Tie Your Camel

It has been widely reported now that Megrahi may not, after all, die within three months. For example:

The Telegraph
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express

Megrahi

As you should expect, it is the usual ragtag tabloid nonsense. The articles tend to muddle Scots law (the ‘less than three months to live’ is a guideline not a requirement). None of the articles touches on Megrahi’s probable innocence. Most seem to conclude that this indicates the existence of outside pressures which would may render the ‘compassion’ a convenient lie, exercised to give in to pressure. What is that alleged external influence? And oil agreement between the UK and Libya.

Again, the tabloids get it wrong. If you read the actual report, it’s clear that consensus on Megrahi was:

1. He has metastatic prostate cancer;
2. the cancer is, as far as they can tell, aggressive:

Factors suggesting a poorer prognosis are more numerous and weigh more heavily – the histological type of his tumour, the stage of his cancer at diagnosis, his psychological wellbeing, the passage of treatments which have been appropriate but have offered only transient success. Biochemical markers of disease once again indicate high activity and likely progression of his disease. However, no other marker or investigation would offer a more accurate barometer of prognosis to assess his clinical condition.;

3.  the initial prognosis as of Autumn 2008 was 12-24 months:

On diagnosis in autumn 2008,specialist clinical consensus gave this prognosis: and in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of months to many months rather than years.’ Pressed to offer a more specific estimate, there was an informal mid-estimate of 18-24 months.;

4. the cancer is resistant to hormonal treatment, significantly reducing his life-expectancy:

People who respond to hormonal treatment can hope for many years of disease suppression and even in the worst case scenario, one would have hoped for 2 years or more of disease control with hormone therapy[...] In June and July 2009, assessment by a range of specialists reached [the] consensus that the disease was, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is, resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis, therefore, has now moved to the lower end of expectations from 10 months ago.

Factors suggesting a

poorer prognosis are more numerous and weigh more heavily – the histological type of his

tumour, the stage of his cancer at diagnosis, his psychological wellbeing, the passage of

treatments which have been appropriate but have offered only transient success. Biochemical

markers of disease once again indicate high activity and likely progression of his

disease. However, no other marker or investigation would offer a more accurate barometer

of prognosis to assess his clinical condition.=;

So what can we conclude? Megrahi is, barring a freak accident or other sudden medical condition, going to die from his prostate cancer. The cancer is resistant to hormone-treatment and his prognosis is not good. He could live up to 12 months, ie he will probably die before Autumn 2010. But remember, the initial prognosis was 12-24 months which means that there is an increased probability he will die some time between now and Autumn 2010. This does make a three-month prognosis a reasonable one.

Moreover, as I have mentioned (and read the report I linked to), Megrahi is probably a victim of a miscarriage of justice comparable to the sentencing of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. Every day he spent rotting in prison was another day we will have to atone for if we ever learn the truth of the bombing.

Was the leave really compassionate? I’m not so sure. The Scots prefaced the release with statements like “show Megrahi the compassion he never showed his victims” and Americans have been happily portraying the Scots and, by extension, the British people as a whole as “weak on terror”. Unfortunately the fact of his likely innocence has rarely made its way into popular discourse. Megrahi had to make a choice: appeal and die in prison (but possibly clear your name) or drop your appeal and be released to die with your family and lose the chance of clearing your sullied name. It was a damned tough choice.

As for external influences? Yes, the oil deal would probably have factored into the decision, no matter what the various ministers say; it’s politics. What I think probably had a greater influence on the release was the possibility of Megrahi succeeding in his appeal or, at the very least, severely embarrassing the Scottish legal system and the UK government. Here’s hoping the Lockerbie situation is properly investigated (as many of the victims’ families want), the real killers and planners are found, and Megrahi’s name is cleared before he passes away.

This site is now fully optimised for the iPhone and should be quick and easy to view. Hooray!

If you’re a little to the left like me and you give a damn about the environment and sustainability, you might be interested in having a look at this website: Breathing Earth. It has realtime updates of the global population, births and deaths per country, and CO2 emissions. It will also give you detailed stats for each country when you hover over it with a mouse. Go check it out!

Not so much 'breathing' as 'suffocating'

Avatar AKA Pocahontas in Space

So, like some others no doubt, I was ‘invited’ to an advanced screening of 15 minutes of Avatar footage. I have deliberately avoided reading about or watching trailers for the film, hoping to keep a bit of the plot tucked away. How could I reconcile that with my innate love of IMAX and modern 3D movies? I couldn’t, so I snapped up the tickets and made my way to Waterloo.

I turned up late. Whoops. Yet how fortuitous! The 10.00am screener had been backed; our 10.20 am showing had about 50 seats filled, which meant my pick. Warning: if you do go watch this in Waterloo make sure to sit fairly far back (probably beyond row J).

The preview started with a little introductory message from James Cameron, who looked dead tired. He gave a one line plot summary then told us to enjoy the preview. And then it began.

There were five or six scenes in the movie which revealed enough to give an idea about the plot and showcase some action. True to form, the CG is excellent, potentially groundbreaking. The plot? Not so much.

