As the Iraq Whitewash (let's not kid ourselves here) continues, I just wanted to capture a forum post I made during a discussion on Remembrance Sunday which, inevitably, touched on current troop mobilisations. This neatly captured my feelings and I'm rarely as pithy, so I didn't want to lose it.
"There was a compelling argument for Afghanistan due to the September 11th attacks"
I rather suspect that history will record a quite different story. The training camps for insurgents that we've been attacked by (we being 'The West') are almost exclusively rooted in Pakistan but it isn't expedient for us to go there. All this WMD/Bin Laden/Axis of Terror propaganda is a front for our ambitions to control or at least limit the autonomy of the region I'm sure.
That said, we are there now and good, honest people are dying there (not just good, honest Westerners obviously) so now isn't the time to talk about the whys, we need to work out what happens next and I genuinely don't know whether staying in a war we can't win or withdrawing from the region having turned it even more vehemently militant is the best course of action.
How we can apparently demonise an entire culture and then act shocked when they react violently is beyond me. The only solution is bridge-building: a slow and painful process that (most importantly at the moment) won't win anyone any votes any time soon.
Showing posts with label Archive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archive. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Monday, 30 November 2009
The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers
I couldn't begin to tell you how I found this. You know when you're just floating round the internet clicking links on pages aimlessly, it was like that. But I am delighted that I did. It may be interesting to only one person on the planet, but since that's me I'm happy. This is an article from the New York Times in 1993 which picks up on the use of "tasseled loafer" as an emblem for preppy, smart-ass lawyer and expands it into a potted history of one of the most beautiful styles of shoe ever created taking in NeoCon mudslinging, French Socialists and the European appropriation of the Ivy League look. Who couldn't love that?
It's just a shame there are no photos.
Here's the link
And here's the article in full, enjoy:
The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers
By NEIL A. LEWIS,
Published: Wednesday, November 3, 1993
To say "tasseled loafer" in Washington is not just to describe a simple shoe, but to utter a political phrase, often part of an epithet.
It is frequently connected to the word "lawyers," as in those tasseled-loafered lawyers!, although no law degree is required to wear them. And despite its earlier image as the shoe of the postgraduate preppy, it is today a kind of everyman's shoe, available in all price ranges.
Nonetheless, the shoes have been deployed in recent years as metaphorical weapons in the nation's political wars.
When George Bush wanted to hurl a wounding barb during the last Presidential campaign, he complained that Bill Clinton was supported by "every lawyer that ever wore a tasseled loafer."
Mr. Bush may have had reason to believe the charge potent as he had himself once been the target of a tasseled-loafer insult. When he ran for President in 1980, he complained that Ronald Reagan had bested him in a debate in New Hampshire by using unfair tactics. One of Mr. Reagan's aides retorted in a widely disseminated remark that those with Mr. Bush's private-school pedigree were generic sore losers. "Those tasseled-loafer guys always cry foul when they lose," the aide said.
As the nation debates issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Clinton health-care plan, Congressional aides may be heard referring to the "tassel loafers," a newly made up term referring to the lobbyists, often lawyers, who try to influence legislation.
In France, the tasseled loafer makes its own peculiar political statement. John Vinocur, the executive editor of The International Herald Tribune, said that the shoes were worn, actually flaunted, by young rightists in the mid-1980's who wished to demonstrate their distaste for the Socialist Government.
To them, the preppiness of the shoe represented American prosperity and free-market conservatism. Thus, it became part of the battle uniform of the young soldier of la contre-revolution.
That all became blurred, Mr. Vinocur said, when many French leftists soon followed suit and abandoned sandals and other proletarian footwear in favor of the tasseled loafers. "It helped them get tables in the better restaurants," he said.
Apart from the delicious weirdness of having legions of Frenchmen trying to look like the Phillips Academy class of 1964, the French have at least one thing correct. The shoe is certainly a distinctly American creation.
Tasseled loafers so much evoke the elegant era of the 20's that some clothing historians mistakenly believe they date from that time. They became popular, in fact, only in the post-World War II era.
The Alden Shoe Company in Middleborough, Mass., claims to have invented the shoe after World War II at the request of Paul Lukas, who was a well-known and debonair actor. Mr. Lukas, who appeared in films like "The Lady Vanishes" and "Watch on the Rhine," asked custom shoemakers in New York and Los Angeles to devise a version of a shoe he had brought from Europe that had little fringed tassels on the ends of the laces.
