Blogcritics Author: Darrell Goodliffe

Website Review: Relationship Rescue on the Net

Darrell Goodliffe — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:05:32 EST

Relationships are amazingly complicated things. Where do you turn when your little piece of heaven starts clouding over?
Relationships are amazingly complicated things. We all have them and there is a wealth of media out there detailing the relationship experience. Of course, when they go well they are stuff of fairy tales but when they go wrong the complications kick in. Who do we turn to when our little piece of heaven starts clouding over? Most of us turn to our...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Iraq on the Web

Darrell Goodliffe — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:11:55 EDT

No news day is complete without the latest installment of the unfolding horror of the disintegration of Iraq. Headlines proclaiming Iraq’s "bloodiest day" have long since lost their power to really shock. Politicians and pundits alike have endless opinions on how to deal with the crisis; however, the Internet is proving to be one of the main mediums through which ordinary Iraqis can make their voices heard. From the Front LineHometown Baghdad is less a blog and more a vlog. The videos are short but informative; one shows Saif, a resident of Zayounal, attempting to barricade his house with barbed wire. Of course, the strains of living in a city like Baghdad are an ever-present theme but other videos look at more "normal" aspects of everyday life; for example, "Kiss and Tell" tells the dating stories of Saif, Adel, and Ausama. Although it is not overtly political, the crew behind the films couldn’t resist a comment on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam:When I was shooting one of the subjects as he packed his bag, I could feel my heart shivering. I even began feeling nervous behind the camera. How emotional the thought of packing is! I curse packing and I curse wars!”, (Ziad Turkey, Hometown Baghdad, April 9).Iraqiya is the attempt of an Iraqi woman to provide a different perspective. It is written by a "typical Iraqi woman" who has "a bachelor's degree in English and works at one of the Iraqi Ministries." Her self-description rather belies her claim that she has "not benefited from the old regime nor the new one" but she surely reflects a lot of middle-class Iraqi opinion when she says that she “cannot deny the good things the US has done for the Iraqi people, but I think that the US should have done more to protect Iraqi people” (March 26). A lot of Iraqi blogs reflect a growing feeling of despondency; the by-line for BlogIraq is "an Iraqi who used to have dreams." The author's “frustration, anger, and agony” (March 20) are unlikely to be uncommon feelings among Iraqis. At Worlds End puts it thus: “Where everything is messy, when people get sick of their life. That’s when the world ends.”Sectarian Divide Nobody reading this will need any introduction to the sectarian nature of Iraq’s strife. In the crucible-like atmosphere, Healing Iraq seems to be an ambitious goal. It attempts to provide a daily commentary on news and events in Iraq and is well-written. However, as with most Iraqi blogs, the author is once again something of a mystery; although this is hardly surprising under the circumstances it is something that is more reminiscent of bloggers living under dictatorial regimes and should indicate the limits of the "freedom" that Iraq has thus far achieved. Presumably the authors of Iraq The Model thought that they were being ironic. Their prediction that Muqtada al-Sadr’s withdrawal from the coalition government may mean a move into overt opposition is a grim one for the US and its allies when you consider the reported response to the recent Sadriyah Market bombings. American and Iraqi forces in the aftermath of the explosions were “pelted with stones by angry crowds shouting: 'Where is the security plan?'” (The Independent, April 19). If this is indeed the course that al-Sadr intends to chart then the implications will not just be felt in Baghdad. Al-Sadrists are credited with being behind attempts to oust the governor of Basra. As al-Sadr moves away from the Iraqi government, a new Sunni party is looking to move closer to it and bridge the divisions in Iraqi society. More than 200 Sunni sheiks in Iraq's western Anbar province have decided to form a new political party to oppose al-Qaida. The Iraq Awakening will be a national party, with a platform of opposition to al-Qaida and cooperation with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. This news has prompted plenty of discussion on Baghdadee. While it is an interesting forum, you will have to be fluent in Arabic (or at least have access to a good page/text translator) to be able to glean the most from it. If you want to read a comprehensive news source covering Iraq then you could do a lot worse than IraqSlogger. As well as being presented professionally, it has an extensive array of sections covering topics as diverse as security and a section it calls "good news." Its attempts to brighten the gloom even extend to the inclusion of a humour section; however a closer examination reveals that it would be perhaps better termed satire. Societies that are as deeply immersed in civil strife as Iraq’s often find that there is little separation between politics and everyday life and indeed that shines through numerous blogs whose main function is to provide a platform for their author’s views. "Normality"Of course, maintaining any semblance of normality in such an environment would be an achievement in itself. Everyday life becomes a battle to survive and everything else tends to be lost in that, including culture that Westerners take for granted. However, a number of blogs attempt to keep the cultural flame burning for Iraq and lend an expressive voice to art, entertainment, and other cultural staples. Baghdad Artist is perhaps one of the more well-known artists but the blog has not been recently updated which, given its quality and presentation, is a shame. Poetry is also alive in Baghdad; "And the ball rolled into a Baghdad dumpster" tells the story of the experience of a group of children playing near a neglected dumpster. Art and writing is one Iraqi teenager's only source of solace among the misery. She says, “I don't really feel like writing anymore,” but says that she may “start scanning some drawing and put them here. I love art.” Lana, the author of the blog, describes herself as Iraq’s "future presidentESS", however it currently has to be questioned if there will be an Iraq left for Lana to preside over.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

Thought Crime Becoming A Reality?

