This is just weird and creepy and kind of gross

I've decided that I'm not going to see "The Social Network" despite the fact that it was written by Aaron Sorkin. This is because it's a film about Mark Zuckerberg, who A) is still quite alive and running the company featured in "The Social Network" and B) had nothing to do with the making of the movie. Making a film adaptation of a still-living guy's autobiography, with his blessing? Sure, go for it ("Catch Me If You Can" is kind of awesome, actually). A historical film in which still-living people are portrayed, but aren't really about the people so much as what they were doing? Sure. Making a movie about someone who's dead, without the blessing of their surviving family? A little weird, but at least the dude's not going to be seeing someone else disguised as him on movie posters. Maybe it's because I'm kind of a crazy privacy person, but the idea of it just skeeves me out.

So there's that - creepy, in my opinion, so I won't see the movie. I'm not outraged over it or anything.

Then there's this:

"Channel 4 is to show a drama-documentary based on what would happen if Prince Harry were taken prisoner while serving in Afghanistan.

The 90-minute film, called The Taking of Prince Harry, features contributions from former hostages and intelligence experts.

It includes scenes showing the prince, played by actor Sebastian Reid, being held behind enemy lines while negotiations are carried out to free him."

...

So, uh, some people sat around in a conference room somewhere in London and said, "Hey, let's make a movie depicting some guy who's grandmother is famous getting captured and tortured by terrorists," and...other people agreed that that was a good idea? This is like Saw franchise style torture porn meets mindless celebrity nonsense meets pure, astonishingly poor taste.

I mean, it's one part just bizarre ("What would happen if the youngest son of a man who's mother holds a position of ceremonial importance gets kidnapped?" is not, as far as I'm aware, one of the burning questions of the day), one part just weirdly invasive (again, the "Hey, uh, we're gonna make a movie about you, just fyi" thing), and two parts grossly insensitive ("Hey, let's depict our soldiers getting taken as hostages, just for kicks!" is kind of morally dubious, IMO, and "Hey, marginally-famous-guy! Look at what could have happened when you were in Afghanistan!" is just...creepy).

I mean, for god's sake: have some dignity. Hire some hack to whip up a script in which a prince goes off and serves in the Overseas Conflict du Jour and gets captured and there can be a heroic rescue or escape or tragic death or whatever. Do not give said character the same name as an actual living prince who has served in the Overseas Conflict du Jour, and do not hire an actor who looks like said actual living prince. Ta-Da! You've got your cheaply-made generic made-for-TV movie, and now you're only vaguely tasteless, not Incredibly Fucking Creepy.

Seriously. There are people who get paid significant amounts of money who think this is a good idea. At least creepy, invasive movies aren't just American!

What.

My attempts to understand what exactly the problem is with Britain's massive screw-up of an election have led me to the conclusion that there's only one good solution:

Write a freaking constitution. Seriously, the universe is trying to tell you guys something, and maybe it's that working from an unwritten, nonsensical system kludged together according to the changing whims of society of hundreds of years is perhaps not the best idea. Case in point: as far as this stupid American can tell a big part of the problem is that you for some reason need a supermajority in the House of Commons in order to have a prime minister, however, there's no real obligation to have a prime minister. There's no legal document that says,"Uh, yes, we need to have a head of government" - basically the highest office in the land is ruled by nothing more than tradition and momentum. That, amongst other things, strikes me as maybe something you want to fix? For god's sake, there's no shame in it. Just write some stuff down, come up with a coherent electoral system, and join the, oh, post-Industrial Revolution world!

Granted, what I'm really hoping for, solely for the "Holy shit" factor is for the queen to actually use the privilege that she does have and, you know, take over. Corgis and silly hats all around!

"We're not racist, but..."

Mr. Griffin denies that the British National Party is racist, though he admits that it operates a “restrictive membership policy” and that it is therefore not open to all races or ethnicities. (source)

Really? "We bar people from joining based on their skin color, but really, we're not racist!"

For god's sake...

Attention everyone in Ireland and Northern Ireland: Didn't you guys agree to stop doing stuff like this some years ago?

No, really, the IRA? A drive-by shooting?

Really? Did I just fall back into 1972 or something?