The two shoemakers showed the design to the Alden company, which drastically modified it, using the tassels as ornaments on a moccasin-style shoe. The earliest tasseled loafers were two-toned (usually with white top panels), and they were originally popular in Hollywood. The classic style was first produced in 1952. In 1957, Brooks Brothers added a version of Alden's shoe to its stores, fixing the tasseled loafer's image as the shoe of the country-club set.
Clark M. Clifford, the 87-year-old lawyer who has served as a counselor to several Democratic presidents, is one of Washington's most elegant and tastefully dressed men. He recalled that he acquired tasseled loafers in the early 1950's.
"I only think of them as appropriate for weekend wear and relaxation," Mr. Clifford said. "I save them entirely for that. It seems out of keeping to wear them for business, although from time to time I see someone wearing them that way."
In the 60's, when preppy style ran amok, many a tasseled loafer sat at the end of a leg covered with loud madras pants or, worse, trousers with little embroidered whales. Tassels had been used for centuries as ornaments on furniture and even saddles. When they sit on the top of a shoe, they resemble nothing so much as the carved radishes served at some old-fashioned restaurants.
The evolution of "tassled loafer" as a pejorative term for "lawyer" is unclear, but it may have to do with the notion that a man who wears little useless ornaments has, if you will, effete feet.
The top-of-the-line Alden shoe is made from shell cordovan, an especially rich-looking horsehide leather that undergoes a special vegetable tanning process that takes up to a year. The cordovan shoe, usually burgundy-colored, costs anywhere from $315 to $345 a pair (Paris shops sell the shoes for upward of $500 a pair). The classic Brooks Brothers version has distinctive stitching on the back and sells for $345.
The calfskin versions are far less expensive. In fact, tasseled loafers are ubiquitous in all price ranges and style modifications from dozens of manufacturers. They are available just about everywhere, sometimes along with kilties (those little fringed flaps) and wingtip style perforations and sometimes both, which some may find to be garish excess.
Or of course, one could have a pair of restrained tasseled slip-ons made to order at one of the handful of the remaining English bespoke bootmakers. John Carnera of George Cleverley Ltd. in central London says that he makes dozens of pairs each year, many for American clients and that chocolate-brown suede is increasingly stylish.
"We wear a lot more suede on this side of the Atlantic, you know," he said. He will craft a pair in suede or calfskin for about $1,300. Exotic leathers would cost a bit more.
It's just a shame there are no photos.
Here's the link
And here's the article in full, enjoy:
The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers
By NEIL A. LEWIS,
Published: Wednesday, November 3, 1993
To say "tasseled loafer" in Washington is not just to describe a simple shoe, but to utter a political phrase, often part of an epithet.
It is frequently connected to the word "lawyers," as in those tasseled-loafered lawyers!, although no law degree is required to wear them. And despite its earlier image as the shoe of the postgraduate preppy, it is today a kind of everyman's shoe, available in all price ranges.
Nonetheless, the shoes have been deployed in recent years as metaphorical weapons in the nation's political wars.
When George Bush wanted to hurl a wounding barb during the last Presidential campaign, he complained that Bill Clinton was supported by "every lawyer that ever wore a tasseled loafer."
Mr. Bush may have had reason to believe the charge potent as he had himself once been the target of a tasseled-loafer insult. When he ran for President in 1980, he complained that Ronald Reagan had bested him in a debate in New Hampshire by using unfair tactics. One of Mr. Reagan's aides retorted in a widely disseminated remark that those with Mr. Bush's private-school pedigree were generic sore losers. "Those tasseled-loafer guys always cry foul when they lose," the aide said.
As the nation debates issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Clinton health-care plan, Congressional aides may be heard referring to the "tassel loafers," a newly made up term referring to the lobbyists, often lawyers, who try to influence legislation.
In France, the tasseled loafer makes its own peculiar political statement. John Vinocur, the executive editor of The International Herald Tribune, said that the shoes were worn, actually flaunted, by young rightists in the mid-1980's who wished to demonstrate their distaste for the Socialist Government.
To them, the preppiness of the shoe represented American prosperity and free-market conservatism. Thus, it became part of the battle uniform of the young soldier of la contre-revolution.