Darrell Goodliffe — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:39:47 EDT

What are you thinking right now? Whatever it is then it would perhaps be advisable to stop because neuroscientists may be on the verge of penetrating the depths of the mind; to the point where reading thoughts becomes possible. Obviously the moral and ethical implications of this are potentially very wide-ranging. Functional Magnetic Resonance ImagingFunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fRMI) is a technique used to 'map' the brain. A subject lies in a magnet and a particular form of stimulation will be set up; then, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the subject's brain are taken. Two scans are taken; firstly, a high resolution single scan is taken which is used later as a background for highlighting the brain areas which were activated by the stimulus. Next, a series of low resolution scans are taken over time. For some of these scans, the stimulus will be presented, and for some of the scans, the stimulus will be absent. The low resolution brain images in the two cases can be compared, to see which parts of the brain were activated by the stimulus. However, recently things have been able to be taken a little further. They have been able to discern which of two images you saw and furthermore whether you are thinking of a face, animal or scene. Basic predictions, about which finger you will next move can also be made. Of course, the race is now on to push the boundaries way beyond identifying current thoughts into predicting future behavior and ascertaining the core of why we act in the way we do. John-Dylan Haynes, a researcher at Germany's Bernstein Centre for Computational Neuroscience, is one those driving the research forward. The mission statement of his project is to investigate “ways to decode and predict a person’s thoughts based from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data”. Haynes conducted an experiment looking into the determination underlying free will. Participants were put in an fMRI machine and were told they would soon be shown the word ‘select,’ followed a few seconds later by two numbers. While viewing the select word they had to decide whether to add or subtract the numbers and then enter the result of their chosen calculation. A snapshot was taken right after the cue, when they were choosing which calculation to perform; the scans were then used by a computer to guess which action the subject would perform. It calculated correctly 71% of the time (). In terms of the future, Haynes is thinking of computers that can respond to users thoughts but obviously the idea also has other implications. He expresses opposition it’s use for commercial purposes but think that there could be significant scope for its application in criminal investigations. He argues that opposition to it denies “the innocent people the ability to prove their innocence" and would "only protect the people who are guilty”. However, the moral arguments over such an application are far from as simple as Haynes makes out. Proven innocence Firstly, it is totally apparent that this technology would not be limited to mere detection and establishment of the facts. It would only be a matter of time before the argument would be put forward for the predictive aspect of the technology to be used and then there is a whole different argument again; about whether punishing ‘thought crime’ is desirable. By trying to rationalize free will and making it something that is measurable you are in fact gutting it of the essence of what the words are supposed to mean; its very nature means that free will is determined in one moment not predetermined in the previous one. If it was already determined then it would no longer be ‘free’ of constraints. How many people reading this have, in a moment of anger, threatened too and indeed wanted to do something illegal? Quite a few I would imagine if the survey was honestly answered. Even if it wasn’t a criminal offense, how many have had a fleeting thought of cheating on their partner or something equally legal but morally heinous? Again, one suspects that a few would answer in the affirmative. The point is not that we should not condemn voice but the fact we choose not to act on them (or some cases we do) is part of what defines us and crucially teaches us as we make our way through life. Doing something cannot be morally acquainted with thinking about doing something In democracies the entire legal system operates (or at least it should) under the presumption that you are ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Using thought mapping for criminal justice purposes would severely undermine that presumption. The balance would be shifted from determining innocence to determining and finding the ‘guilty’ or those who are about to be guilty. However, they would be technically convicted while they remained innocent. Apart from the ethical connotations of ‘thought crime’ there is also the question of fallibility. Haynes computer was only correct 71% of the time in predicting the intent of the subject’s. Another way to view that is that it was incorrect 29% of time which would be a far from acceptable margin of error if the technology was to be used in criminal cases. Of course, its adherents will always claim that the payoff is the saving of innocent lives however that begs the question if they can ever be preserved by something that at the same time puts them under threat.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

Citizen Journalists, Organize!

Darrell Goodliffe — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:41:50 EDT

If, like me, you are a citizen journalist or at least somebody struggling to make their way in journalism as a citizen then how can you protect yourself and the growing group you are part of? Six months and counting…Blogger Josh Wolf has been in prison for more than six months in San Francisco for contempt of court. He shot a video of a San Francisco demonstration against a Group of Eight summit meeting in Scotland in July 2005. During the disturbances a policeman was injured and a police car attacked. Federal prosecutors started to investigate the case and Wolf’s video was viewed as potential evidence. He refused to hand over both the video and testify in any case, contending that his video showed only interviews with protesters, not evidence of any crime. Wolf contended that there was an ‘implied trust’ between him and his interviewees. He said, in an interview with PBS that “there was a trust established between people involved in the organization that I was covering and myself . . . that what I chose to release was what I chose to release, and that I wasn't an investigator for the state.”During the case the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, referred to Wolf as an “alleged journalist”. U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan also described Wolf as “simply a person with a video camera who happened to record some public events.” If Wolf was a journalist than Californian state law (although not federal law) might afford him some protection. So, there are legalistic implications to the definition of Wolf’s status and there are wider implications too. The first point to note is that Wolf actively sought out the ‘public event’ and even conducted interviews so he cannot in all honesty be categorized as a passer-by who happened to record the events. Conversely, a long and worthy history exists of footage and stories written and filmed by actual participants, whether accidental or not, of news-worthy events and submitting these stories to established news media. However, none of them were journalists although they did bring ‘news’ to the people and therefore would fit the criteria of Wolf’s defense attorney to be considered as such. In actual fact Wolf did not ‘bring the news to the people’, he played a part in its production and that is exactly what a journalist does. However, he is certainly not a professional journalist and this is the nub of the matter; just because somebody does not do something professionally does that mean they are not something? Previously definition would have been no problem as a journalist would be defined by his profession, it would be as easy as categorizing an electrician as an electrician. The internet has allowed for amateur journalism to expand its scope vastly; this is both good in that it allows for the flowering of diversity and talent that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. However, it also challenges existing notions, institutions and indeed legal systems to both protect the rights of this ‘new breed’ and prevent the abuse of the power of the new media. French lessons Meanwhile, France’s Constitutional Court approved a law banning citizens from filming violence; imposing penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine of 75,000 Euros. It was proposed by presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy perhaps in an early bid to capture some populist moral conservative kudos. It was touted as an attempt to clamp down on ‘happy slapping’ – a teenage prank where a complete stranger is slapped and reaction is filmed. However, a French George Holliday (the bystander who videoed the infamous beating of Rodney King) would now be culpable under this new law and be facing five years in prison himself. The lesson here is simply that the state cannot be trusted to regulate the internet without seeking to extend it’s own power. Of course, this will always be claimed to be in the interests of the people but the reality is that state’s always act first and foremost to preserve themselves, often from the people. Politicians such as Sarkozy will seize on uglier aspects of the internet and exploit them to win support for laws that may appear reasonable but in fact extend state power unreasonably. Britain’s Times is considered a ‘small ‘c’ conservative’ newspaper but even it’s commentator was forced to describe the new law as “broad worded” and point out that “democratic societies and totalitarian states hold an equally deep suspicion of citizen journalists”. A New Beginning Citizen journalists have to remember something crucial; they are the people and often are better placed to act as their tribune than politicians. However, this does not mean an abrogation of ethics or that self-aggrandizing should be raison d’être of citizen journalism. Indeed, it should be guided to be the tribune of the people and not to work in opposition to existing news media but partner with it. A complex relationship exists between the three parties but in principle they have more in common than they do with the state. State bodies and existing media have one advantage over citizen journalist’s; namely, organization. Citizen journalist’s spread themselves across different sites and contact between them is minimal and confined to the social and the discursive. Organizations like Reporters without Borders do an admirable job of fighting for press freedom and defending citizen journalists under that remit. A more effective organization would be web-based and transnational by nature, and specifically seek to represent the interests of citizen journalists in their various states and on the world-stage? It would have to be voluntary by nature but seek to establish both a guiding ethos for citizen journalism and would spearhead the response of citizen journalism to the increasing hostility of state organizations. The formation of such an organization is long overdue.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

