Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Our socially destructive media: A little perspective
I didn't need a crystal ball to forsee this series of events. Russell Brand, no doubt still thinking his smutty rabbiting is cutting edge comedy, jumps ship, safe in the knowledge he has other projects to fall back on and that his reputation as a loose cannon is secure, if not in the ascendency. And his soulmate in dull witted nastiness Melanie Phillips crows about it. Is it just me, or do I detect a hint of self-satisfied smugness, as if our nannying crusader feels she had a part to play in all this? She certainly keeps referring us back to her turgid original column, where the only thing to really grab my attention was her crackpot idea that Brand derived a significant portion of his popularity from being left wing. She wishes.
Let there be no illusions, what Brand and Ross did was a criminal offence and qualifies as harassment. This is where the focus of any serious condemnation should be and is the only decisive factor that guarantees that they should be dismissed. Whether or not we should forgive their lewd comments or pardon their French is miles behind in seriousness, yet this is clearly what keeps Phillips awake at night, with her pointless whittering on about the BBC wasting our license payers’ money and all this fucking horseshit about the decline of our bloody culture. The BBC is never going to satisfy every viewer's needs, and being a business it has always needed to draw in large audiences, so it was doing what any company responding to the market would have done. Their directors were well aware that Ross and Brand were popular so it permitted them the vehicles and cash to keep hold of both of them. If watching a sisterhood of prissy nuns knitting and engaging in chit-chat about kittens and growing prize parsnips seemed like a winning formula they would have flooded us with that instead. Sad but true. Get over it.
The BBC has flagellated itself sufficiently in the past few days, giving huge prominence to this emarrassing story on its own news shows (though not as much as the smug airheads over on ITV, whose viewers might be forgiven for not knowing that there was serious fighting in the DRC, an earthquake in Pakistan and a global financial crisis, such was their opportunistic blanket coverage). In the midst of all this self-reflection it could be added that:
1. Brand and Ross now understand the gravity of their wrongdoing and will pay for it on many levels, and,
2. Despite the gravity, at least nobody died as a result of their actions
...which, according to the government's chief scientist Sir David King, is more than can be said for BBC's Today Programe and The Daily Mail, with their cloddish and unscientific campaigning against the MMR vaccine. Despite the vast, vast majority of scientists and experts stating that there is no link between the vaccine and autism (the minority being an army of one thoroughly discredited individual called Dr Andrew Wakefield), and scientific testing, the Daily Mail persists with its scare stories. King claims the shrill anti-MMR disinformation has scared many parents and "potentially led to a situation where we could have 50 or 100 children dying of measles in the UK."
This is the media at its most socially destructive. Given that existential threat, I certainly would want to see some strong action taken against any propagandist on the anti-MMR front, whoever they may be.
Again, no crystal ball necessary to guess who.
Oh, by the way, you can catch Russell Brand and his flat jokes on Channel 4 in about 30 minutes; his smut pure as snow now it is safely severed from any license fee handouts.
Let there be no illusions, what Brand and Ross did was a criminal offence and qualifies as harassment. This is where the focus of any serious condemnation should be and is the only decisive factor that guarantees that they should be dismissed. Whether or not we should forgive their lewd comments or pardon their French is miles behind in seriousness, yet this is clearly what keeps Phillips awake at night, with her pointless whittering on about the BBC wasting our license payers’ money and all this fucking horseshit about the decline of our bloody culture. The BBC is never going to satisfy every viewer's needs, and being a business it has always needed to draw in large audiences, so it was doing what any company responding to the market would have done. Their directors were well aware that Ross and Brand were popular so it permitted them the vehicles and cash to keep hold of both of them. If watching a sisterhood of prissy nuns knitting and engaging in chit-chat about kittens and growing prize parsnips seemed like a winning formula they would have flooded us with that instead. Sad but true. Get over it.
The BBC has flagellated itself sufficiently in the past few days, giving huge prominence to this emarrassing story on its own news shows (though not as much as the smug airheads over on ITV, whose viewers might be forgiven for not knowing that there was serious fighting in the DRC, an earthquake in Pakistan and a global financial crisis, such was their opportunistic blanket coverage). In the midst of all this self-reflection it could be added that:
1. Brand and Ross now understand the gravity of their wrongdoing and will pay for it on many levels, and,
2. Despite the gravity, at least nobody died as a result of their actions
...which, according to the government's chief scientist Sir David King, is more than can be said for BBC's Today Programe and The Daily Mail, with their cloddish and unscientific campaigning against the MMR vaccine. Despite the vast, vast majority of scientists and experts stating that there is no link between the vaccine and autism (the minority being an army of one thoroughly discredited individual called Dr Andrew Wakefield), and scientific testing, the Daily Mail persists with its scare stories. King claims the shrill anti-MMR disinformation has scared many parents and "potentially led to a situation where we could have 50 or 100 children dying of measles in the UK."
This is the media at its most socially destructive. Given that existential threat, I certainly would want to see some strong action taken against any propagandist on the anti-MMR front, whoever they may be.
Again, no crystal ball necessary to guess who.
Oh, by the way, you can catch Russell Brand and his flat jokes on Channel 4 in about 30 minutes; his smut pure as snow now it is safely severed from any license fee handouts.
Who says it's not British culture to complain...
Outof does a HSBC on British and American politics:
Also from Tomasky's blog, a clip from Fox News where Samuel Wurzelbacher (You may notice in the URL address Tomasky calls him Joe the Idiot. Nice.) shows us a clearly the workings (or lack of) of the misguided, uninformed mind of a McCain/Palin supporter. I've noticed this is core to everyone running from McCain and Palin all the way down to the little girls in the rally who want to be "just like Palin". I've yet to meet or hear of any republican supporter intellectually defend or stand their ground. I've seen so many strawman arguments come out from the McCain/Palin camp I'm beginning to wonder if it's really true they just don't want to see ablack man socialist non-American become president.