That all became blurred, Mr. Vinocur said, when many French leftists soon followed suit and abandoned sandals and other proletarian footwear in favor of the tasseled loafers. "It helped them get tables in the better restaurants," he said.
Apart from the delicious weirdness of having legions of Frenchmen trying to look like the Phillips Academy class of 1964, the French have at least one thing correct. The shoe is certainly a distinctly American creation.
Tasseled loafers so much evoke the elegant era of the 20's that some clothing historians mistakenly believe they date from that time. They became popular, in fact, only in the post-World War II era.
The Alden Shoe Company in Middleborough, Mass., claims to have invented the shoe after World War II at the request of Paul Lukas, who was a well-known and debonair actor. Mr. Lukas, who appeared in films like "The Lady Vanishes" and "Watch on the Rhine," asked custom shoemakers in New York and Los Angeles to devise a version of a shoe he had brought from Europe that had little fringed tassels on the ends of the laces.
The two shoemakers showed the design to the Alden company, which drastically modified it, using the tassels as ornaments on a moccasin-style shoe. The earliest tasseled loafers were two-toned (usually with white top panels), and they were originally popular in Hollywood. The classic style was first produced in 1952. In 1957, Brooks Brothers added a version of Alden's shoe to its stores, fixing the tasseled loafer's image as the shoe of the country-club set.
Clark M. Clifford, the 87-year-old lawyer who has served as a counselor to several Democratic presidents, is one of Washington's most elegant and tastefully dressed men. He recalled that he acquired tasseled loafers in the early 1950's.
"I only think of them as appropriate for weekend wear and relaxation," Mr. Clifford said. "I save them entirely for that. It seems out of keeping to wear them for business, although from time to time I see someone wearing them that way."
In the 60's, when preppy style ran amok, many a tasseled loafer sat at the end of a leg covered with loud madras pants or, worse, trousers with little embroidered whales. Tassels had been used for centuries as ornaments on furniture and even saddles. When they sit on the top of a shoe, they resemble nothing so much as the carved radishes served at some old-fashioned restaurants.
The evolution of "tassled loafer" as a pejorative term for "lawyer" is unclear, but it may have to do with the notion that a man who wears little useless ornaments has, if you will, effete feet.
The top-of-the-line Alden shoe is made from shell cordovan, an especially rich-looking horsehide leather that undergoes a special vegetable tanning process that takes up to a year. The cordovan shoe, usually burgundy-colored, costs anywhere from $315 to $345 a pair (Paris shops sell the shoes for upward of $500 a pair). The classic Brooks Brothers version has distinctive stitching on the back and sells for $345.
The calfskin versions are far less expensive. In fact, tasseled loafers are ubiquitous in all price ranges and style modifications from dozens of manufacturers. They are available just about everywhere, sometimes along with kilties (those little fringed flaps) and wingtip style perforations and sometimes both, which some may find to be garish excess.
Or of course, one could have a pair of restrained tasseled slip-ons made to order at one of the handful of the remaining English bespoke bootmakers. John Carnera of George Cleverley Ltd. in central London says that he makes dozens of pairs each year, many for American clients and that chocolate-brown suede is increasingly stylish.
"We wear a lot more suede on this side of the Atlantic, you know," he said. He will craft a pair in suede or calfskin for about $1,300. Exotic leathers would cost a bit more.
Friday, 27 November 2009
What's Left? by Nick Cohen
Yesterday I stumbled across an article I published on 1 May 2008. I've just reread it with the benefit of hindsight and in light of the tumultuous events of summer and autumn 2008 which exposed the lie-dream of unfettered capitalism as a panacea for all the world's ills. I'm no expert but I'm putting this one down as a win for the little guy from West Bromwich over the brainiac journo.
Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble of his past
I’ve recently read the thoroughly dispiriting “What’s Left?” by Nick Cohen. I exaggerate, I read some of it. The thrust of the book is that Socialism is a busted flush and, in seeking a new cause to replace it, its old followers have become defenders of fascistic regimes and radical terrorists. Why? Well simply to oppose America, of course. It appears that this is what being a lefty was all about all along. Tsk!
I suppose that I should have known what I was letting myself in for. I had a vague knowledge of Cohen as a lefty who had (as the cliché says we all will) become more right wing as he got older. And I’d read the blurb on the back: In this scorching polemic, Nick Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble left by the crumbling values of the old Left with his fearless exploration of their responses to some of the worst global crises seen this century (all seven years of it, it doesn’t add). But I wasn’t fully prepared for what I was about to read.
