"When you see him 'quid", said the savage, honing his harpoon in the bow of his hoisted boat, "then you quick see him 'parm whale."

First, and most importantly, a Colossal Squid was captured and photographed by fisherman on the 22nd of this month. It swiftly expired. Hamilton extends his sympathies to this noble denizen of the deep, and its beleaguered family. I feel a complex mix of excited curiosity, and disappointment that one of the last truly enigmatic animals has been bought to ground.

On the subject of troubled sea monsters, a subject that I find close to my heart for obvious reasons, I have been mulling over the ongoing whaling argument. Initially my sympathies are all with the Japanese: I find it ridiculous that countries which are busy wiping out the world’s population of cod forever will not allow controlled harvest of a secure and plentiful species, and before the argument of cruelty is raised it should be remembered that most of these anti-whaling countries also allow fox hunting and other arguably inhumane practices. However, the question still remains of why the Japanese government is so keen to resume whaling. Even the whales killed at the moment for ‘scientific’ purposes are surplus to the minuscule Japanese demand for whale meat. The government is currently pursuing (at the taxpayer’s expense) a campaign to increase the popularity of said meat. Why? Why? There is something inherently abhorrent about a government trying to tell its citizens what to eat, especially when this is not based on any health benefits but on the idea that whale meat is part of Japan’s ‘culture’. To allow myself an uncharacteristic lapse into obscenity – people should be allowed to eat what they fucking want, and if the British Government ever ventured to suggest that I should select my food based on an assumed cultural significance my response would be suitably robust. The other main argument put forward by Japan is that whales represent a threat to fish stocks, which appears, according to all research I have come across, to be a bloody lie. Anyway, anger aside, it seems to me that you have two points of view in this debate, one side put forward by self-righteous hypocrites and the other by lying, sub-rational nationalist who put tradition before common sense. A plague, naturally, on both their houses. I would say however that if anyone tries to hunt the Newt commercially I’ll be on the Greenpeace ships in a flash.

Silver Dollar Jim

James West (1903-57)

"Silver Dollar Jim" was quintessential Texas. Although he got a law degree, he made his money in cattle and oil, and liked to be photographed in a ten-gallon hat. He got his nickname because he would only tip silver dollars (sometimes fistfuls at a time). Deciding that blue was the best color, he promptly had all his cars (there were dozens, mostly Cadillacs) painted that color. A police buff, he liked to wear a diamond-studded Texas Ranger badge and go with the cops on high-speed chases, sometimes tossing silver dollars along the way"

On the topic of libertarians.

Vastly wealthy, philanthropist and Texan. nuff said.

To Dogtooth, I

In continuation, I have been thinking about the libertarian concept of armed self-defence: call me a mewling, puking nanny-stater but I really don't want to sit in the pub with sandbags around my chair, some sort of machine-gun under my arm, a revolver on my hip and a knife in my boot (or more accurately, trainer) eying up each new face at the bar for potential danger and firing the odd warning shot when someone heading for the lavatories gets a little too close. However, that is the type of vigilance needed if one is to provide oneself with anything like the same level of protection which an effective legal system can. I don't make my own lightbulbs or drill for my own oil, so why would I want to carry my own guns?

Libertarianism and its Discontents

Though I, Dogtooth, and, I suspect - not to put words in his beak - Hamilton, will generally incline towards the Libertarian end of the political spectrum in the majority of debating fora, the both of us are loth to be elbowed unceremoniously over the edge of the precipice. Ham shed some ink on the ills of this political creed by observing the propensity of Libertarians to use their manifested beliefs as a crude algorithm through which to process all political news stories and controversies. An approach of this sort is offensively apolitical - more akin to a religious dogma. Aside from the eye-gougingly unsympathetic relationship hardline Libertarians (and isn't it an ugly, unwieldy word!) have with the world around them, this algorithmic attitude is comfortably their most unattractive trait. Computing a world-view as an alternative to actually thinking about politics is inexcusable.

Among the more serious charges that can be brought against the Libertarians are the thoughtless insistence on liberal gun laws as an alternative to actual crime prevention, the lunatic advocation of duelling (a point of mere principal which makes no practical sense) and the total abandonment of rationality and progress in suggestions to the effect that Justice should be privatised! (Admittedly this last example is very extreme and not advocated by exponents of the more compromising 'Minarchist' school of thought.)

The Post-Newt is by no means a party-line journal, and we at the top of the tree anticipate some rumblings of disagreement from some of the omnibus contributors. The Newt is in good temper today and will hear your objections: gaudeamus igitur!

Bits and bobs...