Movie Review: The Number 23 - Jim Carrey's Descent Into Hell

Darrell Goodliffe — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:56:52 EDT

Hell isn’t an imaginary land of fire and brimstone, chock full of imps and demons. Hell is the darkest recesses of the human mind. Our darkest impulses, fears and sometimes memories dwell there. Although The Number 23, directed by Joel Schumacher, is nominally about the numeral of the title, it is also about the main character's descent into hell. Jim Carrey is Walter Sparrow, aptly named as he works as a local animal control officer. He is somewhat melancholy but otherwise well-adjusted -- that is, until he is bitten by a dog named Ned. Ned leads Sparrow to the grave of a Laura Tollins. Arriving late to meet his wife, Agatha Sparrow (Virginia Madsen), Walter is presented with a birthday gift of a book "of obsession" called "The Number 23". Thus begins Sparrow's descent into psychosis. As he reads through the book, it is seemingly based on his own life with one important exception -- it details a murder that has yet to occur. Thankfully the mythology surrounding the number 23 is kept to a bare minimum. At the beginning a series of facts connecting the number to a series of momentous (in a bad way) events in human history sets the tone, but apart from a sketchy outline midway through, we are spared the gory details. Belief in the mystic significance of the number 23 stems from a modern chaos religion called Discordianism which has the Greek goddess of discord, Eris as its principle deity. Twenty-three is considered, all at the same time, sacred (to Eris), lucky, unlucky, sinister, sacred to unholy gods (Cthulhu Mythos), and strange. Sparrow’s question, “Is it god?”, is thus answered; 23 is a corollary of the Discordian law of fives in that its properties are divisible five different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) ways. One of the things that immediately strikes you about this film is that Carrey looks every bit the part as Sparrow. Ace Ventura and The Mask seem like a world away as Carrey gives a consummate performance as a deeply disturbed character. Fingerling, the anti-hero of the book, is however perhaps a dark allusion to The Mask. In a way Carrey’s journey from the fun-loving Mask to the psychotic Fingerling is indicative of his progress as an actor. Making the transition from such wildly different genres successfully shows a versatility which should surely be applauded. Carrey’s supports all perform admirably in their often multiple roles alongside him (incidentally, the multi-parting is not a fact that is accidental or unrelated to the plot). This strong use of suggestion is something that will keep you on your toes if you are one of those people who likes to beat the plot to the end. For example, Ned’s bite is seemingly innocuous in the beginning, a plot device to bring Sparrow and book together, but the fact that Ned bit Sparrow begins to assume allegorical importance as the plot unravels. It has been asserted that the plot twists are easy to unravel, which they are for a well-trained critical eye, but I rather suspect that the casual movie-goer, who switches off their brain at the popcorn stand, will find slightly more suspense in the plot. Immersing yourself in the character of Sparrow is the key to actually enjoying this film; ignore the wider world and follow the twists and turns of his inner psyche and you will be genuinely disturbed. At the end however you maybe left feeling a little disappointed as the movie suddenly switches tack from descent-into-hell toward a more traditional tale of redemption. One feels that the story perhaps deserves a darker end but the courage was lacked to prosecute this, which ultimately is a shame.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

Movie Review: Watch Out, Here Comes Hot Fuzz

Darrell Goodliffe — Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:33:57 EST