Also from Tomasky's blog, a clip from Fox News where Samuel Wurzelbacher (You may notice in the URL address Tomasky calls him Joe the Idiot. Nice.) shows us a clearly the workings (or lack of) of the misguided, uninformed mind of a McCain/Palin supporter. I've noticed this is core to everyone running from McCain and Palin all the way down to the little girls in the rally who want to be "just like Palin". I've yet to meet or hear of any republican supporter intellectually defend or stand their ground. I've seen so many strawman arguments come out from the McCain/Palin camp I'm beginning to wonder if it's really true they just don't want to see a
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I should have seen this one a mile off
Are you unsure whether or not making lewd phonecalls to an actor about his granddaughter live on radio is bad? Do you think that it's possible that people that do such a thing are naughty men? Should the broadcaster that did nothing to stop it receive a slap on the wrists? Melanie Phillips grapples with all these taxing moral issues in a pointless article only remarkable in its volume of sniffly hissy fits. Or maybe it's just another chance to attack the BBC and its public funding. She does this a lot and is clearly getting quite tired:
"What kind of degraded cultural universe are we all now living in? What possible justification can there be for this vile behaviour, let alone putting it on air? How can the gratuitous harassment of an elderly man by foul obscenities about his granddaughter be considered public entertainment?
[...]
"What kind of society have we become in which enough people gain vicarious pleasure or entertainment from such displays to persuade cynical and unprincipled TV executives they can make huge profits from them?
[...]
"If the BBC were fit for purpose, Brand and Ross would be sacked, along with the executives who passed their horrible stunt as fit for broadcast. But, of course, that won’t happen..."
...thought people up and down the country who don't get a column in a national newspaper. Was she really paid for writing this? Seriously, this article has such a deficit of new information that I actually forgot things I already knew while reading it. And no, I didn't see the funny side of it either.
"What kind of degraded cultural universe are we all now living in? What possible justification can there be for this vile behaviour, let alone putting it on air? How can the gratuitous harassment of an elderly man by foul obscenities about his granddaughter be considered public entertainment?
[...]
"What kind of society have we become in which enough people gain vicarious pleasure or entertainment from such displays to persuade cynical and unprincipled TV executives they can make huge profits from them?
[...]
"If the BBC were fit for purpose, Brand and Ross would be sacked, along with the executives who passed their horrible stunt as fit for broadcast. But, of course, that won’t happen..."
...thought people up and down the country who don't get a column in a national newspaper. Was she really paid for writing this? Seriously, this article has such a deficit of new information that I actually forgot things I already knew while reading it. And no, I didn't see the funny side of it either.
Leaking sympathy
If you already have one foreign policy moron on your books it seems selfish to grab another. But John McCain (whose own foreign policy expertise and judgement has always been totally overblown) is not content with Sarah Palin and has repeatedly given a forum to his other attack lemming of the common man, Joe the Plumber, who seemingly finds time between fixing leaky pipes to follow events in the Middle East. Fair enough. If there's one thing this Bush administration has reminded us it's that Arabs and pipelines go hand in hand. BUT WAIT. I thought Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (let's ditch the silly nickname, shall we) was tired of being in the American media spotlight. Does he really want to go global?
Just like with Palin, the National Review and friends segment of the pro-Republican media gets extremely defensive, pompous and hypocritical when this whinging campaign mascot comes into play. McCain campaigners are permitted to harness his common touch to try and smite the Democrats, but playtime is called off when any questions are asked about qualifications or life experience, and how this might contradict the claims he makes. Yes, it is destructive and a little frivolous to delve too deep into Wurzelbacher's private affairs, and yes, a citizen does have a legitimate right to put his concerns to a presidential candidate, no matter how wrong his end of the stick might be. But there were valid inquiries to be made about how much he was earning, since McCain wanted to exploit Wurzelbacher as a poster boy for suffering caused by Obama's tax plans even though the plumber wasn't even close to raking in enough to suffer a tax raise.
At the same time Wurzelbacher was doing press conferences from his house and appearing on national TV, some of the cranially well-insulated wing of anti-Obama central piped up and claimed he was being hounded. Hounded by Obama's campaign and the elite left liberal media, they claimed, none of whom had forced him into the media spotlight it should be noted. Wurzelbacher himself moaned a bit about all the attention he had waded into with these interviews, apparently unaware that pictures from CBS news and the like are beamed into a magic box in the homes of millions of Americans. This uncalled for media frenzy is probably what prompted Wurzelbacher and John McCain to scale down the high profile Joe the Plumber brand.
My last post was about members of the public being forced unprepared into the media furnace, so I could muster up some sympathy if I thought this was a similar situation. Yet this guy is still making appearances spouting his worthless and uninformed opinions (ahem) on the national stage. His claims about Israel and Obama have no basis. Obama has already pandered to the AIPAC lobbyists and made some vague threats to Iran. Chances are that Obama will neither show the negligence to bring the destruction of Israel, nor the initiative to force through the most concrete way of preserving her in peace: a Palestinian state alongside Israel and comprehensive peace negotiations with her neighbours.
Just like with Palin, the National Review and friends segment of the pro-Republican media gets extremely defensive, pompous and hypocritical when this whinging campaign mascot comes into play. McCain campaigners are permitted to harness his common touch to try and smite the Democrats, but playtime is called off when any questions are asked about qualifications or life experience, and how this might contradict the claims he makes. Yes, it is destructive and a little frivolous to delve too deep into Wurzelbacher's private affairs, and yes, a citizen does have a legitimate right to put his concerns to a presidential candidate, no matter how wrong his end of the stick might be. But there were valid inquiries to be made about how much he was earning, since McCain wanted to exploit Wurzelbacher as a poster boy for suffering caused by Obama's tax plans even though the plumber wasn't even close to raking in enough to suffer a tax raise.
At the same time Wurzelbacher was doing press conferences from his house and appearing on national TV, some of the cranially well-insulated wing of anti-Obama central piped up and claimed he was being hounded. Hounded by Obama's campaign and the elite left liberal media, they claimed, none of whom had forced him into the media spotlight it should be noted. Wurzelbacher himself moaned a bit about all the attention he had waded into with these interviews, apparently unaware that pictures from CBS news and the like are beamed into a magic box in the homes of millions of Americans. This uncalled for media frenzy is probably what prompted Wurzelbacher and John McCain to scale down the high profile Joe the Plumber brand.
