text:
35 – Tribulation, Strangulation And Adulation
The first time that I didn't go to see the Stranglers was when I was a very young, naïve and innocent fifteen year old.
Punk had just been dragged spitting and cursing into the world and suddenly my peer group was transformed from a bunch of high-waisted-flare-bottomed-trouser wearing, wedgie shoe'd, do-good schoolboys with sensible haircuts into a snarling, rebellious pack of plastic bin-liner clad, safety pin and razor blade adorned, Mohican'ed, violent anti-socialites with no jobs, no hope and no future. Apparently. The music was loud, raucous, disliked by parents everywhere and just plain fucking awesome, but I wasn't so sure about this sub-culture that seemed to have sprung up around it… it was just a tad too far out of my comfort zone.
And so, when it became known that they, The Stranglers, would be playing in their home town of Guildford, which just so happened to be my hometown at the time, some of the more adventurous and outgoing of the aforementioned peer group announced it would be great for us to go to the gig. I suddenly became very aware of reality. After a brief struggle with my inner psyche, against which I didn't stand a chance and was soon hopelessly overpowered, I came up with a plausible excuse as to why I would be unable to go to the gig, as much as I actually wanted to..
I don't remember the actual excuse, but it must have been quite convincing and I'm sure it saved me from such atrocities as acute bodily violence, spittle-drenching and character perversion. And I regret that I didn't go to this day still.
I didn't go to see The Stranglers lots of times after that. Until I was 35 in fact.
Apart from that very first time, it's not as though I deliberately avoided going to see them. The opportunity just never arose again like it did then. Once the punk paranoia had petered out, The Stranglers kind of faded into the background and I was overtaken by the need for metal and rock. There were far too many other exciting bands to be seen and the works of Mr. Cornwell and his crew were consigned to the dimly lit recesses of the record collection, only to shown the light of day on very random occasions. But I never lost my affection for them.. they were, after all, part of the package that plucked me from my pubescent pop purgatory and I would always remain faithful.
By the time I was in my mid thirties I found myself. Literally.
Cast out from a marriage and the family environment, I unexpectedly became a bachelor and, in the true spirit of bachelordhood, I began overcoming my sorrows by living life to the full, starting with reliving my youth. This of course meant beer, music and parties, in no particular order but preferably all at once.
Part of my healing process involved the friendship of long time buddy, Ian.
Like me, he was also a stalwart Stranglers fan, even though I once heard him proclaim that the Stranglers were the only band that actually devolved.
He rang me one day. Come and visit next week, he said. Stay over, we've got Stranglers tickets, he said. Got you one too, he said. See you next week! I said.
And that's how I came to be in the Derngate Theatre, Northampton, aged 35 and seeing the Stranglers for the first time, some twenty or so years since I had turned down the opportunity to see them in their prime.
Perhaps it was the guilt, or deep-rooted embarrassment that had subconsciously kept me away from seeing them over the years, but by the time they appeared on stage in 1997 I finally put all that behind me and got on with enjoying the show.
The only downside of the night was being in the upper tiers of a seated venue. Stand up or sit down was the full extent of our mobility and crowd participation, which did somewhat detract from the full gig experience.
Fast forward another fifteen years and I'm now in possession of tickets to see them again toward the end of March.
This time I am completely absolved of any past misgivings. This time I saw the opportunity myself and seized it gladly. I bought the tickets and I'll get myself there. With a bit of luck I'll pogo my way to the front row where I can get full benefit from the spittle showers and maybe come away with a bruise or two because there's nothing more rebellious or anarchic than a middle-aged punk rocker.
I wonder if I can grow my Mohican back in time for it?


