The person US Vice President Dick Cheney shot the other day has now had a heart attack. Which tends to suggest that ‘peppered’ shouldn’t have been the adjective of choice. Perhaps a word with a bit more force behind it – may ‘gunned down’ – might have been more appropriate. Who’s to say?

Anyway, as you’d expect, Jon Stewart’s been covering the incident in some detail. Given that we only get The Daily Show the day after it’s broadcast in the US, here’s what he had to say on the incident:

Stewart: Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Corddry: Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington’s face.

Stewart: But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?

Corddry: Jon, in a post-9/11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak.

Stewart: That’s horrible.

Corddry: Look, the mere fact that we’re even talking about how the vice president drives up with his rich friends in cars to shoot farm-raised wingless quail-tards is letting the quail know “how” we’re hunting them. I’m sure right now those birds are laughing at us in that little “covey” of theirs.

Stewart: I’m not sure birds can laugh, Rob.

Corddry: Well, whatever it is they do — coo — they’re cooing at us right now, Jon, because here we are talking openly about our plans to hunt them. Jig is up. Quails one, America zero.

Fantastic.

Yesterday was a fantastic day for Mr Brown. Tony Blair’s stranded thousands of miles away, so the Crown Prince gets to make one of the most important speeches of the political season, get incredibly controversial legislation throught Parliament comfortably, and then get praised by nearly all the papers this morning. It seems too good to be true; and in politics, if it seems that way, it usually is.

Perhaps I’m just too cynical, but it seems rather suspicious to me that in the week that Mr Brown apparently steps up his campaign to take over as leader, and with relations between the PM and the Chancellor apparently smoothed over, he should get this golden opportunity. Just the other day, Charles Clarke came out with a carefully co-ordinated and calculated statement that the two neighbours were now sharing the Prime Ministerial role, then Mr Brown gets to make a hugely important speech on security which is, in reality, way outside his remit as Chancellor, and now he gets to head up one of the most important (though very clearly winnable) votes of the year so far. And anyway, in the event of the PM’s absence, surely it should be his deputy that steps into the limelight. That’s kinda what he’s there for. Not that tradition and the constitution normally count for much in the Blair world.

It even makes me somewhat suspicious about Mr Blair’s big loss of a few weeks ago. Labour doesn’t lose votes like this. Could it have been a choreographed attempt to show Mr Blair as losing control, in contrast to yesterday’s vote supposed to show that Mr Brown is well in control of the party? Stunts like this would certainly make the transition of power easier, and isn’t a smooth transition what they both want?

Dick Cheney has shot a 78-year-old lawyer whilst out on a hunting trip in Texas. Sky, probably in common with some other organisations of similar reputation, are playing this up by referring to it as “Vice President: Shooting”. No surprises there. But I guess you can’t blame them – Sunday is a pretty slow news day, after all, and they’re probably all quite bored.

In the middle of all of this, though, you really have to feel sorry for Harry Whittington, the man on the receiving end of Mr Cheney’s fire: As the property owner put it,

Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good.

Of course, a half-decent Press Office should really have caught the owner before she was able to say anything on the subject, but that clearly didn’t happen.

Harry’s doing fine now, though, you’ll be glad to know. Which is more than can be said for Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, who’s learned nothing from The Beatles and declared himself to be bigger than Jesus. Or something to that effect.

I am the Jesus Christ of politics. I am a patient victim, I put up with everyone, I sacrifice myself for everyone.

Not that he thinks highly of himself at all. Of course, just yesterday, he was comparing himself to Napoleon.

Only Napoleon did more than I have done. But I am definitely taller.

If you lived in Italy, would you really want this guy’s finger on the button?

And back home, Charles Clarke, courtesy of The Observer, has delighted in informing us that the consitutional history of our country has been thown out of the nearest window, as we now have joint Prime Ministers, Messrs Brown and Blair. Don’t they make a lovely couple?

Talk about a weird news day…

Spotted outside the Holiday Hypermarket on Teesside Retail Park.

Not sure that ‘2 Free Kids’ is exactly what they meant. But then, this is Stockton, so it’s difficult to be sure…

I guess the most important question is: If you get two free kids when you buy a holiday, do you have to take them with you? Because that could be mighty inconvenient. Off you go to book your honeymoon at the Holiday Hypermarket, and ‘ey up, you’ve got two new screaming kids to take with you. It’s certainly a worry.

You’ll remember Valentine’s 2004.  It was the year that the world’s most famous celebrity couple split, a spokesperson saying that they were to ‘spend some quality time apart’.  But it was widely known that Barbie had dumped Ken – her lover of forty-three years – for Blaine, an Australian ‘boogie surf boarder’ she met on a trip to California.