As I have said, I chose not to complete the book. My bookmark rests between pages 110 and 111 where Cohen’s scorching polemic is smashing its way through Jean Baudrillard’s critique on America (“It had brainwashed US citizens- although not, once again, French philosophers”) with all the wit and finesse that the reverse cover would have you believe. Mind you, this is not a critique of Cohen’s literary style- which is far superior to my own clunky prose- this is simply a digest of all that I had read before abandoning ship.
The book opens with a brief biography piece establishing Cohen’s Socialist credentials- like Mark Anthony coming to bury Caesar- which will give him the right to pronounce the Left dead.
“Socialism, which provided the definition of what it meant to be on the Left from the 1880s to the 1980s, is gone. Disgraced by the communists’ atrocities and floored by the success of market-based economies it no longer exists as a coherent programme for government. Even the modest and humane social democratic systems of Europe are under strain and look dreadfully vulnerable.”
I found that staggering. Socialist politics have been finished by the excesses of communism and the successes of capitalism. What’s actually happened, as far as I can tell, is that Cohen has lost his faith in Socialism. The ’success’ of market-based economies is a fallacy, a shuffling of the feudal pack. As a means of making the world a just, equable, comfortable or literally a good place to live, it has failed. Socialism is as necessary and relevant as ever. It is just that these days Cohen is all right, Jack. The last sentence in that paragraph, however, is bizarre. I honestly don’t know on what basis a statement like that could be made. Cohen has scraped through the bottom of the barrel in his bid to pithily justify what is to follow.
Throughout the book Cohen gives the strong impression that his conversion to Neo-Con (Neo-Cohen?) politics comes as a result of the Left’s stance over the Iraq invasion. He absolves the right of blame for turning a blind-eye to Saddam Hussein’s politics for the better part of two decades, but accuses the Left of hypocrisy for not supporting the decision to remove him. Perhaps he’s forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change- well, not until the original reasons given were utterly discredited anyway. “The American and British Governments sold the invasion to their publics with a false bill of goods and its aftermath was a bloody catastrophe…” that’s the lies that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq dealt with. No, really it is. That’s as much attention as he gives it.
He proceeds to state that the left picked the wrong side over Iraq and have become increasingly entrenched since to the point where they oppose natural Socialist values. “…The liberal-left bitterly opposed the war, and their indifference afterwards was a natural consequence of the fury directed at Bush”. And explains that the problem (he believes) that the Left has isn’t solely a result of the Iraq invasion. What follows is a list of tangential issues which exemplify the malaise afflicting the Left: “Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam… come from the liberal-left? Why will… a leftish post-modern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures? Why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause … but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish… newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers?”.
The problem Cohen has, though if you believe that he’s wrong then it would be his saving grace, is that none of these charges are specific enough to be proved or disproved. They’re his opinions, or his assumptions. Opposing the war doesn’t equate to being ignorant of the human costs of the war (quite the opposite, I would argue). To try to understand the rationale for militant Islam is not to make apologies for it, it is a means of combating it at its source. There is a difference between opposing the imposition of Western values across the world and upholding incidents of exploitation. The Palestinian question is another example of Cohen’s liberal attitude to the truth- how can it be seriously argued that the Left fails to keep those other regimes on the agenda? For me the contrary is true, only the Left have consistently opposed those regimes. Finally, Cohen’s allegations about the response of the Left to the atrocities in Serbia and on the 7th of July are unsubstantiated and, for me, fanciful.
Cohen’s personal politics have changed, this much is undoubtedly true. Does it automatically follow that the Left that he leaves behind is finished? It is unspeakably arrogant to assume so, or else he hung on to the corpse of a once great movement for far too long. The book acts as a long justification for his personal conversion- hence the assumptions behind it are passed off as fact- and his personal conversion appears, to me at least, to be driven by one aspect of the political spectrum. That is Iraq. Everything else is written as a retrospective justification for the change. The death of Socialism- which Cohen refers to throughout as a given- is dated contemporaneously with the Poll Tax riots which led directly to the end of the Thatcherite era. To exemplify it, he spends pages discussing the rise (in as much as so minor a political party can be said to have risen) and fall of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party in 1970s and 1980s Britain, its discredited leader Gerry Healy and the parenting skills of Vanessa Redgrave. It is like using Rolf Harris’s ‘Two Little Boys’ as evidence that the pop music of the 1960s was worthless.
