watch the actual sport. You can read the paper, eat a cucumber sandwich, nip off to the loo, or, indeed, get riotously drunk without there being too much danger of you having missed anything important. The last of these activities, in fact, seemed an immensely popular way of spending the day, with the crowd's singing getting more and more slurred and less and less coherent as the match wore on and the alcohol wore in.

It's a funny thing, crowd behaviour at cricket matches, as this most genteel of sports inches ever closer to the mainstream. Where once stuffy gents in striped blazers and straw hats stroked their chins and ho-hummed along, now cricket crowds are increasingly difficult to distinguish from football crowds, with many of the same songs making the crossover. It's self-evidently good for cricket to grow in popularity and to welcome those from outside its traditional social circles, but I do think the rise in multi-sport chants/songs is to be lamented. Actually, I don't mind all that much, except that it's the most tedious ones that seem to make the jump - the ones heard at every football ground up and down the country, with little or no local or idiosyncratic variations. That's a shame, if you ask me.

Still, my (partial) disappointment with the crowd aside, I do still think it's a grand way to spend a sunday. The Ashes are coming to London next, followed by Birmingham, Leeds and then London again. You should look into it, you really should.

Pokey for Cokies?

George Monbiot has an article in today's Guardian rather provocatively titled "Yes, addicts need help. But all you casual cocaine users want locking up". The thing, according to Monbiot, is that those people who casually and only occasionally use cocaine (i.e. that aren't addicts) are helping to promote the violence and criminality that surrounds cocaine production and sale in the third world, where the stuff grows. In fact, so heinous is the act of casual consumption of cocaine (a subject previously discussed on this blog) that all users should be criminalised, regardless of their behaviour, motivations and intentions.

This, it falls to me to say, is utter nonsense. No one disputes the horrors that seem to accompany the production, manufacture and sale of cocaine. Especially not in Colombia (which I courageously flew right over during my travels in Latin America a few years ago). What is ridiculous, though, is to blame the consumer for this mayhem, when there are such worthier targets for our righteous, Guardian reading-anger. It seems obvious to me that the only reason coke is such a bad business all round is because of its continued prohibition, both in the consuming first world and the producing third. There's no comparative trouble in the tobacco, or alcohol, producing industries, because it's done by grey men in suits with an interest in making money, rather than Colombian neckties.

At this point, were he to debate the issue with individual bloggers with approximately a fifth of his brain matter, Monbiot would no doubt point out that, whatever our personal political inclinations, prohibition is the status quo across the world and that we'd better get used to it. He's right, of course, in that cocaine isn't going to be legalised any time soon, here, in the US, or in Colombia. Especially not in Colombia, in fact, as the US has a death-grip on its drug policy, dangling as it does the possibility of the withdrawal of aid were Colombia to come to its senses and legalise the trade that's currently killing its country and therefore necessatating reliance on aid handouts .

He's quite wrong, in this imagined debate, however, in saying that we should accept that the system is as it is and that we should therefore modify our behaviour accordingly. Let me ask you/him this: during the prohibition of alcohol in the US early in the 20th Century, were people wrong to go to speakeasys? To want a drink at a funeral, at a wedding, or just after a hard day's work panning for gold in them thar hills? Or was the policy that prevented them from doing so wrong? Were these people responsible for the havoc wreaked by Al Capone and the other liquor traffickers of the time? If not, why the hell is that any different from the consumers of cocaine?

It's the policy that should be locked up, with the key thrown somewhere deep into the Colombian jungle.