My last post was about members of the public being forced unprepared into the media furnace, so I could muster up some sympathy if I thought this was a similar situation. Yet this guy is still making appearances spouting his worthless and uninformed opinions (ahem) on the national stage. His claims about Israel and Obama have no basis. Obama has already pandered to the AIPAC lobbyists and made some vague threats to Iran. Chances are that Obama will neither show the negligence to bring the destruction of Israel, nor the initiative to force through the most concrete way of preserving her in peace: a Palestinian state alongside Israel and comprehensive peace negotiations with her neighbours.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Singapore Speak: Who's Obama?
Tharini raises a valid excuse for the McCain camp slogan in a foreign land:
"I don't think that Singaporeans don't have any opinion about the elections in the States. I have met many Singaporeans who have their opinions on many issues that go on in their own country as well as what happens overseas, including the elections.Talking to any random Taxi driver could prove that :) However, I think the issue lies more on them... Read more ... Read Morefeeling that expressing their opinions will not matter rather than them not having any opinion at all.
If their own country has always made them feel that expressing their opinions would either be futile or get them into jail...why wld they think that expressing their opinion on international issues wld make any difference to their lives?"
I had brought up the discussion on a social network thread about an article from the Huffington Post (Death of Rovian Politics). Obviously when I mentioned a "similar effect" occuring in Singapore, it was in the context of SG's own politics, but the thread seemed to have somewhat diverged to SG's general globally apathetic view on politics. It did produce an interesting link to the Gallup World Poll. But my point was that we cannot afford to underestimate 'potential' of political expression, because that ultimately feeds indifference both towards exercising and infringing that right to speech. It does not justify regulation of what you can broadcast online, as I'm sure the Singapore Democratic Party will argue. Politicians will find the internet is a level playing field, and as Arianna Huffinton points out, the cost for assuming otherwise is a very unforgiving and costly one.
Nonetheless, it's still interesting to bring up the subject Tharini raised. You would think that on the contrary, s'poreans would have more liberty to express their views on global issues. It's an argument steeped in apathy but tries to disguise itself as one of reason. One fought on self-gain, and not of principles.
"I don't think that Singaporeans don't have any opinion about the elections in the States. I have met many Singaporeans who have their opinions on many issues that go on in their own country as well as what happens overseas, including the elections.Talking to any random Taxi driver could prove that :) However, I think the issue lies more on them... Read more ... Read Morefeeling that expressing their opinions will not matter rather than them not having any opinion at all.
If their own country has always made them feel that expressing their opinions would either be futile or get them into jail...why wld they think that expressing their opinion on international issues wld make any difference to their lives?"
I had brought up the discussion on a social network thread about an article from the Huffington Post (Death of Rovian Politics). Obviously when I mentioned a "similar effect" occuring in Singapore, it was in the context of SG's own politics, but the thread seemed to have somewhat diverged to SG's general globally apathetic view on politics. It did produce an interesting link to the Gallup World Poll. But my point was that we cannot afford to underestimate 'potential' of political expression, because that ultimately feeds indifference both towards exercising and infringing that right to speech. It does not justify regulation of what you can broadcast online, as I'm sure the Singapore Democratic Party will argue. Politicians will find the internet is a level playing field, and as Arianna Huffinton points out, the cost for assuming otherwise is a very unforgiving and costly one.
Nonetheless, it's still interesting to bring up the subject Tharini raised. You would think that on the contrary, s'poreans would have more liberty to express their views on global issues. It's an argument steeped in apathy but tries to disguise itself as one of reason. One fought on self-gain, and not of principles.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Palintology Sells Itself
From the Huffington Post:
"Thanks to YouTube -- and blogging and instant fact-checking and viral emails -- it is getting harder and harder to get away with repeating brazen lies without paying a price, or to run under-the-radar smear campaigns without being exposed.
But the McCain campaign hasn't gotten the message, hence the blizzard of racist, alarmist, xenophobic, innuendo-laden accusations being splattered at Obama.
And it seems that the worse McCain is doing in the polls, the more his team is relying on the same gutter tactics. So over the next 15 days, look for the McCain campaign to become even uglier. That's what happens when following Rovian politics is your only strategy -- and Rovian politics isn't working."
If you don't detect at least some truth amidst the parodies, pundits and countless videos on YouTube, the smoking gun that the McCain campaign have completely lost the plot with today's generation has got to be the fact that they are driving faster, harder with every failure on the same bearing of their campaign strategy; fear and smear. Arianna Huffington describes this as Rovian tactics, and it shows of McCain's people's inability to comprehend today's generation, nevermind trying to lead America's future, reinforcing my belief that they must be living in some pre-Google generation by daring to even ask in one recent campaign slogan "Who is Obama?" (If you can't Wikipedia "Barack Obama", you shouldn't be running for office)
Well according to some, he is unAmerican for being a terrorist, a muslim, and now the antichrist. Also did you know he's black?
Anyways, thanks to the internet I can watch Palin fumble on the issue of what a "terrorist" is, Michele Bachmann take the subject of the race riots in France and completely poop it out into such a mangled, factually flawed speech that I got the impression she thought she was playing "word association". France -> riots -> assimilation -> muslims -> evil. Which somehow ended up with her ranting on about how some cultures are not equal. I believe if by that you mean the culture of stupid people in politics, then yes I agree with you Ms Bachmann. But Bachmann and the likes of Palinites must really sell themselves in the eyes of Democrats. And by "selling", I of course really mean making an arse of themselves. Call it propaganda on the internet, but propaganda stops being propaganda when you have the surplus of fact-checking that is owed to the infinite resource of the internet that weeds out the liars.
I've seen the McCain ads on his website, listened intently to McCain's debate against Obama and Palin's own crusade against the "alien" opposition. It seems alas, that the war of words is almost like atheism and religion. McCain/Palin are preachy and love to incite fear, whilst the Obamacans have this damn habit of using numbers and figures to illustrate why they're better. As true blue conservatives continue to abandon their party, it seems more like this race has truly been reduced to that between a progressive ideology and christian fundamentalism. And it eludes and perplexes me as to why anyone who is not hugging a bible would support the latter.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Viewers sob while S.O.B.s judge: It's the X Factor
What was I thinking? I'll never know for sure, but yesterday I saw a bit of the X Factor and I was even more disgusted than I could ever have guessed.