I believe that there is a worthwhile book in the proposition that the Left has lost its direction and sense of unity. It is in need of impetus, of a concerted focus and something to rally behind. A new red flag is desperately required. But while I do not pretend that ‘the Left’ are without fault, I equally do not buy the proposition that it is somehow less grievous when the Right get things wrong. It is like the facile bar-room argument “the Tories will screw you, but at least they’re honest about it”. The Left is not dead because there has been a decade or so of middle-ground political worthlessness and a decade or so of Neo-Conservative tyranny. To argue that leftish ideals like social justice are no longer desirable because the illegal occupation of Iraq has displaced a tyrant that Western Conservatives supported and colluded with for decades is ridiculous. But that is what this book- as far as I read it- tries to do.
It would take a Keyser Soze-esque twist in the unread portion of the book to rescue it. Otherwise it must surely be seen as a man’s vindication of his decision to turn his back on the social movement to which he once belonged.
This book is a tragically missed opportunity by a writer of no little style, but increasingly little substance.
Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble of his past
I’ve recently read the thoroughly dispiriting “What’s Left?” by Nick Cohen. I exaggerate, I read some of it. The thrust of the book is that Socialism is a busted flush and, in seeking a new cause to replace it, its old followers have become defenders of fascistic regimes and radical terrorists. Why? Well simply to oppose America, of course. It appears that this is what being a lefty was all about all along. Tsk!
I suppose that I should have known what I was letting myself in for. I had a vague knowledge of Cohen as a lefty who had (as the cliché says we all will) become more right wing as he got older. And I’d read the blurb on the back: In this scorching polemic, Nick Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble left by the crumbling values of the old Left with his fearless exploration of their responses to some of the worst global crises seen this century (all seven years of it, it doesn’t add). But I wasn’t fully prepared for what I was about to read.
As I have said, I chose not to complete the book. My bookmark rests between pages 110 and 111 where Cohen’s scorching polemic is smashing its way through Jean Baudrillard’s critique on America (“It had brainwashed US citizens- although not, once again, French philosophers”) with all the wit and finesse that the reverse cover would have you believe. Mind you, this is not a critique of Cohen’s literary style- which is far superior to my own clunky prose- this is simply a digest of all that I had read before abandoning ship.
The book opens with a brief biography piece establishing Cohen’s Socialist credentials- like Mark Anthony coming to bury Caesar- which will give him the right to pronounce the Left dead.
“Socialism, which provided the definition of what it meant to be on the Left from the 1880s to the 1980s, is gone. Disgraced by the communists’ atrocities and floored by the success of market-based economies it no longer exists as a coherent programme for government. Even the modest and humane social democratic systems of Europe are under strain and look dreadfully vulnerable.”
I found that staggering. Socialist politics have been finished by the excesses of communism and the successes of capitalism. What’s actually happened, as far as I can tell, is that Cohen has lost his faith in Socialism. The ’success’ of market-based economies is a fallacy, a shuffling of the feudal pack. As a means of making the world a just, equable, comfortable or literally a good place to live, it has failed. Socialism is as necessary and relevant as ever. It is just that these days Cohen is all right, Jack. The last sentence in that paragraph, however, is bizarre. I honestly don’t know on what basis a statement like that could be made. Cohen has scraped through the bottom of the barrel in his bid to pithily justify what is to follow.
Throughout the book Cohen gives the strong impression that his conversion to Neo-Con (Neo-Cohen?) politics comes as a result of the Left’s stance over the Iraq invasion. He absolves the right of blame for turning a blind-eye to Saddam Hussein’s politics for the better part of two decades, but accuses the Left of hypocrisy for not supporting the decision to remove him. Perhaps he’s forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change- well, not until the original reasons given were utterly discredited anyway. “The American and British Governments sold the invasion to their publics with a false bill of goods and its aftermath was a bloody catastrophe…” that’s the lies that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq dealt with. No, really it is. That’s as much attention as he gives it.
He proceeds to state that the left picked the wrong side over Iraq and have become increasingly entrenched since to the point where they oppose natural Socialist values. “…The liberal-left bitterly opposed the war, and their indifference afterwards was a natural consequence of the fury directed at Bush”. And explains that the problem (he believes) that the Left has isn’t solely a result of the Iraq invasion. What follows is a list of tangential issues which exemplify the malaise afflicting the Left: “Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam… come from the liberal-left? Why will… a leftish post-modern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures? Why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause … but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish… newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers?”.