text:
The National Rifle Association has put its social media accounts on lock-down, and you don't have to dig deep to see why. The last tweet from the association's main account, sent at 9:36 a.m. Friday, shortly before news of the Newtown, Conn. shooting broke, earned dozens of outraged responses in the hours after.
Can it help out with school shootings? RT @nra 10 Days of NRA Giveaways - Enter today for a chance to win an auto emergency tool!
— Jake Cole (@notjustmovies) December 14, 2012
@nra Why are u guys being so silent at the moment? Is it because u are fianlly feeling guilty by association? Or you just don't give a damn?
— Nick Atkinson (@kinsonian) December 17, 2012
So looks like @nra and @nranews are both still silent. Please stay that way in the political arena and let common sense prevail #GunControl
— Luke Wilson (@Luke_C_Wilson) December 17, 2012
Since then, the association has stopped tweeting on all three of its accounts and suspended its Facebook page, which celebrated 1.7 million fans Thursday. The move is unusual in the hypersensitive world of organizational PR, but it's not unprecedented. Over the summer, the NRA deleted its magazine account, @NRA_Rifleman, to minimize attention after the Aurora movie theater shootings.
Attention is the last thing many gun advocates want this week. Betsy Fischer Martin, the executive producer for Meet the Press, tweeted yesterday that none of 31 pro-gun rights senators contacted by the program wanted to appear on the Sunday show. Even Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), both of whom have gotten "A" ratings from the NRA, spoke favorably Monday of new weapons legislation.
That doesn't mean those NRA social accounts are gone for good, of course. The association has 30 days to restore its Facebook account without losing any data. In the meantime, people on both sides of the unfolding debate have taken their vitriol to other pages. The Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation are Facebooking in force; a recent post from the SAF that appears to encourage arming teachers has racked up 4,000 likes and more than 1,200 comments.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Bowled Over Published on February 04, 2008. The best things about the Super Bowl: the Coke "It's Mine" spot. A surprise victory ruining a perfect party for the Patriots. Watching Bill Belichick perform the most super atomic mope ever captured on camera. One only wished Nelson Muntz could have been on hand to point and deliver the final "Hahhah!" The worst things: Listing to neighbors scream "Wooooohooo" for a solid hour. Many of the ads, but more on that below. First the winners. Best Spot: Coca Cola "It's Mine." Proof that you can do a mass appeal spot with some dignity and wit. Other highlights: Tide "Interview" Proof you can make a product centric spot that isn't excruciating or forgettable (note to Wendy's). Career Builder "Firefly." The terrible, terrible blinking spider can only be the mark of Thai director Suthon Petchsuwan, who has in the past demonstrated a nice touch with commercial creatures (see Jing Jok and Unif's Worms) The worst: Sobe Thrillicious. Completely random, unintelligible, badly executed goo. Sales Genie "Panda" Completely random, unintelligible, badly executed, racist goo. Go Daddy "Spot On." Danica: Why? Go Daddy: Basta. Seriously. More lowlights: Bud Light, "Breathe Fire"—we saw the same gag in a Dairy Queen spicy burger spot; it wasn't funny there either. GMC, "Why Push"—why wrap the badass Yukon in a line-animation skin worthy of a financial services spot? Errata: We're hoping next year Fox has enough bad series to plug so that this year's bumpers featuring football robot fighting a Terminator can also include a Predator and an Alien. ... At one party, both Hyundai's "Tomorrow" and Coke's "It's Mine" were victims of talkover; no one paid attention to either. ... An account of badger-related nightmares has surfaced. No word yet on copycat irresponsible big wheeling. Most Popular In this article: Super Bowl XLII


text:
Nursery care is available for infants and toddlers during every Sunday School hour and worship service, as well as on special occasions like concerts or speaking events. Located on the first floor to the right of the lobby, our nursery has two sections: one for infants and nursing mothers, the other for toddlers. Your children will find plenty of toys and books to keep them occupied, and caring adults to look after them.
Our nursery staff is led by four permanent coordinators. While volunteers rotate from week-to-week, one of the coordinators is always present, ensuring continuity, oversight, and helping your child build familiarity with the staff. All of our coordinators and volunteers have completed a rigorous criminal background check in accordance with New Hope's child protection policy. If you would like to obtain a copy of this policy, or if you have other questions about nursery care, click here to contact the church office.


text:
In "A Closer look at sexual harassment laws" published in the Express Tribune blogs on May 29, Fouzia Saeed pointed out that much has been accomplished since the President signed the sexual harassment laws in 2010. According to the author lauded the speed with which the laws were drafted and passed and pointed out that over 1000 cases have been dealt with so far. Anyways, going through the comments section, I was alarmed to see that instead of recognizing the problem and the work being done to overcome it, some people actually seemed to be trying to justify harassment in the name of Islam!
The very first was a gentleman who began by claiming that Western societies had more crime than Eastern (read Islamic) ones and then moved on to say that he wanted an Islamic state and not a secular one. He was seconded by another gentleman who declared that women had no business outside the house. Another user proclaimed that most women are pathetic and dress "exotically" (whatever that means); therefore, men are automatically attracted to them. And then he went on a rant about women wanting to control men etc.
So in their version of a so called Islamic society, these gentlemen's answer to sexual harassment would be to ban women from leaving their homes? That's like banning people from defending their property against robbers! Would a truly Islamic society turn a blind eye to the harassment of women just because they are unaccompanied by a mehram instead of punishing those responsible? Because now we are talking about a very basic human right: the right to security. Islam recognizes this right and I really can't really get my head around the idea that Muhammad (PBUH) would have let someone get away with assaulting a woman just because she was uncovered or unaccompanied!
No Pakistan is rife with such problems because before there can be any cure, you must admit the existence of the disease. And in our country, some people are so blinded by prejudice and so accustomed to thinking of women as disposable objects that they either deny the existence of the problem outright or worse, attempt to transfer the blame to women! But let's get this straight, women are NOT objects, they are human beings and deserve to be respected as such.
Finally, to the men who are "automatically attracted" to skimpy clothing, Islam commands you to lower your gaze! Its funny really, how in our male-dominated society, only Islamic laws are twisted to maintain male-dominance while all parts of Islam dealing with the rights of women are conveniently ignored. And even if Islam had nothing so ay about it, get a grip on yourself guys! Are you perpetually drunk? Or under the influence of other drugs? If the answer is No, then get hold of yourself!
Summing it up, women getting harassed just because some perverts cannot control their feelings is unacceptable; it must stop and if these animals (for creatures with minds so weak can hardly be called men) cannot control themselves, they must be punished. The argument that women themselves are responsible for all violence or harassment is outdated and has no basis at all in Islam. Simply put, it's not women's fault!
So let's get this straight: women are harassed just because some perverts can't control their "feelings"? Somebody please explain this to me because I just can't see what kind of reasoning is behind this argument.
P.S. Here's the link to the article I mentioned.