By now I'm pretty familiar with how this bullshit goes. Having whittled down all the contestants, including the delusional comedy dross, down to almost single figures, the show now moves to a Big Brother like format where each week they each sing one song per week. There is a relatively pointless bit after every performance where the judges line up to tell the contestant what they thought, though in truth we either get embarassingly over-the-top platitudes or unseemly abuse. That's half the reason people watch, in case you really didn't know. I say that these little outbursts from the panel are relatively pointless because it is the public vote that "saves" the majority of their favourite performers for another week, the exception being the two lowest scoring ones, who are condemned to a rather undignified head to head battle, where they sing another song of their own choosing.
So far it sounds like a singing competition and the sort of guff that a family could watch together and enjoy. I've watched paint dry and I promise that the X-Factor beats it hands down. Sure, the judges can be a bit rude, it's tacky and having a 'Big Band/Swing' week is a tad daft since most of the contestants are just out of school and shouldn't be made to sing banal drivel that even made Frank Sinatra sound older than he really was when he sung it. But nothing too offensive can come of this kind of entertainment and you weren't going to miss those few extra brain cells anyway.
Aaah, but there is the added element to this show, the real 'X-Factor' you could call it. While we could pretend that this is a singing competition, we all know that it is welded inextricably to a popularity contest, and this complicates matters because we are crossing over disciplines. Appealing to people with your voice is a very different kettle of fish to making them like you on a personal level, isn't it Ms Mariah Carey? This is where the personal lives of the contestants compromise the aim of the show and pevert the outcome. Or, in the case of yesterday's show, they add a very twisted almost exploitative subplot to what should be Saturday night zombievision.
Daniel is a 38 year-old pool cleaner with an above average voice, and he clearly wants to be famous. That's a not unreasonable demand to make these days, and it saves you doing a lot of hard work to earn money too. Phew! But he has obstacles that block his path, for the insidious Simon Cowell doesn't like his style and is quite content to tell him this in pointed terms since bolstering his hardman persona does his reputation no harm at all. After Daniel gave a fairly average performance (certainly when compared to some of the other rather gifted singers on the show) Simon Cowell, and the smug and buffoonish toad also known as Louie Walsh both slammed him, with Cowell coming out with some stinging remarks that were just not needed. You would have felt bad for Daniel, and his self-esteem would hardly have been raised later when the other finalists all came out to sing a charity single together and he was impeded by a technical fault with the door. The public didn't respond too well either, and Daniel found himself competing for his survival in a head-to-head with some surly 19 year old kid, who rather inconveniently also wanted to be famous. Wow, no room for compromise on this show. At this point Daniel used his trump card and performed a song in memory of his wife, who had passed away. It annihilated his competitor and convinced three of the four judges to give him a stay of execution because it was allegedly such an emotional and sincere tear-jerker. I say "allegedly" because there was no way in hell that I was going to subject myself to this sordid spectacle. Isn't grief traditionally a private matter? Maybe some artists can channel it into outstanding music that they have written themselves, but in this context it at least looks like he was using it to save himself on a tacky reality TV show. Will he pull that little beauty out of the bag again if his back is up against the wall?
It can't be right to put viewers through this process, and it has gone on for far too long. Whenever I have watched this bloody show I have seen it. The personal lives of contestants with some tasteless, syrupy music played in the background while they tell the interviewer how they lost someone they loved. It is a powerful display but is totally abused here. Maybe ITN could experiment with this technique the next time our government wants to invade a third-world country, instead of being their usual uncritical, obsequious, doglike selves. But I suspect it will be limited to drawing us closer to TV contestants and imbuing their every act with a symbolic meaning. A dinner lady or bus driver wants a big break, because in our inverted pyramid of a society the people that do the jobs that really make a difference are rarely seen or heard, much less suitably remunerated for their efforts, while feckless popstars going through the motions are simultaeneously widely lauded and handed the wealth of Croesus. So we get a montage of how hard their life is and what dignity they display in their day-to-day lives, as if that has anything to do with their ability to us their voice to inspire us with a Westlife song. Maybe we want to help an overworked single mother climb out of a rut since society and the government still haven't found the best way to help her make the best of the only life she will ever have. But that still only solves the plight of one individual. And is giving a bereaved wannabe a hand climbing into the mincing machine of C-list celebrity really a compassionate act, seeing as it has obliterated people with far less emotional baggage in the past?
Compare this to The Apprentice, where Alan Sugar generally tells his hard-nosed gaggle of would-be corporate whores that he doesn't want to hear about their personal stories or backgrounds - he just wants some obsequious monkeyboy that can add to his bloated stockpiles of material wealth. Sugar is more or less honest enough to say this. Simon Cowell and Louie Walsh (though admittedly not the other two feather-headed judges, who have been pop singers and so know what spiteful criticism feels like) fancy themselves as reality TV tough guys in the mould of Sugar and Gordon Ramsay, so why don't they just ditch this crap about making someone's dream come true and instead just come out and say it: "we need some clone who can hold a note to sing some cover-versions of cover-versions so we can rake in the cash." And to facilitate this new policy of truth they can issue a blanket ban on revealing anything about their candidates' backgrounds, because all it does is make people who really care feel sorry for them as they are whsiked towards the celebrity scrapheap.
By now I'm pretty familiar with how this bullshit goes. Having whittled down all the contestants, including the delusional comedy dross, down to almost single figures, the show now moves to a Big Brother like format where each week they each sing one song per week. There is a relatively pointless bit after every performance where the judges line up to tell the contestant what they thought, though in truth we either get embarassingly over-the-top platitudes or unseemly abuse. That's half the reason people watch, in case you really didn't know. I say that these little outbursts from the panel are relatively pointless because it is the public vote that "saves" the majority of their favourite performers for another week, the exception being the two lowest scoring ones, who are condemned to a rather undignified head to head battle, where they sing another song of their own choosing.