From what I could make out: a crippled soldier called ‘Sully’ (played by Sam Worthington) volunteers for some sort of military scientific experiement which either implants your mind in the body of a type of alien, or allows you to telepathically control it. We see him get to like walking again and then bam, we’re back in action, with a CG-athon of alien animals. We haven’t seen enough of those in recent Sci-Fi memory *cough*Star Wars Episodes I + II *cough* Star Trek.

Now, stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the plot looks roughly like it might be:

Civilised-but-crippled (just physically?) white man gets out of his depth in an alien world, has his life saved by a native woman (with a strange accent!), slowly assimilates into their culture and way of living managing inexplicably to better the natives at their own way of life before, for some reason, the white civilised culture (with token ethnic characters) tries to ’save’ or attempts to eradicate the native population.  

It feels like James Cameron has feasted down on everything in modern Sci-fi canon, snacked on some Disney movies and crapped out Avatar. You’ll see elements from (Disney’s) Pocahontas, Apocalypto,  Dances With Wolves and take your pick of any of the Star Wars Movies. This does not bode well. The racist undertones are disconcerting and the plot looks like it’s going to be cliched to hell. I don’t think Sam Worthington’s a good enough (or interesting enough) an actor to carry a big-budget movie.

On the other hand the CG’s pretty good. Is it really worth the reported $240,000,000 budget? I don’t think so.

Like a chump, I’ll still go see it in the cinema. I wonder if it will exceed my expectations?

Until then – here’s the trailer:

Video summary: Jewish man supports nationalised healthcare based on his experience in Israel (with a nationalised health system) and his personal experience in the US, where he was asked to pay $8,000 for a 2-hour stay in an American emergency room. He encounters a terrible and bigoted woman who opposes his opinions.

Look at what happens (the bit at the end is especially indicative):

I’ve been asked a few times now the actual Arabic source of the saying “Tie your camel” or “Trust in God but tie up your camel”. If you click on this link, you’ll get an introduction to the story behind it. If you’re interested in the actual Arabic, then it’s:

1) Hadeeth: ‘Be wise [first] and [then] trust [in God]‘ :

A3qil wa tawkkl.

2) Arabic Proverb: ‘Trust in God but tie up your camel’:

Thiq billah wa lakin irbiT jamalek

Quentin Tarentino may be dyslexic

I’ve been a fan of Tarentino since I can remember. Most of his movies are great. I didn’t really enjoy Grindhouse etc. but I did like Jackie Brown and Kill Bill (go figure). When I first read that he was making a movie about a group of Jews being assembled to kill as many Nazis as they could, I didn’t know whether it would be a massive cheese-fest or a great movie.

Turns out that it’s great – at times brilliant – movie, with some seriously disturbing parts. I don’t mean gory; this is one of Tarentino’s least gory movies. It is disturbing because of the treatment of some of the Jewish and some of the German characters.

The Plot in ‘Brief’

A group of narratives weave themselves together to the finale. The first major narrative involves Brad Pitt and his crack squad of Jewish soldiers looking to land in Germany and ‘kill us some Nazis’. The second major narrative concerns a Jewish girl called Shoshanah, whose parents are brutally murdered at the beginning of the movie by a wicked SS officer nicknamed the ‘Jew Hunter’.

The second narrative on its own (maybe with some minor tweaks) would have made a great WWII movie. Jewish girl whose family are murdered by the SS. She manages to run away and hide and then plot revenge on the regime that caused her pain. Bam, that’s a movie right there.

The first narrative is the one that contains the most disturbing elements. Eli Roth is a terrible actor and should probably stick to directing. He spends the movie as an unlikable Jewish soldier who specialises in beating Germans to death with baseball bats. There’s a scene in the movie where a German squad has been captured. They threaten to kill the leader of the group if he doesn’t reveal German positions. He refuses and Eli Roth comes out and beats him to death with a baseball bat. The German soldier comes across as exceedingly brave and polite. The “Fuck you Jews” sentiment feels almost tacked on as if to justify his brutal killing in what is clearly a war crime.

Later on in the film we have literal Jewish Suicide bombers indiscriminately gunning down people in a crowd inside a movie theatre, then setting themselves off. Disturbing much? Some of those killed are parts of the Nazi high command, but others are clearly civilian. Women, maybe children as well are killed with equal sadistic thrill.

Shoshanah on the other hand, is instantly likeable. She is strong and independent and clearly has a knack for survival. She’s beautiful, but doesn’t fall for heroic charms, instead having a relationship with a selfless black man. She spends most of the movie being ardently pursued by a German war hero named ‘Koller’. He is dashing, pleasant, fluent in French and German and an arrogant-but-likeable fellow. This makes it more the shame that Tarentino decided to blow character to the wind and have him threaten to all but rape Shoshanah. In another unebelievable twist, he holds on to his life long enough to kill our heroine who never lives to see her revenge fulfilled. The one character in the story who has the most personal need for revenge and who has apparently lost the most, never gets to see it.