First, a quick question; did you see and enjoy Shaun of the Dead? If the answer is yes, then you can quite happily skip the rest of the review and go out and buy some tickets if you are in the UK, or book advanced ones in the US. You will love Hot Fuzz and possibly have to contain dangerously close to splitting sides. The plot and context may not be the same but the humour is awfully similar. If, however, the answer is no, then read on.Simon Pegg is Nicholas Angel, a lean, mean, crime-fighting machine. He lives and breaths ‘the Force’, his hobbies are even all geared to the end of pushing him to the very limits and perfecting his physical and mental powers. Of course, this less than impresses his girlfriend (Cate Blanchett), who comes a distant third in his life behind his Japanese peace lily (yes, it does get used for violent purposes later on in the movie). She makes a brief appearance which signals the early death of romantic cliché in the film. It is less than inspiring to his colleagues and superiors too, his 400% arrest record putting the whole of the Met to shame. They conspire to transfer him to sleepy Sandford as a desk Sergeant. Leaving London’s bright lights behind, Angel sinks further and further into despair as his mobile signal slowly fades. Upon arrival in Sandford he immediately makes an impression, arresting a cabal of underage drinkers and unwittingly arresting his soon-to-be-partner, PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), for drinking and driving. His first day at work sees Angel bear the brunt of local hostility from the motley crew that are now his new colleagues. After some ‘routine’ rural police work, swan-chasing and rounding up some unlicensed firearms, a ‘collision’ that decapitates a local thespian and his mistress soon leads Angel to suspect that there is a lot more to Sandford than meets the eye. Sandford is a giant rural stereotype. Its welcome sign proclaims that "everybody cares" but just in case, everybody carries guns. Everybody speaks funny and rolls their Rs horribly. A night out always starts at your front door and ends down the local pub. Its inhabitants are similarly stereotypical, we have the local loose woman, PC Doris Thatcher (Olivia Colman), the shady businessman, Simon Skinner (Timothy Dalton), the genial reverend Philip Shooter (Paul Freeman) and so on and so on. Stereotype comedy is increasingly seen as an easy way to make money, especially from the teenage market (witness the Scary Movie series, Epic Movie, etc). It would thus be unfair to accuse Hot Fuzz of striking originality; however it is still relatively fresh in its execution. Pegg is as funny a tough guy with a softie inside as he is softie with tough guy inside (Shaun of the Dead) and Frost is a pretty perfect foil. The exaggerated gore factor is high as was the case with Shaun. As a film it is very much as it is billed ‘from the makers of…’, although thankfully we are spared any in-jokes. It seems like Pegg intends to do a tour of all the different movie genres and lampoon them each in turn. This will be no bad thing as long as innovation is shown along the way and it doesn’t rely on a formulaic ‘guaranteed cash-cow’ approach. The demise of the Scary Movie franchise should provide a stark warning to Working Title of the dangers of that approach. However, as with Shaun, it’s one flaw is the way that sometimes you get the feeling the film is taking itself too seriously. I think this is something to do with Pegg himself who seems to try and step out of the comedy when the serious moments arrive. It lends them an awkward feel and in some way spoils the flow of the movie. If you are looking for serious themes then there is the buddy cop bonding of Frost and Pegg, Pegg’s journey of self-discovery and the underlying theme is that trying to perfect the un-perfectible (ie, human beings) is bad and leads to much badness and imperfection. This is one movie where I simply wouldn’t bother; just sit back, munch your popcorn in between giggles, and enjoy the full fury of the Fuzz.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

The Crucible of Terror

Darrell Goodliffe — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:32:57 EST