So far it sounds like a singing competition and the sort of guff that a family could watch together and enjoy. I've watched paint dry and I promise that the X-Factor beats it hands down. Sure, the judges can be a bit rude, it's tacky and having a 'Big Band/Swing' week is a tad daft since most of the contestants are just out of school and shouldn't be made to sing banal drivel that even made Frank Sinatra sound older than he really was when he sung it. But nothing too offensive can come of this kind of entertainment and you weren't going to miss those few extra brain cells anyway.
Aaah, but there is the added element to this show, the real 'X-Factor' you could call it. While we could pretend that this is a singing competition, we all know that it is welded inextricably to a popularity contest, and this complicates matters because we are crossing over disciplines. Appealing to people with your voice is a very different kettle of fish to making them like you on a personal level, isn't it Ms Mariah Carey? This is where the personal lives of the contestants compromise the aim of the show and pevert the outcome. Or, in the case of yesterday's show, they add a very twisted almost exploitative subplot to what should be Saturday night zombievision.
Daniel is a 38 year-old pool cleaner with an above average voice, and he clearly wants to be famous. That's a not unreasonable demand to make these days, and it saves you doing a lot of hard work to earn money too. Phew! But he has obstacles that block his path, for the insidious Simon Cowell doesn't like his style and is quite content to tell him this in pointed terms since bolstering his hardman persona does his reputation no harm at all. After Daniel gave a fairly average performance (certainly when compared to some of the other rather gifted singers on the show) Simon Cowell, and the smug and buffoonish toad also known as Louie Walsh both slammed him, with Cowell coming out with some stinging remarks that were just not needed. You would have felt bad for Daniel, and his self-esteem would hardly have been raised later when the other finalists all came out to sing a charity single together and he was impeded by a technical fault with the door. The public didn't respond too well either, and Daniel found himself competing for his survival in a head-to-head with some surly 19 year old kid, who rather inconveniently also wanted to be famous. Wow, no room for compromise on this show. At this point Daniel used his trump card and performed a song in memory of his wife, who had passed away. It annihilated his competitor and convinced three of the four judges to give him a stay of execution because it was allegedly such an emotional and sincere tear-jerker. I say "allegedly" because there was no way in hell that I was going to subject myself to this sordid spectacle. Isn't grief traditionally a private matter? Maybe some artists can channel it into outstanding music that they have written themselves, but in this context it at least looks like he was using it to save himself on a tacky reality TV show. Will he pull that little beauty out of the bag again if his back is up against the wall?
It can't be right to put viewers through this process, and it has gone on for far too long. Whenever I have watched this bloody show I have seen it. The personal lives of contestants with some tasteless, syrupy music played in the background while they tell the interviewer how they lost someone they loved. It is a powerful display but is totally abused here. Maybe ITN could experiment with this technique the next time our government wants to invade a third-world country, instead of being their usual uncritical, obsequious, doglike selves. But I suspect it will be limited to drawing us closer to TV contestants and imbuing their every act with a symbolic meaning. A dinner lady or bus driver wants a big break, because in our inverted pyramid of a society the people that do the jobs that really make a difference are rarely seen or heard, much less suitably remunerated for their efforts, while feckless popstars going through the motions are simultaeneously widely lauded and handed the wealth of Croesus. So we get a montage of how hard their life is and what dignity they display in their day-to-day lives, as if that has anything to do with their ability to us their voice to inspire us with a Westlife song. Maybe we want to help an overworked single mother climb out of a rut since society and the government still haven't found the best way to help her make the best of the only life she will ever have. But that still only solves the plight of one individual. And is giving a bereaved wannabe a hand climbing into the mincing machine of C-list celebrity really a compassionate act, seeing as it has obliterated people with far less emotional baggage in the past?
Compare this to The Apprentice, where Alan Sugar generally tells his hard-nosed gaggle of would-be corporate whores that he doesn't want to hear about their personal stories or backgrounds - he just wants some obsequious monkeyboy that can add to his bloated stockpiles of material wealth. Sugar is more or less honest enough to say this. Simon Cowell and Louie Walsh (though admittedly not the other two feather-headed judges, who have been pop singers and so know what spiteful criticism feels like) fancy themselves as reality TV tough guys in the mould of Sugar and Gordon Ramsay, so why don't they just ditch this crap about making someone's dream come true and instead just come out and say it: "we need some clone who can hold a note to sing some cover-versions of cover-versions so we can rake in the cash." And to facilitate this new policy of truth they can issue a blanket ban on revealing anything about their candidates' backgrounds, because all it does is make people who really care feel sorry for them as they are whsiked towards the celebrity scrapheap.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Cookery for the common man: Two perspectives
OK, so I'm not Gordon Ramsay's biggest fan. His abusive tone would be bearable if he wasn't such a preening fool half the time. But his Cookalong, where he conducts a live cookery lesson, is a sweet idea and a big improvement on his demos on The F Word, where he would always just list the ingredients in a surly voice and allow his viewers to fill in the gaps. It's a pity, therefore, to report that he has been thoroughly outdone.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Seguey to Hell
So it's finally happened. The once docile and pacifist atheists have banded together and dumped themselves into the train headed into cult-like / religious congregations and all the preachiness and self-righteousness that comes with it. No longer lying side by side with the undecided agnostics who are really quite comfortable taking a back seat and watching these religious people kill one another. Guess I'll have to be careful not to offend an atheist the next time I meet one, or not use Newton's name in vain, or do silly things in the name of science. This new London bus ad preaching there is probably no God is like giving the Republicans another guy to pin on Obama's portfolio of criminal fans. Seriously? A black guy mugs a white woman for $60, punches her in the face and then carves the letter "B" on her face for supporting McCain? Surely you can't make this stuff up. Who are these bad apples going round spoiling and tarnishing the good name of atheism and Obamacans? They should be rounded up and sent to a place where the weather is like, grey, monotonous, and dull.
Update: It appears that you can make this stuff up afterall. Her press photo did look suspicious to be frank. An inverted "B"?? That'd only make sense if she was a) upside down to the alleged attacker, b) attacked by a 5-year old or c) quite possibly stupid enough to carve a "B" in front of the mirror not knowing it'd appear inverted to everyone else. Ashley, if you really must play the stereotypical white victim of crime, at least get the alphabet perspective right next time and say Obama himself did it. He's black too.
