You can’t beat a good pun
October 21st, 2020 by Roger Darlington
I changed my iPod’s name to Titanic. It’s syncing now.
England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.
Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.
This girl today said she recognized me from the Vegetarians Club, but I’d swear I’ve never met herbivore.
I know a guy who’s addicted to drinking brake fluid, but he says he can stop any time.
A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
When the smog lifts in Los Angeles U.C.L.A.
I got some batteries that were given out free of charge.
A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.
A will is a dead giveaway.
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
Police were summoned to a daycare centre where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
Did you hear about the fellow whose entire left side was cut off? He’s all right now.
A bicycle can’t stand alone; it’s just two tyred.
The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine last week is now fully recovered.
He had a photographic memory but it was never fully developed.
When she saw her first strands of gray hair she thought she’d dye.
Acupuncture is a jab well done. That’s the point of it
I didn’t like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.
Did you hear about the cross-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn’t control her pupils?
When you get a bladder infection, urine trouble.
When chemists die, they barium.
I stayed up all night to see where the sun went, and then it dawned on me.
I’m reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can’t put it down.
*********
Posted in Miscellaneous | Comments (2)
Ever heard of the rape of Nanjing?
October 20th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
In 1931, Japan occupied a whole swath of north-east China called Manchuria. Then, in 1937, the Japanese moved to occupy as much as possible of the more-populated parts of China.
At this time, the capital of China was Nanjing and, over six weeks from mid December 1937 to mid January 1938, Japanese troops occupied the city murdering, raping and looting on a huge scale.
Since most Japanese military records on the killings were kept secret or destroyed shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945, historians have been unable to accurately estimate the death toll of the massacre. In 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo estimated that over 200,000 Chinese were killed in the incident. China’s official estimate is more than 300,000 dead based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal in 1947.The Chinese have never forgotten what they call the rape of Nanjing, but the Japanese authorities continue to downplay the massacre and most Japanese know very little about it.
I have been to the city of Nanjing [my account here]; I have seen two films on the massacre, “The Flowers Of War” [my review here] and “City of Life And Death” [my review here]; and I am currently reading “China’s War With Japan 1937-1945” by Rana Mitter [details here].
To understand modern-day China, you have to know something about the country’s “century of humiliation” from the mid 1840s to the mid 1940s. of which the war with Japan – and most especially the rape of Nanjing – is a deep part of the nation’s psyche. You can learn more here.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
How can the Democrats make the American political system a bit fairer?
October 10th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Everybody knows that the 2016 presidential election was won by Republican candidate Donald Trump even though the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won almost three million more votes. The explanation is that the President is not elected directly but chosen by an Electoral College which is biased in favour of the smaller rural states which generally vote Republican.
The bias is caused by the fact that, in accordance with the US Constitution, representation of each state in the College is on the basis of a combination of the number of members in the Senate (two for each state regardless of size) and the number of members in the House of Representatives (roughly proportional to population).
For all practical purposes, the Constitution is unamendable in any substantive sense because the threshold for change is too great in such divisive times. A proposed amendment has to secure a two-thirds vote of members present in both houses of Congress. Then three-quarters of the state legislatures have to ratify the proposed change.
So, is there any way that the Electoral College (and the Senate) could be made a bit more representative of the American electorate short of amending the Constitution? There are at least three possibilities.
- At present, Washington DC has no representation in Congress but it does have three seats in the Electoral College on the grounds that, if it was a state, it would be entitled to two seats in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives. If Washington DC was made a state, it would not change the composition of the College, but it would give the Democrats – the capital is very Democratic – two more seats in the Senate which electorally has a serious conservative bias.
- At present, the territory of Puerto Rico has no representation in Congress or in the Electoral College. If it were granted statehood, it would have one seat in the House, two in the Senate and three in the College. The Democrats would probably win all of these seats.
- At present, California – with a population of 40 million, by far the largest in the union – has two seats in the Senate, 53 in the House and therefore 55 in the College. If you combine the 23 smallest states in the union, collectively they have a population the same as California but no less than 46 seats in the Senate. If California – the largest of the states – was divided into four states, each with the standard two senators, this would give present-day California 8 seats instead of 2 in the Senate and 61 members instead of 53 in the College. Californians generally vote Democrat.
If, as I expect, the Democrats win the White House, the House and the Senate next month, they should make these changes and, in doing so, make the US federal system just a bit more democratic.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
Which countries suffered the greatest death tolls in the Second World War?