Most westerners know comparatively little is about Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud which rules it. Yet western powers - first Britain, then the United States - have been instrumental in elevating the House of Saud to the position it currently occupies and in maintaining its rule against all odds. In return, the House of Saud has acted in support of western policy objectives in the region and, crucially, helped to ensure an almost constant flow of cheap oil. However, they are hardly ideal partners in a ‘war on terrorism’ that, ideologically, has been wrapped in ‘democratic’ packaging. It is a cruel despotism and worse it provides ideological and logistical succor to the most extremist forms of Islam. Humble OriginsAll this belies the family's rather humble origins as one tribe amongst the many vying for power and influence on the Arabian peninsula; in 1744 Muhammad ibn Saud was a tribal chief and ruler of Dir’aiyah (a village now on the outskirts of the current Saudi capital, Riyadh). He allied himself with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a conservative religious thinker; Wahhab gave his name to Wahhabism. Wahhabism was and is a particularly puritanical version of Islam that put a stress on the purity of religious practice, conservative social standards and the unity of one god. From their base in Dir’aiyah the Saudis (here meaning members of the Al-Saud tribe, not Saudi Arabians) expanded their influence steadily through the region. A clutch of cities fell under their domination. However, the area was under the sway of the Ottoman Empire. Muhammad Ali, a governor of Cairo and Ottoman satrap, was instructed by his masters to put down the irksome Saudi insurgency. Eventually his son, Ibrahim Pasha, drove the Saudis back to Dir’aiyah, which in 1819 was razed to the ground. Though the Al-Sauds surfaced again in 1845 - ruling Riyadh until 1891, when it fell to the Al-Rashid family - they were eventually driven into exile in Kuwait. However, by the end of the 19th century the star of the Ottomans had waned. All of its borders were threatened. The Balkan countries rose in open revolt and, encouraged by the big European powers, started to create a whole patchwork of rival nation states. To the east, tsarist Russia was encroaching on its territory, defeating the Ottomans in 1877. Britain and France looked to extend their empires in the near-east. Britain successfully invaded Egypt in 1881 and France invaded Tunisia during the same year. Internally, the Caliphate was wracked by dissent and bureaucratic intrigue. Thus, by the time World War I broke out in 1914, the ‘sick man of Europe’ was already on its last legs. The eventual victory of France, the United States and Britain against the Triple Alliance sealed the Ottoman Empire’s fate. Its territory was part of the spoils of victory. The Middle East was divided into British and French protectorates. Meanwhile, the eventual founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdel Aziz Abdel Rahman Al-Saud (or Ibn Saud), had begun to claw back the land lost by the Al-Sauds. He recaptured Riyadh in 1902. In doing so he gave an early indication of his personal ruthlessness and the carnage that was to follow his ascension to power. He spiked the heads of his enemies on the city gates and burned over 1,000 people to death. Despite this early success, Ibn Saud recognised that he needed sponsorship from a major imperial power if he was to prevent a repeat of the debacle of the previous century and finally defeat the Al-Sauds’ tribal enemies. Initially, he sought sponsorship from the sultanate of Turkey, but he was rebuffed and forced to look elsewhere. Britain had signed a treaty with Faisal Al-Saud, Ibn’s grandfather, in 1865, and so it had had some contact with the Al-Sauds previously. Now, Britain wanted allies in the region to give it a foothold within the territory of the decaying Ottoman Empire. The more allies it had, the greater its share of the Ottoman booty would be. Ibn needed Britain’s logistical and military aid to decisively defeat and subjugate his enemies. From the point of view of both parties it was a marriage made in heaven. Contact was thus established in 1904. Britain agreed to advance Ibn Saud small subsidies, but beyond that did little. These subsidies were used to expand and maintain colonies of Wahhabi fanatics, the Ikhwan, which would later form the backbone of Ibn Saud’s conquering army. World War I saw the Al-Sauds’ tribal enemies, like the Ibn Rasheeds, siding with Turkey. Ibn Saud thus attacked them with Britain’s blessing. Small subsidies became larger and a gaggle of advisers, alongside what was then advanced military equipment, were despatched to assist Ibn Saud’s advance. Afforded a decisive advantage by Britain’s backing and able to make use of Ikhwan fanaticism, Ibn Saud was able to bring the whole of eastern Arabia under his control by 1917. Britain’s vision of Arabia’s fate following Turkish defeat was clear: in the words of Lord Crewe it wanted “a disunited Arabia split into principalities under our suzerainty”. For his part, Ibn Saud, was, by and large, happy to acquiesce. However, another British protégé in the region, the Hashemite monarch, King Hussein, was far from content. He had taken western Arabia, but was less servile than Saud and was not keen on British “suzerainty”, much preferring to exercise his own over an enlarged, independent and unified Arab nation. Rather than directly attack its erstwhile ally, Britain gave Ibn Saud free reign to do the job. As Britain had pledged itself in 1915 to defend Ibn Saud’s territory, he was fighting a war that he could not lose. By 1925 the Hijaz, an area that included Mecca, Medina and the most urbanised parts of Arabia, had succumbed to his armies. BloodbathIbn Saud now ruled over a people with a myriad of different tribal and religious identities. To add to his problems, the social base that he could claim among the ruled was thin. If the new territory were to be governable, then the creation of a unified identity was required. Given the fact that the new entity was created by conquest, with not a hint of any movement from below, this would have to come from above. In short, everything pointed to a bloodbath and that was exactly what happened. Wahhabism was a minority religious sect that viewed intolerance of other strands of thought as a religious duty. They were ‘heretics’ and therefore their treatment as sub-human was more than justified. As an ideology it was therefore well equipped for the task in hand: the unleashing and justification of mass terror. The Ikhwan were the obvious choice to carry out that terror. They formed the core of the Committee for Advancement of Virtue and Elimination of Sin (Caves), a body which exists to this very day. Religious and non-religious dissenters were butchered, as the Ikhwan murdered their way across the newly acquired territory. Houses were ransacked and whole towns were razed to the ground. Singing was forbidden, flowerpots were smashed, and telephone lines were cut because they were the work of the devil. Eventually Saud became weary of their growing power. In turn they questioned his close relationship with Britain. Saud, however, had no intention of ending his reliance on Britain and the stage was set for the inevitable showdown. They rebelled against Saud, but the support of the British gave him the edge. Having served their purpose and secured the House of Saud’s domination, the Ikhwan were massacred (though they were reintegrated as the White Guard - later the National Guard).OilSaudi Arabia is, of course, known for one thing above all others, the vast quantities of oil that the country produces. In terms of capacity it has no equal among the Gulf states. There are 264 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (more than a quarter of the world total) with up to one trillion barrels of oil probably being ultimately recoverable (Energy Information Administration report, January 2002). Not only is it present in vast quantities, but it is also cheaply produced due to flat land and huge deposits at shallow depths. However, Saudi Arabia’s vast oil-producing potential was not recognised at first. The first oil concession was granted to a British company, Eastern General Syndicate, in 1923. Though Eastern General did confirm the existence of “some oil”, it sat on it. Britain itself was hardly in desperate need of a new source, possessing as it did access to ample supplies in Iraq, Iran and Bahrain; what is more, it was in decline as an imperial power. In contrast, America was in desperate need of a foreign supplier of oil and was in the ascendant. In 1933, Standard Oil, a Californian company, won the concession for the bargain price