Update: It appears that you can make this stuff up afterall. Her press photo did look suspicious to be frank. An inverted "B"?? That'd only make sense if she was a) upside down to the alleged attacker, b) attacked by a 5-year old or c) quite possibly stupid enough to carve a "B" in front of the mirror not knowing it'd appear inverted to everyone else. Ashley, if you really must play the stereotypical white victim of crime, at least get the alphabet perspective right next time and say Obama himself did it. He's black too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Safety first? Powell backs Obama
We’ve known for a long time that playing nice isn’t going to get you anywhere in a US election. The nastiness of the McCain campaign, with its innuendo and repetition of either trivial or flat out false claims is a savage battering and with so much riding on this election for the wider world it is imperative that Obama and Co continue to be tough and weather this storm.
We also know that principles, sound policies and saintly honesty are not going to be the decisive factor in these contests. Ralph Nader knows this only too well. So you work with what you’ve got, pushing to at least get as much as possible of what you want. You adapt to survive and toughen up or get swept away. Like other western electoral systems this is not participatory democracy but rather akin to a four-year referendum on how two elite parties handle a limited number of issues. The working class and the people of Afghanistan will have trouble telling between the two parties and how their policies differ in practical terms. And worst of all, what issues are on the table will be compromised by the advertising campaign nature of the contest. But this year we have someone that makes the boundaries between the two parties seem somewhat less blurred. Obama needs to win to avert more of the same, or worse. A McCain presidency offers us the prospect of Venezuela destabilised, Iran attacked and the military digging harder into Iraq at a point when it should be getting out. Thanks. But. No. Thanks.
So I grit my teeth and bear the latest big development. Colin Powell has endorsed Obama as his pick for president. There is good reason to be torn about this. Whatever regret he might express now, Powell’s mendacity in front of the UN Security Council in 2003 has had effects in Iraq that are so devastating that most of us struggle to keep up with developments there and have become desensitised to a level of violence that now seems normal. He has got away with the opprobrium levelled at Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz because he has been able to cling to his reputation as a moderating influence, but has been a lifelong Republican and backs some of Bush’s crazy ideas such as the destabilising Central European missile shield.
Restricting myself to principle this is not an endorsement I would want. Powell’s work in the Reagan and Bush administrations and his efforts to cover up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam give him far bloodier hands than Bill Ayers. Yet there are significant tactical advantages. At a time when Republican strongholds like North Carolina and Virgina might go blue, and the Chicago Tribune, having been a staunch supporter of Republican candidates and a hotbed of xenophobia in the past, backs Obama, it seems significant inroads are being made into what should have been McCain’s territory. Then there is Powell’s relative common sense and understanding of what it’s like to be a minority. University of Michigan professor and foreign policy boffin Juan Cole praises Powell’s appearance on Meet the Press, in particular the impassioned call for unity among all Americans, a rebuke to the black sheep treatment that the McCain campaign has given to Muslims and Arab Americans. And many analysts in the newspapers believe that, as a former Secretary of State, Powell’s support for Obama over McCain hinders the senator from Arizona’s already dubious claims that he has more foreign policy experience due to his ability to crash expensive planes and bomb civilian targets. Incidentally, McCain is claiming the backing of several other former Secretaries of State including the incompetent Alexander Haig, conniving Henry Kissinger and James Baker III, whose connections to the Saudi monarchy are hardly useful for McCain and his claims that he wants to stop sending money for oil from countries that don’t like the USA very much. And I suppose at least it means Obama doesn't need to sling filth of his own, allowing the GOP to be hoisted by their own petard.
Those staving off McCain wont do it with every last principle intact. Not in a mud-wrestling arena like this. In the Spanish Civil War the bitter argument contested between the left was “Make revolution to win the war” versus “Win the war to make revolution”. It seems until people really start getting together to make Nader and the like viable candidates, or participatory democracy is bestowed upon us we will largely be restricted to damage limitation and protecting small gains, and any hopes for reform will come in painfully slow dribs and drabs. The cruel realities of the world conspire to dilute ideological purities so that a movement can grasp power but at the expense of many of its values. I’m just putting ideas out there, aware that this is an imperfect situation with imperfect solutions. Time will tell how I should feel about this latest twist.
We also know that principles, sound policies and saintly honesty are not going to be the decisive factor in these contests. Ralph Nader knows this only too well. So you work with what you’ve got, pushing to at least get as much as possible of what you want. You adapt to survive and toughen up or get swept away. Like other western electoral systems this is not participatory democracy but rather akin to a four-year referendum on how two elite parties handle a limited number of issues. The working class and the people of Afghanistan will have trouble telling between the two parties and how their policies differ in practical terms. And worst of all, what issues are on the table will be compromised by the advertising campaign nature of the contest. But this year we have someone that makes the boundaries between the two parties seem somewhat less blurred. Obama needs to win to avert more of the same, or worse. A McCain presidency offers us the prospect of Venezuela destabilised, Iran attacked and the military digging harder into Iraq at a point when it should be getting out. Thanks. But. No. Thanks.
So I grit my teeth and bear the latest big development. Colin Powell has endorsed Obama as his pick for president. There is good reason to be torn about this. Whatever regret he might express now, Powell’s mendacity in front of the UN Security Council in 2003 has had effects in Iraq that are so devastating that most of us struggle to keep up with developments there and have become desensitised to a level of violence that now seems normal. He has got away with the opprobrium levelled at Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz because he has been able to cling to his reputation as a moderating influence, but has been a lifelong Republican and backs some of Bush’s crazy ideas such as the destabilising Central European missile shield.