"Hey, guys, it's been ten years since we've killed anyone for our fruitless political cause, and I'm feeling that there's not quite enough violence and mayhem in the world! Let's go shoot some soldiers!"

Read the first amendment. Learn. Repeat.

Apparently, Prince Harry has been over playing soldier in Afghanistan. Good for him.

He's been there for ten weeks, and the British press decided not to publicize it for "security reasons" - allegedly he'd be a great big target. I doubt it, from what I gather Prince Harry is both as smart and as well-loved as a box of hair, but whatever. That's the British media's decision. Good for them*.

The Drudge Report broke the story today. Good for them. The big networks then picked it up. Good for them.

The MoD now has it's panties in a twist over that:

Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, who is head of the British Army, said he was disappointed the news had leaked.

In a statement, he said: "I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Oh, come the hell on! A few minor little points:
1. You just referred to the British media as in possession of a responsible attitude. I'll buy that about the BBC, and more or less for both the Times and Guardian. The British media gave us reality TV and The Sun. Think about that, man.
2. American journalists don't answer to the British government. Nor do they answer to the American government, nor any government, nor anyone but the public and maybe whatever corporation they've been acquired by. They report the news, regardless of whether or not any given government wants it reported. That's because America truly does have a free press, and to speak in any way disparagingly of that is disgusting.
3. The media, and thus the public being aware that your little prince is off pretending to be GI Joe is not the danger. The danger comes from the war, what with the bullets and the bombs and such. The danger comes from you sending him there at all. If you're that concerned, you could have not sent him.
4. Monarchy is idiotic and has no place in modern society anyway. I know there was some ridiculous orgy of faux-grief when Princess Diana got in a car with a drunk driver and died, but would anyone actually care if Prince Harry was killed in war, any more than any other soldier? At the very least, Princess Diana had done a token amount of charity work before her death. Prince Harry has...joined the army and drunkenly attempted to punch a photographer. Whoo, a real royal hero there.
5. The monarchy is funded by the people. The army is funded by the people. Therefore, if His Highness leaves his nice comfy palace to go try to feel useful in the Army, the people have a right to know. Don't like it? Tough shit.

6.  He's not even ever going to be king!  If it was his father or his older brother, who both are in line to eventually be the head of state, I could maybe, maybe understand.  But he's not, he's like the understudy for a chorus-line position!

Seriously, aren't the troops over in Afghanistan ostensibly fighting for freedom and liberty and all that jazz? Isn't an absolutely free press one of the absolute cornerstones of a free society? Had the media listened to the government in some places in the late 1700's, America probably wouldn't have happened. People have an absolute right to know what their government is doing, and if you want to have a monarchy, then they're included in that. Don't like the precedent of America's free press? You should've fought harder in 1776, chumps.

*I'm assuming, of course, that it was their choice and not some gag law, which would just piss me off even more.

(Note: I still love you, UK. You're just having a rough day. It's okay, my country has plenty of them too.)

Oh do shut up

Q: You're an American presidential hopeful on a trip to London. What are some things you should perhaps avoid doing?
A: Idiotically criticizing the UK's domestic policy with made-up statistics.

Seriously, I can't find any numbers backing what Giuliani said about prostate cancer having a 50% mortality rate in the UK. Nor for that matter can I find any reason why he'd take it upon himself to comment like that.

Also: "I'm a rich dude in America, I can afford the best medical coverage there is! But you in the UK, who have a state-provided system of basic care may not get such fantastic care! Clearly if I were a rich dude in the UK I wouldn't have the option of purchasing secondary, private insurance and buying better care! It's not as if the only difference is that poor people in the UK get health coverage regardless of how poor they are, while poor people in America don't."

Oh dear

The Canadian dollar is now just about equal with the US dollar. Interesting.

The Pound is of course still easily twice the dollar, which depresses me.

It goes 'ding' when there's stuff

Despite not being particularly thrilled with Mr. Gordon Brown, I'm feeling rather chummy towards the Brits right now. Not that I often feel particularly antagonistic towards them, what with the wanting to be British myself and all, but anyway.