of $250,000. Having attained his dominant position by aligning himself with what was then the world’s foremost power, Ibn Saud was not slow to recognise the shift that had taken place in global politics post-World War II. Writing in the margins of an agreement to lease the Dhahran airbase to America, he urged his descendants “to maintain the friendship of our American brothers”. The “American brothers”, in the course of time, made Ibn Saud himself and his successors fabulously wealthy. Previously they had been reliant on British subsidies and revenue generated from muslims making the Hajj pilgrimage. Now, the opportunity to make money existed on a truly mind-boggling scale. An unnamed prince, who allegedly gave away a new Cadillac when the petrol tank was empty and bought another with a full tank, is pretty mild example provided by the author of the House of Saud’s profligacy. Those in and around the House of Saud have amassed fortunes worth billions. Up to their necks in corruption, they squander the country’s wealth on countless palaces and gambling binges in London, Las Vegas and Monte Carlo. Despite imposing their fundamentalist version of Islam on the mass of population, the princes and kings of Saudi Arabia use - and abuse - high class prostitutes and consume alcohol to the point of addiction. All this is common knowledge amongst the people.We have already seen how Britain’s backing was instrumental in clearing Ibn Saud’s road to power. Nowadays there is a relationship of even greater co-dependency. On the one hand, the western world in general and America in particular benefits from cheap oil, with prices not just being kept down by the low extraction costs due to nature, but also by the active connivance of the Saudi regime. During the period of the cold war, Saudi Arabia also provided a counterweight to Arab nationalist regimes like that of Gamal Abdul Nasser, regimes that tended to lean towards the USSR. It also lavished money on anti-communist forces in the region such as the mujahedin. Now, however, despite this role being much diminished, it remains a key, and usually loyal, US ally in the region. A obscene oil for arms system has developed. In return for cheap oil the military industrial complex of the US and Britain supply vast quantities of the latest sophisticated weaponry - battle tanks, surface-to-air missiles, fighter-bombers, ships, etc. However, this is not for the defence of Saudi Arabia or the House of Saud. There is too much hardware for the Saudi armed forces to use. Much of it simply rusts. Furthermore the royal family does not trust its own people nor even the officer caste. For example, only those closely related to it are permitted to fly armed aircraft. British prime ministers - Labour and Tory, US presidents - Democrat and Republican - happily connive in this colossal waste of productive resources. Ideological ProgenyIt is not hard to see where Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda’s interpretation of Islam comes from by making a study of Wahhabism. Wahhabism was a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and interpretation that had been acquired over the centuries. The followers of Abdul Wahab (1703-1792) began as a movement to cleanse the Arab bedouin from the influence of Sufism. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab formed his ideas as a rebellion against what he saw as a laxity in religious practice. He focused on the Muslim principle that there is only one God, and that God does not share his power with anyone. From this unitarian principle, his students began to refer to themselves as muwahhidun (unitarians). Their detractors referred to them as "Wahhabis" - or followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, which had a pejorative connotation. The idea of a unitary god was not new. Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, however, attached political importance to it. He directed his attack against the Shia who revered Imams, even after their death. His instructions in the matter of extending his religious teaching by force were strict. All unbelievers were to be put to death. Immediate entrance into Paradise was promised to his soldiers who fell in battle, and it is said that each soldier was provided with a written order from Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab to the gate-keeper of heaven to admit him forthwith. Of course, Bin Laden’s jihad started in opposition to the Saudi regime, but his terms of opposition to it and the west are clearly the ideological spawn of Wahhabism. Furthermore, Al-Quaeda’s vicious campaign against Shia’s in Iraq can be seen in a new context; that of a centuries old ideological feud. Indeed, thirty top Saudi clerics released a statement last December, calling on Sunnis throughout the region to back the Sunni insurgents in Iraq against Shiites. This was followed by a fatwa from prominent cleric Abdul Rahman al-Barak on Dec. 29 attacking Shiites: “The rejectionists [Shiites] in their entirety are the worst of the Islamic nation's sects. They bear all the characteristics of infidels.” he said in the religious ruling, according to a translation from Reuters.Saudi Arabia erected a number of large global charities in the 1960s and 1970s whose original purpose was to propagate Wahhabi Islam, which became penetrated by prominent individuals from al-Qaeda’s global network. Furthermore it’s involvement in the emergence of the Taliban and numerous allegations of ties to Hamas are well-documented(http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/saudi/saudi_dgb.htm). In short, as a country it has done more than any other to earn the moniker as the crucible of terrorism. However, it is not surprising that this country has produced desperate and dangerous people when one considers that even a modern-day Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes on the planets surface.Modern Realities The Saudi regime has barely extended its social base beyond that which it enjoyed at its inception. Though George Bush and Tony Blair claim to be crusaders for democracy; their ally in Saudi Arabia is run as a family concern. Article six in the Saudi constitution puts it thus: “Citizens are to pay allegiance to the King in accordance with the holy Koran and the tradition of the Prophet, in submission and obedience, in times of ease and difficulty, fortune and adversity” No political parties are allowed, let alone free elections to a sovereign parliament. Women are, of course, second class subjects and suffer all manner of humiliating restrictions and punishments. They are unable to drive, vote, or access medical attention without permission from their male guardian and are strictly segregated from men in restaurants, hospital waiting rooms, buses. Religious minorities are forbidden from openly practicing their religious rituals. No expression of dissent is tolerated and critics of the state are regularly arrested and held without charge or basic due process guarantees. Birthdays, weddings and anniversaries cannot be celebrated publicly, as they are considered ‘inventions’ of the infidels, and therefore, are not tolerated. Deviation from the government’s edicts can result in public flogging, the loss of work and total social isolation. Free and independent thinking is made even less possible by the economic dependence of the Saudi people on its government. . It controls all public utilities, the oil industry, religious and educational institutions, ground and air transportation, and virtually the entire health care system. All the money from oil sales goes directly into the King’s coffers; who then allocates funds in consultation with senior members of the Royal family. Despite all this, the west continues to fete the Saudi regime and even behave with toe-curling subservience to its whims and concerns. After visiting Afghanistan last month the new US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates visited Riyadh and ‘briefed’ the Saudi monarch, Abdullah on the current situation. Concerned about the situation in Iraq, the Saudi King apparently ““wanted to hear reassurances from us that we have a strategy, and they expressed their strong hope that we succeed.” Gates was more than happy to oblige his host. By no means is America alone in its courtship of the despotic House of Saud. Despite being critical of American foreign policy, Russian President Vladimir Putin met King Abdullah in Riyadh during a high level delegation visit on February 11-12. The next time you hear George Bush or Tony Blair decrying the anti-democratic nature of a regime, ask yourself this question; how can we confidently claim to stand for democracy and human decency while our governments continue to support regimes like this?