But now, two years on, he’s back.  Ken has got back up, dusted himself down (with a little help from the Hollywood stylist Phillip Bloch), and the couple are said to be romantically involved once again.  A lot has changed for Ken in the last couple of years – he’s been off on a self-reflection trip around Europe and the far-east, and seems to have matured somewhat, preferring Norah Jones to his pop-filled past, and becoming a bit rougher around the edges, with ripped jeans and unkempt hair.  It’s all in sharp contrast to Blaine’s perfected, obsessive self-styling.

So the romance is back on, after a two-year separation.  But what’s become of Blaine?  Nobody seems to have any comment to make.  It seems this home-wrecker has gone into hiding for now, at least.  Perhaps he just couldn’t compete – after all, most of us would love to look like Barbie and Ken when we’re in our fifties – perhaps he was already starting to age.

Hmm… What am I doing with my life?

We are sorry to announce that the 1537 service to Hexham has been cancelled because your God hates you. Please listen for further announcements.

A common problem if the latest statistics are to be beleived. Of all Northern Rail cancelled trains last year, 16% were caused by God. Even Virgins aren’t safe – 114 of those services were cancelled by Him. Which begs the question: Why do we let Him get away with so much?

Or, more prosaically, in an increasingly secular society, why do we continue to use the ill-defined term ‘Act of God’?

The definition of an Act of God is unclear. It could be the weather, judging by the forms the train companies are required to send to the Department for Transport. But weather is also classified as an “external” factor … The department was unable to define an Act of God

How can transport services ever be improved if reporting procedures mean that we don’t even know what the problem is in the first place?

I’ve done Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and now I’m kind of wondering who to insult next. Little green men?

[flashvideo filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/alien.flv” /]

Brilliant comment on some TV channel as I was flicking past:

If Iran’s getting the bomb, surely they’re the last people we want to argue with!

I love it!  There’s nout more entertaining than vox-pops and phone-ins.

Some people have been getting rather het up (to say the least) over the publication of twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. But how can I, in good conscience, post something as potentially offensive as this, and then not post a cartoons like this? To do so would be to say that I respect the beliefs of Muslims above those of Christians, and that’s simply not the case.

I never post with the intention of offending people. So whilst I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused by the cartoon, but simply cannot apologise for publishing it here. I accept that it’s against the Muslim religion to depict Muhammed, let alone belittle him in cartoons. But it’s equally against the Christian religion to depict Jesus as a skimpily-clad camp guy doing a Gloria Gaynor impression. As much as it is the right of the holders of those beliefs to follow their relgion in their own way, I have the right not to follow the rules of their religion. If people are offended by my choice, then they equally have the right to challenge my saying it, and even to mock me if that’s what they want to do. But nobody has the right to stop me, or anybody else, from saying something they believe in order to stimulate debate and discussion.

In this particular instance, I’m merely using the cartoon to illustrate a point. I have to say that I think the imagery appears to me to be somewhat offensive. But that’s not stopped me publishing imagery which may be offensive to followers of the Jewish faith for purposes of discussion. In such cases, posting the image clearly does not imply agreement therewith, but merely faciliatates discussion.

As I’ve already said, I intend to offend no-one. That probably can’t be said for the writers of comments on this site, such as this. Clearly, I tend not to agree with the assertion that I am a ‘little shit’ or a ‘fucked up prick’, yet I don’t feel the need to censor the writer’s (misguided) beliefs, but merely debated the finer points of her argument. Was I able to do this without resorting to anger because I’m a really calm guy, or just because I’m certain of my beliefs? Perhaps if shakier beliefs of mine were challenged, then I would have more difficulty in responding, and so feel more angry towards the challenger. Whatever else is said, violent aggression from the defendent can only ever damange his cause – especially when that cause is a basically peaceful religion.

Update
After several requests, I’ve now put the full set of cartoons online here. Please feel free continue to use this page for discussion of them.

Update
For the sake of sensible, reasonable discussion, I’ve removed the cartoon which previously appeared on this page. Read all about why I’ve done that here, and rest assured that you can still view all of the cartoons on this page of the site.

Evidence has been revealed this evening that Mssrs Bush and Blair decided to go to war on January 31st 2003, despite the abscence of another UN resolution. Of course, we all pretty much knew that anyway, but it’s going to be on the front pages for a little while again, mainly because this is further evidence that Mr Blair lied when he repeatedly said no decision had been taken. And there’s the unfortunate photo, right, of them following the meeting where they decided to kill tens of thousands of people, which instead looks more like the engagement-announcement sequel to this.
Earlier this week, the 100th British soldier killed during this war gave his life for someone else’s country. The greater tragedy is that we’ll never know when the 100th, 1,000th, 10,000th, or 100,000th innocent Iraqi civilian was killed, because we never bothered even trying to count.