For one - I've been watching some Doctor Who recently. It's one of those shows that's hit-or-miss. Sometimes it's just unintentionally silly, sometimes it's pretty crap. Then every once in a while there's an episode that, upon first viewing, is completely outstanding. I'm referring to the relatively recent episode Blink, which if nothing else, had the creepiest damn low-budget monsters I have ever seen. Spoilers, in case anyone's a Who fan but hasn't seen it yet: Stone angels that are only stone when you're looking at them. They send you into the past to live our your life ("the only psychopaths who kill you nicely"), and feed off the life you would have otherwise had (they "let you live to death"). Psychologically, this is absolutely brilliant, because you see a scary monster and what do you want to do? Hide. Turn around and run away. Stop looking at it. But in this case, you can't, and I find that horrifyingly genius.


Anyway, fictional monsters aside, the Brits today also prevented themselves from getting blown up again. Not only that, but it looks like they've done so in a remarkably calm and stereotypically British fashion. All I have to say on that is (if I may): "Well done, chaps".

I somehow doubt that Christians in West Sussex are a persecuted group

Oh noes! I can't wear my magical anti-sex ring at school where it violates the dress code! This is clearly a violation of my human rights!

Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring, which symbolises chastity, or face expulsion.

Okay...

The school denies breaching her human rights, insisting the ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith.

No kidding! If you're going to argue otherwise, could you point me to the verses that not only encourage chastity, but say that you must wear jewelry in order to remain chaste?

"The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the SRT purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is counter cultural and contrary to societal and governmental policy," she added.

Wait, what? Meaningless sex at the age of 16 is governmental policy in Britain? I missed that.

The ground's a-movin!

Unexpected news stories: Earthquake in Kent, England.

Not big earthquake territory, England.

Again, our gun laws fail

The Virginia Tech shooter should not have been able to purchase a gun, as he'd previously been ruled a danger to himself. He did anyway.

If America had stricter gun laws (eg, reminiscent of the UK, where unless it's a historical artifact, you cannot own a handgun), there wouldn't be shops selling pistols all over Virginia, so the issue of doing proper background checks would be pretty well irrelevant.

Reasons why I like the UK more than the US, # 1,242

Real gun laws. Meaningful gun laws.

Some places in the US, you can legally own automatic assault rifles. In the UK? If you want to legally purchase a gun you'd best come up with an extraordinary reason why.

On the other hand, the UK does have stuff like this, the apparently infinite Diana Debacle.

OK: she was a public figure, sure. I'm a bit baffled by that as well, but I just don't get celebrity culture. Whatever. She died in a car accident. Most non-crazy people (ie, those who don't believe the CIA had her picked off) understand what happened: she got in a car. The driver was drunk. The driver drove very fast, into a tunnel. The driver crashed. Neither driver nor passenger were wearing seatbelts. Both driver and passenger died. The same thing happens a tragic number of times, around the world, every year. It's a huge problem here in NM.

So, OK, maybe the persistent interest is nothing more than Pretty White Girl syndrome. She was rich, attractive, charismatic, 'upper-class', and died young.

What the hell is left to inquire into? A guy was drunk. He got in a car accident. People died. What does anyone expect the investigation will say? "Yes, we...forced him to get drunk?"

I don't get it.

Oh, Britain...

Britain is like that relative that so many people have, who you by and large adore, and they're cool and cultured and sophisticated and different enough from your immediate family to totally rock - but every so often they go ahead and do something that makes you go "Britain - dude, what?"

Or (very possibly) that's just me.

Anyway - Blair's announced that they're going to start pulling British troops out of Iraq, hoping to have them all back home by October. Apparently, Denmark is also withdrawing their troops (Denmark has, uh, soldiers? Huh.) at the same time. This is good. Blair's finally admitting that maybe he sort of screwed this one up and it wasn't the best idea. Great. Better to show up late to the party than not at all, right? I'm pretty excited about this.

Then, what should greet me on the BBC News homepage this morning but this? "Entirely unimportant rich white boy to go to Iraq".

I'm very curious about the timing of this announcement. "Yes, we're going to withdraw our troops because this war is stupid and pointless and an astonishingly bad idea that's just not working for us. But - wait! America! Look! We're sending some of our favorite gossip fodder! So even if you guys screw up and bomb us again and end up killing him, we'll still benefit because by god our newspapers love that type of thing!"

Or, if I want to be optimistic about it, maybe it's part of Blair's Cunning Plan to do away with such a stupidly archaic system as monarchy. I can dream, can't I?