October 8th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
World War Two was the deadliest conflict in history. An estimated 70-85 million people perished. But some countries suffered very much more than others. Precise figures are impossible to determine and new research has revised some previous estimates. For the purpose of this blog posting, I am going to use figures from the Wikipedia page on World War II casualties.
Obviously the nations that launched the conflict and were defeated suffered heavy casualties: notably Germany 6.9-7.4 million and Japan 2.5-3.1 million.
The main western allies had lower losses: notably Britain 450,000 and the United States 420,000. It was the allies in the east that suffered the greatest losses: the Soviet Union 20-27 million and China 15-20 million.
I think that many people appreciate the terrible magnitude of the Soviet deaths, but I suspect that most people do not realise how much China suffered.
China’s wartime history is very much in my mind just now because this weekend I saw a film about the battle for Shanghai in 1937 [my review here] and I am currently reading the book “China’s War With Japan 1937-1945” [details here].
Special mention should be made of Poland. About 6 million Poles died. As a percentage of its pre-war population, this was 17% – the highest figure for any country.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
A review of “The Eight Hundred”, a controversial film on the battle for Shanghai in 1937
October 6th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
For more than seven decades, the American, British and Russian film industries have given us one war movie after another representing the successes of their nations in the Second World War. Now that the Chinese film sector is such a powerhouse, it is understandable that it would want to get in on the act. The problem is that the (second) Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 presented no great victories for the Chinese – but it did involve at least one heroic defeat.
At the end of the three-month battle for Shanghai in 1937, Chinese troops made a last stand in the Sihang Warehouse between 26 October – 1 November. The six-storey concrete building was situated just across the Suzhou Creek in full view of the British-controlled International Settlement so, at the time, the conflict was in the world media.
This film of that battle is one of the most expensive to have come out of the Chinese film industry. It is reputed to have cost some $80M (although so far it has earned around $450M) and it is the first Asian movie to be shot entirely in IMAX. The work was co-written and directed by Guan Hu and the large cast is headed by Chun Du as the commander of the Chinese forces Xie Jinyuan.
It is a bombastic movie with little charactisation or subtlety, but it is an exciting work with excellent special effects (created by western companies). The event is to the Chinese what the Alamo was to the Americans or Dunkirk was to the British and it deserves a wider Western appreciation.
The “Eight Hundred” has many ironies. For a start, the number of Chinese troops involved was actually 452 (the 800 figure was a deliberate exaggeration to boost morale). Next, the Chinese 88th Division had been trained by the Germans since at this point there was no German/Japanese Axis.
Above all, the film has been produced at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is in tighter control of the nation than at any time since Mao, but no communist troops were involved in any part of the battle for Shanghai. Instead all the the Chinese soldiers in the conflict were members of the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) commanded by General Chiang Kai-Shek) who subsequently lost a civil war with Mao’s forces and fled to the island of Taiwan. So the flag raised on the top of the warehouse is the pre-communist Chinese flag that is now used by Taiwan.
It will be apparent, therefore, that this is a film that presents political complications for the Chinese Communist Party. Its release was delayed by a year and it was censored including a cut of 13 minutes, so its appearance and popularity are not universely welcomed in this totalitarian nation.
Having said that, all regimes like a herioc story and the Sihang Warehouse has long been restored with the inclusion of a museum on the battle (but, on my two visits to Shanghai, I was not even aware of the incident).
Link: the defence of the Sihang Warehouse click here
Posted in Cultural issues, History | Comments (0)
A review of the 1995 classic film “Clueless”
October 2nd, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Although I’m a massive movie fan, I guess that it’s not surprising that I never caught “Clueless”. At the time of its release, I was a father in his late 40s – not exactly the demographic attracted to this witty satire of teenage life in Beverley Hills very loosely based on the Jane Austen novel “Emma”.
But roll forward to this year and the coronavirus lockdown. One of the ways in which I stayed connected was to have a weekly online movie quiz with a buddy from my film courses. She revealed that she just loved “Clueless” which of course I’d never seen.
When cinemas eventually reopened again, the British Film Institute had this film in its early schedule, so I – a male in his early 70s – invited my film buddy – a female in her late 30s – to accompany me to its showing (her first viewing actually on the big screen).
I have to say that I found it a sheer delight. Both written and directed by Amy Heckerling, it is absolutely crammed full of acute one-line zingers and the central character – rich high schooler Cher played wonderfully by Alicia Silverstone – has as many lines of narration and dialogue as her change of outfits.
While trying to set up a new friend with a boy, she neglects the attractions of her stepbrother Josh (Paul Rudd), but you just know that will not remain the case and the ending brings a broad smile to every face (young or old). Totally cool
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
How much crazier can the American presidential election become?