The problem Cohen has, though if you believe that he’s wrong then it would be his saving grace, is that none of these charges are specific enough to be proved or disproved. They’re his opinions, or his assumptions. Opposing the war doesn’t equate to being ignorant of the human costs of the war (quite the opposite, I would argue). To try to understand the rationale for militant Islam is not to make apologies for it, it is a means of combating it at its source. There is a difference between opposing the imposition of Western values across the world and upholding incidents of exploitation. The Palestinian question is another example of Cohen’s liberal attitude to the truth- how can it be seriously argued that the Left fails to keep those other regimes on the agenda? For me the contrary is true, only the Left have consistently opposed those regimes. Finally, Cohen’s allegations about the response of the Left to the atrocities in Serbia and on the 7th of July are unsubstantiated and, for me, fanciful.
Cohen’s personal politics have changed, this much is undoubtedly true. Does it automatically follow that the Left that he leaves behind is finished? It is unspeakably arrogant to assume so, or else he hung on to the corpse of a once great movement for far too long. The book acts as a long justification for his personal conversion- hence the assumptions behind it are passed off as fact- and his personal conversion appears, to me at least, to be driven by one aspect of the political spectrum. That is Iraq. Everything else is written as a retrospective justification for the change. The death of Socialism- which Cohen refers to throughout as a given- is dated contemporaneously with the Poll Tax riots which led directly to the end of the Thatcherite era. To exemplify it, he spends pages discussing the rise (in as much as so minor a political party can be said to have risen) and fall of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party in 1970s and 1980s Britain, its discredited leader Gerry Healy and the parenting skills of Vanessa Redgrave. It is like using Rolf Harris’s ‘Two Little Boys’ as evidence that the pop music of the 1960s was worthless.
I believe that there is a worthwhile book in the proposition that the Left has lost its direction and sense of unity. It is in need of impetus, of a concerted focus and something to rally behind. A new red flag is desperately required. But while I do not pretend that ‘the Left’ are without fault, I equally do not buy the proposition that it is somehow less grievous when the Right get things wrong. It is like the facile bar-room argument “the Tories will screw you, but at least they’re honest about it”. The Left is not dead because there has been a decade or so of middle-ground political worthlessness and a decade or so of Neo-Conservative tyranny. To argue that leftish ideals like social justice are no longer desirable because the illegal occupation of Iraq has displaced a tyrant that Western Conservatives supported and colluded with for decades is ridiculous. But that is what this book- as far as I read it- tries to do.
It would take a Keyser Soze-esque twist in the unread portion of the book to rescue it. Otherwise it must surely be seen as a man’s vindication of his decision to turn his back on the social movement to which he once belonged.
This book is a tragically missed opportunity by a writer of no little style, but increasingly little substance.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Daniel Hannan
I note with wearying inevitability that self-publicising Tory scrote Daniel Hannan has got his ruddy slapheaded gurning visage in the papers again by bigging up ex-Conservative MP and all-round fascistic thickshit Enoch Powell. Oh how fucking surprising. This prick has been shouldering his way remorselessly into the public eye for as long as I can remember now with his stage-managed controversy and tedious flesh-pressing. He is the political equivalent of those sad fuckers in your local pub who set fire to their farts just for the fleeting frisson of infamy. I tell you, if I looked like a shaved stoat dressed up as a parody of Bertie Wooster the last place I would want to be is in where people can point at me and laugh till they micturate, but this completely amoral flaccid cock positively laps it up like a coprophiliac in a sewage farm.
Now that Boris Johnson is safely under house arrest as the titular Mayor of London, Hannan clearly sees a niche for a bumbling, privileged twat who isn’t afraid to drop a bollock or two in public if it will get him a thirty second slot on The World At One and build towards the much-coveted role of out-of-touch posho being humiliated by the commoners on Have I Got News For You. Well more power to your elbow Hannan; you might be an odious, cretinous, slimy, lickspittle cunt but at least you’re causing Call Me Dave to quickly gather together a couple of focus groups and see how well the idea of fascism would play with the public at large. The fucker might even learn something.
Keep it up cunt-face.
These notes were originally published on August 27, 2009 at modelanswers.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)