Restricting myself to principle this is not an endorsement I would want. Powell’s work in the Reagan and Bush administrations and his efforts to cover up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam give him far bloodier hands than Bill Ayers. Yet there are significant tactical advantages. At a time when Republican strongholds like North Carolina and Virgina might go blue, and the Chicago Tribune, having been a staunch supporter of Republican candidates and a hotbed of xenophobia in the past, backs Obama, it seems significant inroads are being made into what should have been McCain’s territory. Then there is Powell’s relative common sense and understanding of what it’s like to be a minority. University of Michigan professor and foreign policy boffin Juan Cole praises Powell’s appearance on Meet the Press, in particular the impassioned call for unity among all Americans, a rebuke to the black sheep treatment that the McCain campaign has given to Muslims and Arab Americans. And many analysts in the newspapers believe that, as a former Secretary of State, Powell’s support for Obama over McCain hinders the senator from Arizona’s already dubious claims that he has more foreign policy experience due to his ability to crash expensive planes and bomb civilian targets. Incidentally, McCain is claiming the backing of several other former Secretaries of State including the incompetent Alexander Haig, conniving Henry Kissinger and James Baker III, whose connections to the Saudi monarchy are hardly useful for McCain and his claims that he wants to stop sending money for oil from countries that don’t like the USA very much. And I suppose at least it means Obama doesn't need to sling filth of his own, allowing the GOP to be hoisted by their own petard.
Those staving off McCain wont do it with every last principle intact. Not in a mud-wrestling arena like this. In the Spanish Civil War the bitter argument contested between the left was “Make revolution to win the war” versus “Win the war to make revolution”. It seems until people really start getting together to make Nader and the like viable candidates, or participatory democracy is bestowed upon us we will largely be restricted to damage limitation and protecting small gains, and any hopes for reform will come in painfully slow dribs and drabs. The cruel realities of the world conspire to dilute ideological purities so that a movement can grasp power but at the expense of many of its values. I’m just putting ideas out there, aware that this is an imperfect situation with imperfect solutions. Time will tell how I should feel about this latest twist.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Bailout
Max sums up his thoughts on George Bush's $700bn bailout:
"Where is the outrage? Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability? I'm supposed to teach my son about being responsible? Why? I think I'll convince him to go into politics or corporate management, where no matter how badly you fuck up, you still get a golden parachute and/or a promotion.
What's the point of having so-called limits on the national debt when the president can simply wave his pen and raise the limit? I've said it before and I'll say it again: "RIP, Constitution."
FFFFFFFUUUUUUCK!"
"Where is the outrage? Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability? I'm supposed to teach my son about being responsible? Why? I think I'll convince him to go into politics or corporate management, where no matter how badly you fuck up, you still get a golden parachute and/or a promotion.What's the point of having so-called limits on the national debt when the president can simply wave his pen and raise the limit? I've said it before and I'll say it again: "RIP, Constitution."
FFFFFFFUUUUUUCK!"
Saturday, October 18, 2008
US Elections: I Still Don't Know Who To Vote!!
Somebody tell me why the hell this person didn't get the presidential nomination from the Democrats!
Somebody tell me why the hell this person didn't get the presidential nomination from the Democrats!
A flood of oil disovered in Cuba
The Washington democracy drive has hit more muddy waters as Cuba is set to become even more self-reliant. Now they're going to have to invade it.
I'm going to hold you to this, Obama
It’s 26 August this year and in Canatgallo, Colombia, Alexander Blanco Rodriguez is living out his last day. Naturally he and his co-workers don’t know this yet, but that hardly makes his fate a surprise. He works for the state oil company ECOPETROL and also happens to be a leader with the oil worker’s union USO (La Unión Sindical Obrera). As he finishes his shift and prepares to leave work, an armed group guns him down in front of his workmates, making him the 41st trade union member to be murdered this year.
Exercising ones right to participate in a union and bargain for better working conditions is a risky business in Colombia, a democracy that has been subverted by a Marxist guerrilla insurgency and by paramilitary groups. Already scarce Western media attention is dominated by the former, particularly the FARC, the group that held Ingrid Betancourt and still holds numerous other less newsworthy individuals hostage. However, it is the latter faction, the paramilitaries, that are responsible for the vast majority of civilian murders across the country, and their dirty work has been facilitated and covered up by alliances with the national military, landowners, businessmen, politicians and very probably the president and secret service too. Human Rights Watch claims in a report published today that President Alvaro Uribe has “Opposed and effectively blocked meaningful efforts to reform the Congress to eliminate paramilitary influence” and has smeared the Supreme Court and its members who are investigating their abuses.
In a parallel universe this government would be the object of at least a fair bit of scrutiny from the government of the United States, certainly more than Hugo Chavez’s regime next door. Yet the powers that be in Colombia have literally gotten away with murder for years, even becoming the third highest recipient of aid from Washington under Clinton. In a continent that has taken a sharp turn to the left in its politics, the current Uribe administration is firm friends with that of George W Bush (who, contrary to what you may think, still actually is the President of the United States. He’s just been very quiet lately).
Back in April this year, when he could still be described as a higher-profile personality than some jumped-up Alaskan seemingly trying to choke on her foot, Bush was desperately trying to force a free trade deal he negotiated two years earlier with Uribe’s Colombia, that would have eliminated tariffs on their US imports, through Congress. To Bush’s dismay the partisan House of Representatives voted to delay action on the deal, effectively leaving it for the first post-Bush administration to deal with. Members of the House opposed to the deal, generally Democrats, were worried about its impact on American workers and also their feeling that Uribe had not been doing nearly enough to stop paramilitary violence against union members.
The pair competing for the opportunity to make us sigh with relief as George W Bush becomes no more than a distant if traumatic memory, disagree strongly on the free trade issue, and their differing opinions were on show in the third presidential debate, even if they were overshadowed by the ridiculous appeals to Joe the plumber. Showing the kind of principle that his become his trademark in this campaign, McCain, who is strongly in favour, stated that "Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer”, something many a labourer in Colombia would agree with, if for different reasons. Obama on the other hand had the honesty to point out that labour leaders were targetted for assasssination and for this opposed the agreement. That’s great. In the run up to the House of Representatives vote on the deal in April Obama said that he didn’t want to reward the behaviour of the Uribe administration with this deal.