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

DVD Review: John Tucker Must Die Lifts Valentine's Blues

Darrell Goodliffe — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:38:23 EST

"This is for every girl everywhere who has ever been lied to.” So says one of John Tucker's wronged girlfriends. She is trying to convince Kate, the unlikely heroine of the movie, that John Tucker has to go down. The man in question is your typical American ideal of a college stud -- sports hero, tall, black hair, an "Adonis". His girlfriends are all suspiciously stereotypical too. We have, in no particular order, the slightly nerdy but nonetheless bright and pretty news reporter, Carrie (Arielle Kebbel), the head cheerleader who exudes coolness, Heather (Ashanti), and the ethically concerned animal rights activist, Beth (Sophia Bush). Last but no means least is Kate (Brittany Snow) herself, the loveable loser who is overshadowed by her gorgeous but neurotic mum. Rewind. You have to set aside all that to appreciate the film. Yes it's horribly stereotypical, yes it’s been done before in a thousand different variations. However, that doesn’t stop it being a laugh a minute -- just as the blurb says. Although it is tailored to an American teen audience it will find resonance the world over and will no doubt do well on DVD in the United Kingdom where it has just been released. Jesse Metcalf plays John Tucker, college stud, smooth talker, hero to the college men for his legendary ability to bed the hottest girls. His great secret to success is that he dates different girls from different cliques that would never talk to each other and during the basketball season tells his conquests that he is banned from dating. He is a “total operator”. This is working out just fine for John until one gym class unites all the girls and inevitably the fur starts flying. Kate, drawn in as an innocent bystander, tells the girls that they shouldn’t get mad but get even. Comedy ensues as the girls first try to make John ‘undateable’ then destroy his reputation and then, after finally being dumped, decide to break his heart. Stepping forward for the task, Kate inevitably falls for Tucker’s charms despite a growing attraction to his younger brother. However, there is always a twist in the tale...... but I will leave that your imagination. This film, directed by Betty Thomas, is light-hearted and it is fun and the reason it will appeal to those over 20 is that even in adulthood, relationships don’t really change, something that is implied by Kate, linking her Mum’s romantic disasters to her own neuroses. Games are sadly part of the whole experience of relationship-forming and building and we do all play them to a greater or lesser degree. The plot of the four girls is subtle reminder that the term ‘fairer sex’ when applied to women is often grossly over-kind. We have all been teenagers as well and we will all probably identify with one of the characters. Thankfully, it eschews over-moralising in favour of being pure entertainment. As such there is little to comment on when it comes to acting. Metcalf is well suited to his role and carries it off, as do the female leads. None of their performances will win Oscars however, and that is as it is should be. The ending of the movie - "let's just chill and have a huge cake fight" - is very much in keeping with its style. One of the big quibbles with the DVD will be that the extras are all pretty standard and some of them are pretty thin. For example, there are a mere two deleted scenes and I found this disappointing, as they are my favourite feature. However, the music videos are a worthy addition, as is the live performance by People in Planes. All in all, if you are feeling blue this Valentine’s Day and want to be reminded of what fools love can make of us all (and maybe why it isn’t worth all the hassle) then John Tucker Must Die is a must-see.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

What is Love?

Darrell Goodliffe — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:39:03 EST

Valentine's Day is the day when love and lovers take centre stage. For those who are in relationships, it is a time to reaffirm feelings or else express them for the first time in a new way. Singletons have a harder time, but even some of those discover a secret admirer or a love they feel is returned. It is a celebration of love. Love is universal and so is Valentine's Day. Valentine's culture has taken hold in countries as diverse as Iran and Japan. On February 14th in Japan, the onus is on women to give gifts of chocolates and flowers. A month later, men are expected to return the favour on White Day. Iran's government frowns on Valentine's as a western import, but many lovers celebrate the occasion anyway. Unique Experience Despite its universal nature, we each have unique experiences of love. Pinning down a precise definition of the word itself can become a futile exercise in categorising the sum total of human experience. A definitive definition of love is virtually impossible to present and any attempt is always coloured by personal experience and prejudice. To me, love is a connection. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we form connections with those around us - our friends, family, partners, and even sometimes fleeting ones with complete strangers. Love, in its broadest sense, can be applied to many of these connections. In some regards it can be considered a tie that binds us to other human beings. Most people would see the term 'tie' as something negative, but the reality remains that humans are a co-dependant species and not just in an emotional sense. Ties and commitments become what you make of them. If you carry them like a burden, then that is what they become. If they are enjoyed, they can be emancipation from loneliness, too. Few of us would consider saying we love a street stranger. We separate, categorise, and develop. In some of our connections we have little choice. We can't choose what circumstances and to what kind of family we are born into, and they become our first experience of connecting with other people around us. Later in life, we get more choice in the connections we take up and develop, and which we discard. We can choose our friends and our lovers, although the choice doesn't simplify our lives; rather it complicates things immensely. Separating all these different attachments can be tricky and hazardous. A common example of the sometimes fraught and contested nature of our emotional borders is friends and lovers. People love their friends as they would love their kin, in a platonic way. Sometimes those feelings cross the line. When that happens, it causes a great degree of angst, although the outcome is not always as disastrous as our fears would lead us to believe. A separation of physical and emotional attachments is a growing phenomenon. The spread of the Internet is driving this. Increasingly, partners are concerned that their better half is having an emotional affair, that is to say they are emotionally intimate with another without a physical relationship. People are declaring love without having had physical contact with the object of their affections. Lust vs. Love Is love just an emotional connection plus sex? Yes and no. No, because platonic love is possible and can be more intense than the love shared by lovers. However, lust is an important part of love. It is in no way shallow to say you must lust after your partner; it is just a fact. Shallowness is reducing lust to the purely physical. Personality traits (for example, confidence or the ability to make somebody laugh) are sexually interesting and important. What we find individually attractive is different from what we collectively idolise. To my mind, some of the least sexist people are often society's deified icons of sex. Models, for example, often have disturbingly vacant eyes - something which turns me decidedly off. Generally we reduce things to a physical level because it is easier that way and impossible for us to know the objects of our fantasies on an individual level. Loving somebody involves spending time with them outside the bedroom, so it has to involve more than lust. It has to be about a desire for a person as a fully rounded human being. Monogamy Monogamous nature is one of the great love myths. Why is it socially acceptable to love more than one person in a friendship sense but not in a partner sense? Truly loving more than one person in a lifetime is entirely possible and, although I have no statistical proof, is most likely the norm. Of course, complications are often caused by love's many-splintered nature. Anything capable of inspiring great good is also capable of the reverse - of bringing out a truly wicked side to our nature. I have told a few people I love them and meant it. Each time it has been in a different way and for different reasons. They are different, individual people and again here we confront the specific nature of being in love. Some may turn out to be more loved and more treasured than others, but that doesn't lessen the sincerity of what I said in my eyes. As Shiloh, one of my ex's, rather flatteringly said when we were splitting up: I am blessed or cursed -- depending on how you see it -- with: "an ocean of love". This is true of most people, although right now, with the world as it is, you would be forgiven for not noticing it. Sad to say, but sacrifice is also an important and necessary part of love. Acts of sacrifice play an often-inspirational part in human culture because, to a degree, greater or lesser, it involves us overcoming our hardwired instinct to survive and preserve ourselves. If love were all about the good times, then it would not be half as treasured as it is. There must be good times too, but a view of love as just this -- that it comes with no effort or sacrifice, without obligation or responsibility -- is not rounded, but blinkered. Relationships and love are hard work. Another great love-myth is that it is plain sailing. Even the smoothest relationship has occasional kinks and most relationships have occasional bouts of heavy weather. My favourite example of this is Hollywood love. All romantic movies include an awkward middle, a time when the future happiness of the star struck screen lovers hangs in the balance. Things always turn out for the best in the movies, which is unfortunately where the parallel with real life ends. Some would say love itself is an ideal and there is some truth to this, but like most truths, its one-sided and fails to recognise the very real experience of billions upon billions of people who are in love. Day in and day out they express that love and feel it in a way that bridges the gap between our emotional universe and the physical world around us. No matter how many times people get burnt, they keep coming back for more. That in itself should say something. Valentines Day is an occasion to celebrate more than our individual circumstances. It is an occasion to celebrate one of those great things that cuts to the very essence of what we are as a species, something that makes us truly human.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.