The plot aside – the cinematography is excellent, although the soundtrack is at times artificial. The pacing is perfect, bouncing between action, horror and moments of sheer comedy. The narratives intertwine well and the performances are generally excellent. Brad Pitt is on form (probably his best role since Fight Club) and Christoph Waltz pulls off the best performance in the film (and probably in any of Tarentino’s films) as the evil, slimy and self-serving Hans Landa. He effortlessly flits between English, German, French and Italian and performs what should be an oscar-winning performance. Throughout the movie you’ll find yourself increasingly self-loathing for coming to like the vicious sadist. This is not your standard cookie-cutter evil SS man.

Final Verdict

Probably the best movie Tarantino has made since Pulp Fiction. I am impressed with the way he has handled the plethora of languages and culturally-diverse actors in the film and that alone should shape cinema for the next generation. At times truly disturbing and maybe over the top; what do you expect? It’s Tarentino.

Idiom the Third

Plugging One’s Ears While Stealing a Bell (Lit. ‘Cover ears steal bell’)

Story behind the idiom: During the Spring and Autumn Period, a man in the Kingdom of Jin took a liking to a bell and decided to steal it. The bell was very large and heavy, so he decided to smash it to pieces with a hammer and take it with him in bits. Fearing that he might be heard when the hammer struck the bell, he covered his ears and started to smash up the bell.

Meaning of idiom: used to describe those who think they are smart but deceive themselves.

A statue of famed  criminal Ronald Reagan is to go up in London soon. The statue will cost £50,000 for Westminster to maintain and will be 10 feet high and bronze.

Reagan’s crimes include:

• Perpetuating the Iran-Iraq war while selling weapons to both sides (about a million dead as a result);
• secretly selling biological and chemical materials (for weapons) to Iraq;
• laying the groundwork for the modern era in Afghanistan by funding extremists to subvert the Soviets;
• US involvement in Nicaragua, claiming tens of thousands of lives; and
• support for murderers in Guatemala, Honduras and El-Salvador.

I don’t want to see him honoured in our great city.

Hannan has issues a response (or a ‘final word’) on, surprise surprise, the Daily Telegraph’s website. You can read the whole article here.

It’s clear Hannan’s an intelligent fellow. I think it’s easy to assume that when he goes on US TV, he’s not being ambushed, but he knows exactly what sort of environment he is getting into and exactly what sort of effect his comments may have. I am sure he is well aware of the current political circumstances in America. He seems to be a politican 2.0 sort, so no doubt he’s crawled through youtube looking at the same sort of videos anyone who’s interested in American politics will have seen.

So he does the rounds on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and is praised by the likes of cretinous Cavuto. His words are being used right now in the US to support the idea that the NHS is evil and Orwellian. They are being used to directly influence American domestic opinion and policy.

Meanwhile, the examples he provides are terrible. For example, from the Glenn Beck clip I posted in a previous blog post:

And he said, “Look, I’m in real pain, can I have some painkillers while I’m waiting.” And they said, “No, get to the back of the line.” He said, “Look, I’d buy them.” And they said, I think they became very aggressive, “What do you mean you’re going to buy them. This is the National Health Service, so we don’t have any provision for independent purchase of medicine.”

So, that’s the — that’s the mentality.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt over the phrasing. There is a very good reason as to why receptionists don’t have the power to immediately hand out painkillers or any medicine. Firstly, they are not doctors and may not know what is appropraite. Secondly, they do not know if this person is some kind of drug addict. Thirdly, they don’t know if this guy is going to have an allergic reaction to painkillers or if he’s already taken the accepted dose. It isn’t their job to do it. If the pain was pretty bad, he should already have bought and taken over-the-counter drugs. If the pain was extremely bad, he should have emphasised its urgency (the example doesn’t sound too urgent). I’m sure that when you go to A&E in the US, you get instant treatment and the receptionists hand out painkillers like candy (or maybe not).

We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.

This is a mix of a massive fallacy and an outright lie. Firstly, about 3% of the NHS workforce is managerial and about 40% are doctors and nurses, while a further 40%-odd are directly involved in patient care. Secondly, Wal-Mart employs about 1.8 million. Thirdly, the fact that it is ‘one of the biggest employers in the world’ really isn’t relevant. It is here considered a single, massive organisation, that is not broken down into chunks. If private healthcare in this country had the capabilities of the NHS, it would need similar staff levels. Places like Germany do not have a single health employment umbrella and so several organisations involved in patient care. So, for example, in the US, about 12 million people are involved in healthcare. Yes that’s right. To cater for a population about 5 times the size of the UK’s, the US has 10 times the number of people involved. This does not indicate that the NHS is bloated. In comparison to the US it is positively anaemic.  Even if you accept that this workforce shouldn’t be employed by the state, the workforce involved would probably need to be at least at the level it is at the moment. Oh-oh.

So what’s the problem with Hannan again? His erroneous consideration of the NHS is being used as an example to manipulate American domestic opinion and block what might be one of the biggest and best changes to hit America in the last few decades. It is horrific and I hope his political career suffers as a result.