October 2nd, 2020 by Roger Darlington
So Donald J Trump has contracted Covid-19. This is hardly surprising given the lack of precautions that he has routinely followed. But what happens now?
His symptoms could be mild or even none. But ..
If Trump becomes severely ill, he may temporarily transfer power to the vice-president under the 25th Amendment of the US constitution – and reclaim authority when he deems himself fit to serve. If both Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence are incapacitated, then the House speaker, the Democrat Nancy Pelosi, would be next in the line of succession.
Such a scenario occurred in the television series “The West Wing”.
Just saying.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
A review of the film “On The Basis Of Sex”
October 1st, 2020 by Roger Darlington
When veteran US Supreme Court member Ruth Bader Ginsberg died last month aged 87, I quickly accessed and viewed the two films about her released in 2018. First, I saw “RBG”, a fine documentary covering the whole of her life. Then I caught up with “On The Basis Of Sex”, a feature film written by Ginsburg’s nephew Daniel Stiepleman and appropriately enough directed by a woman (Mimi Leder in her first such role in 18 years).
Here (English) Felicity Jones portrays RBG in an account of her life up to her important court victory on a sex discrimation case involving a man. At this point, the film stops, so the viewer never sees ther older RBG on the Supreme Court.
Whereas the documentary includes extracts from recorded interviews with Ginsberg herself, the feature film only shows the real RBG in an uncredited seconds-long appearance at the very end. But Jones gives a fine performance and Ginsberg’s diminutive stature (5′ 1′) is emphasised by casting the uber-tall Arnie Hammer as the husband who provided amazing support. The courtroom sequence is classically dramatic – not so much “Twelve Angry Men” as one determined woman.
One can hardly rate the two films against one another because of their different styles and I would strongly recommend both. They really complement each other. If the feature film has a weakness, it is that its messages are telegraphed so overtly. So, for instance when Ginsberg and her daughter pass a building site, inevitably they are subjected to wolf-whistles. But this is a minor quibble.
RGB’s contribution to the cause of sexual equality in the United States was outstanding and, if this film brings her record to the attention of more people when the fight is far from over, that is only right and just.
Link: Wikipedia page on Ruth Bader Ginsberg click here
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Could the revelations of Donald Trump’s tax affairs finally finish this Teflon president?
September 29th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Four and a half months ago, I did a posting entitled: Al Capone was finally brought down because of his tax affairs. Could the same thing happen to Donald Trump?
Make no mistake: the expose of Trump’s tax affairs by the “New York Times” is huge. It is a brilliant piece of investigative journalism and astonishing that it was kept totally quiet until now.
Trump was probably going to lose the presidency anyway. But this tax scandal could ensure that he loses big. And we need that to minimise blockages in the way of a smooth transition.
Dare to hope ..
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
If President Trump’s secures his Supreme Court nomination, what could a President Biden do about it?
September 29th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
In a recent posting, I ventured to suggest that, following the death of Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg, President Trump would quickly nominate Amy Coney Barrett as a replacement (which he has now already done), but that enough Republican Senators would oppose such a rushed appointment so near to the election of a new president (which now looks very, very unlikely).
So if Trump gets his way, how could the Democrats respond?
Effectively there is nothing the Dems can do unless in November they win the Presidency, maintain their majority in the House of Representatives, and secure a majority in the Senate. If current polls are accurate, they will do all three. What then?
First: a bit of history. Though the first Surpreme Court comprised six justices, Congress has altered the number of Supreme Court seats – from a low of five to a high of 10 – six times over the years. In 1869, Congress set the number of seats to nine, where it has remained until today.
So Biden would be within his constitutional rights to nominate more members to the Court and the Senate would be within its constitutional rights to approve those extra nominations.
There is a lot to be said, especially in the current political climate, for having an odd number of justices. That way, one avoids a tied vote. To expand the Court by another four members, would be seen as court-packing and an abuse of power. However, in current circumstances, to increase the size of the Court by two, would be very controversial – especially among Republicans – but might well be seen – especially by Democrats and independents – as an acceptable response to Trump’s abuse of power.
If Barrett’s nomination succeeds, the conservative-liberal balance on the Supreme Court would be six to three, If Biden was able to secure two liberal additions to the court, the balance then would be six to five. So, even then, liberals would not have a majority on the Court, but things would be more evenly balanced and one conservative could tip the balance on any even decision.
This might seem to be an unduly optimistic expectation, but the evidence of the first session of a Supreme Court session with a narrow conservative majority has been that the court sometimes defies expectations and takes a sensible position that reflects majority opinion among the population.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)