U.S. Officer Denounces Iraq War, Refuses Duty There

Darrell Goodliffe — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:07:20 EST

When First Lt. Ehren Watada refused to be deployed in Iraq, he probably didn’t have Victorian poet Alfred Tennyson in mind. “Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die,” wrote Tennyson in describing the ill-fated British Charge of the Light Brigade. Watada did choose to reason why, because he views the war as illegal. His offer to resign, or fight in Afghanistan, couldn’t placate an Army determined to make an example The 28-year-old from Hawaii was due to deploy on June 22 last year but refused on the grounds that he viewed the Iraq war as 'illegal and immoral'. Although his first court martial at Fort Lewis has ended in a mistrial, a new tribunal will be convened on March 19. If found guilty of all the charges, Watada be sentenced to up to four years in prison. Some of the more intellectually facile arguments against Watada are easy to dismiss. He is patently not a coward who is simply unwilling to fight. He is on record as offering to fight in Afghanistan and is also on record as being an ‘exemplary’ soldier prior to his Iraq refusal. Even if his decision had been made through cowardice it would not make it any less comprehensible. The plain fact is that many of Watada’s critics are ‘armchair generals’ - people who write and opine without ever having to face the reality of soldiering in Iaq. It is their right and privilege in a democracy to be able to do this, but a certain amount of intellectual and emotional latitude should be expected in return. I suspect most people reading this would tolerate serving in Iraq. Political Debate This explosive debate is both political and moral. Supporters of the Iraq war line up mainly against Watada, and its opponents support his cause. This is only natural. However, it detracts from a potentially wider and more fundamental debate. Tennyson’s soldiers served the old British Empire. They existed to serve its greater glory: its will was the personification of God’s and its cause was in and of itself inherently just. In a democracy, things are not so simple. You may well not view your commander-in-chief as just and inherently correct, and that is your right in a democratic nation. It is your right and, arguably, your duty to dissent. So the real debate provoked by Watada’s trial is what kind of army a democracy should foster? Should soldiers of a democracy be expected to follow orders unquestioningly and execute them without further thought about the consequences? On this very point, Watada’s commanding officer contradicted himself under cross-examination. On the one hand, he testified that Watada’s view of President Bush’s deceit was “nowhere in the realm of a lieutenant in the United States Army”. However, he then admitted that the determination of what constituted an illegal order fell to the individual soldier. If so, it cannot also be the case that an order is conferred with legality purely by virtue of being issued by a superior officer. Either Watada had the right to determine and act upon his own view of the Iraq war, or he didn’t, and that is one of the wider issues that this tribunal will have to settle. If Watada was a Democrat or even Republican politician, the very thought of imprisoning him for his beliefs would be anathema for the majority of his opponents. If he was only a private citizen, the same would be true. The question is essentially whether in entering military service you can reasonably be asked to abrogate rights you would otherwise enjoy. Soldiers in Iraq are well aware of the growing tide of public opinion against the Iraq war. Obviously this may adversely affect morale but is all dissent to be then quashed on those grounds? Defending Civilisation We are frequently told the ‘war on terror’ is for ‘civilisation’, but there have been numerous ‘lapses’ when its conduct has been less than ‘civilised’. Watada’s treatment threatens to be another example of that tendency to ‘lapse’. Defenders of such a lofty goal have to have an ability to conceptualise that ideal. No greater act of conceptualisation was asked of Tennyson’s soldiers other than the glory of Empire. In refusing to serve, Watada showed great strength of conscience, that pitches him into a battle he didn’t expect to be fighting but one that nonetheless places him on the side of ‘civilisation’. Civilisation is a complicated concept; it is also a relative. However, to have any coherence it must embody something approaching a universal standard of judgement. Certain rights are non-negotiable: they do not cease to exist even when an opponent does not respect them. They do not cease to exist because a party occupies a certain position. In fact, they operate with especial force and importance in these conditions; there,defence becomes more important. It may well be argued that you are in a position of greater responsibility which, of course, you are. However, responsibility increases the importance of your rights, and not vice-versa. Watada did have a duty to his unit that cannot be denied, but he also has a wider duty to the principles and ideals he is sworn to uphold. It is often the case that duties conflict, and in that case the duty that has to be upheld is the ‘higher’ one. Fighting and killing against his individual conscience would have been a betrayal of the very freedom he would be fighting to uphold. Imprisoning him for this is a similar betrayal. Where you stand on Iraq is not the question that should determine your stance on Watada. Where you stand on the fundamental principles of democracy is. Tennyson’s time has gone. His ideal,of the thoughtless, unquestioning soldier has no place in a modern democracy. Their’s is to reason why. Only then can we expect them to do and die.

A 25-year-old male writer from the East of England.