The Daily Masturbate – part 2

I’ve never really understood conservatives. I’m talking about the relatively sane conservatives, not the Tea Party movement in America or a comparatively batty equivalent. No, in Britain we have right wing conservatives, but they’re British right wing conservatives, which means they’re too polite to be too mental. Let’s face it, you’re not going to get Sir Anthony Wilson the Third complaining about what the proles study in school like the right do in America are you? But all the same, I’ve never really got my head around these contradictions.

One core tenant of conservatism is their traditional morality. So down with computer games, pornography and adultery, and up with family values, faithfulness and 60 year old whisky. But no-one quite likes sleazy pornography like conservatives. The Daily Mail is a great example of this. Conservative until the end, the Mail campaigns against this permissive society where children are taught about sex before the age of 35, and filth lines the screens of the idiot’s lantern. However, there is no newspaper that rejoices more in said filth than the Mail. Despite trying to give itself an image as a “quality” newspaper (whenever we have one of them tell me) the Mail still falls back to smut and garbage. So let’s have a look as this conservative moralism today, the 25th of May.

The Female section on the right hand side of the website is a good start. Let’s see how it progresses:

Cheeky Amanda Holden gives a glimpse of the derrière her husband had immortalised in a plaster cast

First link in and we have a picture of some ass. Nice. 6/10

Victoria Beckham shows off her tousled new bed-head bob at mobile phone party

A disappointing effort next. Plenty of moderately attractive women in dresses, but it would take some imagination to beat one out over that. 2/10

Rivalry, what rivalry? SJP steals show in hot lemon as Sex And The City stars dress up to the nines for world premiere of sequel

Another disappointing effort. Same as above. 2/10

Miley Cyrus sports a tiny polka dot bikini during a family break in Mexico with her country star father Billy Ray

Now this is more like it. Ticks all the boxes. Barely legal girl? Check. Tiny bikini? Check. Completely pointless? Definitely. 9/10

I’m so very sorry: Shamed Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson sobs as she apologises for letting people down

A valiant attempt to add a bit of spice to the story. Sadly Sarah Ferguson isn’t A) Attractive or B) Remotely naked in any photos, but the Mail do try and make things interesting by showing a picture of young women in skirts as they’re slightly related to Sarah Ferguson. 1/10, but a bonus point for trying, so 2/10

What’s this, the Garden of Eden? Naked woman in full bloom at Chelsea Flower Show (hope the Queen didn’t see)

Blimey, this is the jackpot. Naked women, but it’s “art” so the picture is justified. Get in the hole! 10/10. Also loving the “hope the Queen didn’t see” part. Well if she missed it I’m sure some irresponsible newspaper will show a picture to give her a second chance

Oversized funnyman James Corden stocks up on calories at McDonald’s after baring his belly in the park

Very poor effort. First they call James Corden a “funnyman”, which is scientifically inaccurate. Secondly there’s absolutely nothing to wank over. Third, there seems to be a women in a bikini in a later picture, yet they didn’t get a full frontal of her. The author must be new to the Mail. 0/10

Coronation Street star Samia Smith shows off toned post-baby body

I don’t think anything needs to be added here. 8/10

What’s new Pussycat? Nicole Scherzinger is joined by four new members as PCD unveils a brand new line-up

Some might say this is just another attempt to show attractive women in little clothing, but I have it on good authority that Daily Mail readers are mad for the Pussycat Dolls. 6/10

Kylie Minogue’s seal of approval sends sales of age-old skin lotion rocketing

I’m not sure how to rate this. On the one hand the picture of Kylie’s most famous asset is completely unwarrented. This is an article about her facial cream for frick’s sake. But at the same time, there are far better picture’s of Kylie’s arse floating around the internet. 5/10. Had the imagination but didn’t do enough with it

‘I don’t want Madonna arms’: Christine Bleakley stops pumping iron in the gym

Another disappointing attempt. The Mail have stayed faithful to the (non) story here. They haven’t got any glam photos of Ms Bleakley and instead make her look a bit, well, man-ish. 1/10

Fire up the Quattro! Heather Mills steps back to the Eighties at Arabia 3D premiere

To be honest I’m starting to get bored of these red carpet pictures. 1/10

How Lily Cole went from stunning to studious: From glam in Cannes to cardigan at Cambridge exam

A poor ending. Hot woman doesn’t look quite so hot in exam. Shock horror. I look like a traumatised Vietnam veteran in my exams. 2/10

Overall it’s been a disappointing day for Female readers. Only one nude women and two in bikinis, the rest being mainly red carpet dresses. Still, there’s always tomorrow.