I was sharing a packet of salt and vinegar crisps with Dogtooth down at our local, The Muted Slughorn, a pint of Famous Grouse in front of me and a cigarette set firmly between the mandibles of my chitinous beak, and I happened to mention the infamous CIA insanity Operation Midnight Climax. Dogtooth, displaying previously unsuspected artistic judgement, remarked on the genius of the name. Bearing in mind the lunatic elegance of the Iran-Contra affair, could it be that the Central Intelligence Agency is as much an aesthetic phenomenon as a political entity? Norman Mailer would be pleased.

In response to London Prodigal's call to arms, I would like to suggest as our prime grumble, our flagship whinge, the idiocy of the idea prevalent among the flakier flank of libertarianism, that the legalisation of duelling would be a constructive and sensible move.

A chartered accountant called Greg
Found a pustulent growth on his leg.
Upon having it drained
He was told it contained
A flesh eating parasites egg.

No doubt you are wondering about the image. Well so am I. Someone, or something, slid this picture under my door early this morning. What it can mean I do not know, but perhaps I shall take a leaf out of fellow blogger Perry De Havilland's book, and arm myself with some sort of firearm. On second thoughts, a harpoon would probably be more appropriate...

A Campaign: suggestions on a postcard

Like any self-respecting journal of record the Post-Newt requires a campaign. Ordinarily these generally involve registering support for ailing children, petitions against toll-roads or making gypsies feel thoroughly unwelcome.

While any of our edicts that present themselves in our 'manifesto plain' would suffice, I feel that we should be tackle a more contemporary issue as beloved of mass media. Dogtooth and I recently discussed the practice of 'destroying' animals - surely they should be 'put down'? Yet this doesn't quite whip me up into a zealous fervour as a campaign should.

We need a drum to bang and if anyone could fetch me the aforementioned drum I'd be most grateful. In any case once a campaign has been established we must mention it frequently until the Newt is placated or until something else takes her fancy.

Titanic Conspiracy

The Porter came across some original thought (a first in his area of the kingdom) yesterday. The emergence of a rumour, about a week ago, came as a shock and a happy red-herring to the Porter's daily life. His routine upset, and his coffee cold, he began to dig into the hear-say to establish the truth and indeed the significance behind it whilst listening to the 'Stars and Stripes forever march'. Post-newt readers must agree that the mysterious sinking of the Titanic is best explained by this simple explanation. It never sank. So says our rumour. We know that the Titanic cost the owners far more than they could afford; running well over budget. Our rumour suggests that the Titanic is still to be found in a sleepy port in Vietnam where it was taken by the Captain. The owners made enormous insurance claims successfully. All were happy. That is until post-newt brought the Titanic to the surface- literally. With hindsight it is easy to patronise the past. But come on. The strongest ship ever built sinks and everyone believes blindly. What about people who lost relatives. I have formulated two explanations for this. Firstly, the Crew pushed them all over board and stole their money. A very lucrative and yet inhumane solution. Or a second explanation is that they were all taken to Vietnam, and told it was America.

Justice is a Myth

My own sensitivity has been somewhat dulled of late by the ongoing Anadin programme, but it has been impressed upon me that the statement read out to the court by Adele Eastman, fiancee-manque of the late Tom ap Rhys Pryce (Linklaters lawyer stabbed on the Underground), was a tour-de-force of emotional intensity - sufficient to coax a solemn tear from even the sternest, most curmudgeonly Old Bailey judge. I have two questions:

1) Why was this statement read aloud in court? With the most sincere respect for the fiancee (who I understand was invited to read her statement by the court) and her unenviable loss, would not the funeral/memorial service have better accommodated such unabashed eulogising? Does the Best Man stand and deliver his speech in the registry office?

2) (Being of a broader nature) Why is the criminal prosecution system envisaged primarily as a vessel for Justice? Justice is not where it's at. What compels society to imprison its miscreants is our disinclination to allow them to re-offend. Criminal prosecution is purely practical. We should not be meting out punishment based on some out-dated Hellenic/Judeo-Christian notion of Justice as a desirable force for balancing scales. Justice does not exist to placate the blood-thirsty proxy-victims of violent crimes (close relatives waving placards outside the court gates, etc), or - through some perverse Jacobean logic - to avenge the victims themselves. It exists to protect potential victims. That can be its only purpose in a rational society.

Altogether elsewhere, Dogtooth is angry and unsettled that people think the figure of 132 dead British servicemen killed over a period of 4 years in Iraq is a substantial one, and that gun-crime laws are set for revision after 3 fatal shootings in a city populated by over 7.5 million people. Brushing up on my gun facts and stats, I came across a website which offered macabre amusement: scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the 'incidents involving animals'.