Don’t let Iran get the bomb, only give it to decent regimes, like Apartheid South Africa

What with all the evidence Iran is likely to obtain a nuclear weapon very soon (err?) Israel is making sure the country whose leader threatened to wipe Israel off the map (if you say so) doesn’t get that far. So Israel’s far right tosspot of a Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated:

“The greatest danger mankind faces is a radical regime, without limits to its cruelty, obtaining nuclear capabilities”

Quite right. Nuclear weapons should be reserved only for those states with moderate aims and a superb human rights record. States like America and Israel.

So with such rhetoric condemning the potential of radical and brutal regime achieving nuclear armament, it will come as no surprise to cynics around the world that Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to Apartheid South Africa.

Such a revelation would be an embarrassment to the state of Israel regardless of the context, but with the current climate the timing of this finding has a sweet sense of irony.

You see, Israel aren’t all too happy with a certain judge Goldstone and his report (pdf) because, horror of horrors, it attributes blame towards Israel for the “22 days of dead and destruction” in Gaza (Amnesty International). Naturally Israel and her defenders weren’t going to let this stand. After all, you have a greatly respected Jewish, pro-Israeli judge criticising the actions of Israel. The result of this has been defenders of Israel have thrown everything they possibly can at Goldstone’s methods and character, some of it valid criticism, some of it total shite.

But the most recent attack has been Goldstone’s record in Apartheid South Africa. Now his actions in South Africa at the time were unjustified, yes, and criticism is valid here, although it conveniently ignores the role he played in bringing apart a peaceful end to Apartheid. The origin of this story came from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth with an article entitled “Judge Goldstone’s dark past”. Sasha Polakow-Suransky who came across the documents about the attempted sale of nuclear weapons in research for his forthcoming book The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa mentions a humorous irony of Yediot Ahronoth’s revelation:

“In October 1985, as it happens, the editor of Yediot Ahronoth’s weekend magazine, Aharon Shamir, came to South Africa to meet with a mid-level Foreign Ministry functionary. When the bureaucrat complained that South Africa was being denounced everywhere as undemocratic but could not risk giving blacks the vote, Shamir advised: “Give the blacks the vote very slowly. See how it works. Bit by bit. If you see that your bit by bit approach is not working, change it. But make the world believe you are sincere. You have to be hypocritical to survive.”

Woops. Still, at least people actually involved in these relations are criticising Goldstone because of this

“Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who denounced Goldstone as “a man of double standards,” because he “sentenced black people to death” appears to have some double standards of his own. Rivlin was no doubt fully informed of Israel’s military alliance with South Africa during the 1980s, given that he served on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the 12th Knesset from 1988-1992–a position that gave him nearly unfettered access to sensitive military documents and high-level discussions of Israel’s defense doctrine. These were the peak years of arms sales to South Africa, exceeding $1.5 billion in 1988 and approximately $800 million in 1989.”

Oh.

Still, I’m sure the pro-Israel lobby will come across a new and perhaps more effective method of attacking judge Goldstone. A fiver says someone claims he walks around naked except for novelty socks.

How to really decide the election

I haven’t really been too interested in the recent election, if I’m brutally honest. The pre-election predictions, television debates, campaigning, and generally bullshit isn’t my idea of fun, whereas the post-election fracas where we endlessly debated about which lucky fellow would taste Nick Clegg’s cock got so confusing and boring even the most hardened union  stalwart secretly wanted Clegg to hurry the fuck up and join the Tories.

But the election has highlighted just how bloody awful our election system is. Single Member Simple Plurality or First Past the Post (FPTP) has never been a wonderful system, which requires a far greater belief in the independence of the House of Commons than there actually is. The MP – constituency link might actually mean something if the MP wasn’t the bitch of their party whips. But the election results have been particularly shocking this year.

A good example is this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/07/general-election-2010-results

“If you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now), you get these figures:
Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397”

Democracy in action.

But that’s boring, so I’ve come up with a more interesting way of sorting the parties – % of vote relative to large donations. After all, money talks in this election, and understandably the major two parties dominated this area

So the Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote with £7,317,601.74 (who gave the 1.74?) – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £202,703, or £213712 with public funding. Excellent value for money

Labour got 29% with 5,283,198.85 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £182,179

The Liberal Democrats got 23% with a whopping £724,000 – This means each 1% of the vote cost them £31,478, or £39,752 with public funding.

The Co-Operative Party only got £33,745, but none of the vote. Proof, if it is needed, that the public don’t know what’s best for them.

So the Conservatives – 1% of the vote for £213,712

Labour – 1% of the vote for £182,179

Liberal Democrats – 1% of the vote for £39,752

God forbid what might happen if the parties were on equal footing before a proportional system. Something as hideous as democracy might spring up.