It is nice when the supposedly more down to earth, centre left party doesn’t just disagree with the GOP on something, but also takes practical action to effect change. It is also a ray of hope that under Obama some things at least will be better. In the polls he is maintaining a strong lead over McCain and will be greeted as a saviour by many. But making principled declarations out of power is one thing, sticking to them while staring out of the Whitehouse is another. Power does things to people and forces them to jump through hoops that maybe they wouldn’t ordinarilly want to. Outside of power Al Gore has become a noted environmentalist and refused to share a stage with Uribe last year due to his involvement with the paramilitary killers. But in the 1990s he was content to stand at Bill Clinton’s side as VP at a time when horrific massacres like the military-assisted killing of 49 in Mapiripán in 1997 were taking place. As mentioned earlier, military aid increased under Clinton, who signed a waiver on a set of human rights provisions for a $1.3 billion aid deal in 2000 (and incidentally backs this free trade agreement, which even his Republican-lite wife is against). According to the Washington Times that same year the future Nobel prize-winning bleeding heart tree hugger Gore ignored the pleas of environmentalists uncorrupted by power who didn’t want to see Occidental Petroleum, a company in which his family has considerable stock, drill for oil under a forest on sacred Indian land in Colombia. The Clinton administration sent aid to protect the company’s security interests in Colombia, while Gore gave short shrift to other Democrats who urged him to meet the indigenous people whose lives his company’s project would have ruined. Out of power Jimmy Carter has been a comendable human rights advocate, in office he chummed up to Suharto of Indonesia and was with the last of Nicaragua’s ugly Somoza dynasty until almost the very end. A list of campaign promises dropped once the candidates of elections across the world would go on and on. High hopes the left had for Clinton, Blair and Brown are a sore point. Cynics like myself need to see the likes of Obama keep their word on the few decent policies on offer to retain a glimmer of hope in mainstream politics. And though I wont be able to convince him, I know someone that surely can.
PS
As Colombia’s leading ally the USA has to take the lead in diplomatic pressure for reform, but that does not excuse the pathetic stance of the British government or that shower at the European Union. On 3 October, in response to a petition organised by the UK based network Justice for Colombia calling for a suspension of all military aid to Uribe’s government until human rights abuses were dealt with, Downing Street stated that it had no intention of doing so and that “we are encouraged by Colombia’s efforts to root out this problem.” And the EU provides Colombia with trade preferences that are exclusive for countries with respect for worker’s rights. Countries like Colombia, Israel and Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to be sitting pretty, sheltered from criticism.
Exercising ones right to participate in a union and bargain for better working conditions is a risky business in Colombia, a democracy that has been subverted by a Marxist guerrilla insurgency and by paramilitary groups. Already scarce Western media attention is dominated by the former, particularly the FARC, the group that held Ingrid Betancourt and still holds numerous other less newsworthy individuals hostage. However, it is the latter faction, the paramilitaries, that are responsible for the vast majority of civilian murders across the country, and their dirty work has been facilitated and covered up by alliances with the national military, landowners, businessmen, politicians and very probably the president and secret service too. Human Rights Watch claims in a report published today that President Alvaro Uribe has “Opposed and effectively blocked meaningful efforts to reform the Congress to eliminate paramilitary influence” and has smeared the Supreme Court and its members who are investigating their abuses.
In a parallel universe this government would be the object of at least a fair bit of scrutiny from the government of the United States, certainly more than Hugo Chavez’s regime next door. Yet the powers that be in Colombia have literally gotten away with murder for years, even becoming the third highest recipient of aid from Washington under Clinton. In a continent that has taken a sharp turn to the left in its politics, the current Uribe administration is firm friends with that of George W Bush (who, contrary to what you may think, still actually is the President of the United States. He’s just been very quiet lately).
Back in April this year, when he could still be described as a higher-profile personality than some jumped-up Alaskan seemingly trying to choke on her foot, Bush was desperately trying to force a free trade deal he negotiated two years earlier with Uribe’s Colombia, that would have eliminated tariffs on their US imports, through Congress. To Bush’s dismay the partisan House of Representatives voted to delay action on the deal, effectively leaving it for the first post-Bush administration to deal with. Members of the House opposed to the deal, generally Democrats, were worried about its impact on American workers and also their feeling that Uribe had not been doing nearly enough to stop paramilitary violence against union members.
The pair competing for the opportunity to make us sigh with relief as George W Bush becomes no more than a distant if traumatic memory, disagree strongly on the free trade issue, and their differing opinions were on show in the third presidential debate, even if they were overshadowed by the ridiculous appeals to Joe the plumber. Showing the kind of principle that his become his trademark in this campaign, McCain, who is strongly in favour, stated that "Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer”, something many a labourer in Colombia would agree with, if for different reasons. Obama on the other hand had the honesty to point out that labour leaders were targetted for assasssination and for this opposed the agreement. That’s great. In the run up to the House of Representatives vote on the deal in April Obama said that he didn’t want to reward the behaviour of the Uribe administration with this deal.
It is nice when the supposedly more down to earth, centre left party doesn’t just disagree with the GOP on something, but also takes practical action to effect change. It is also a ray of hope that under Obama some things at least will be better. In the polls he is maintaining a strong lead over McCain and will be greeted as a saviour by many. But making principled declarations out of power is one thing, sticking to them while staring out of the Whitehouse is another. Power does things to people and forces them to jump through hoops that maybe they wouldn’t ordinarilly want to. Outside of power Al Gore has become a noted environmentalist and refused to share a stage with Uribe last year due to his involvement with the paramilitary killers. But in the 1990s he was content to stand at Bill Clinton’s side as VP at a time when horrific massacres like the military-assisted killing of 49 in Mapiripán in 1997 were taking place. As mentioned earlier, military aid increased under Clinton, who signed a waiver on a set of human rights provisions for a $1.3 billion aid deal in 2000 (and incidentally backs this free trade agreement, which even his Republican-lite wife is against). According to the Washington Times that same year the future Nobel prize-winning bleeding heart tree hugger Gore ignored the pleas of environmentalists uncorrupted by power who didn’t want to see Occidental Petroleum, a company in which his family has considerable stock, drill for oil under a forest on sacred Indian land in Colombia. The Clinton administration sent aid to protect the company’s security interests in Colombia, while Gore gave short shrift to other Democrats who urged him to meet the indigenous people whose lives his company’s project would have ruined. Out of power Jimmy Carter has been a comendable human rights advocate, in office he chummed up to Suharto of Indonesia and was with the last of Nicaragua’s ugly Somoza dynasty until almost the very end. A list of campaign promises dropped once the candidates of elections across the world would go on and on. High hopes the left had for Clinton, Blair and Brown are a sore point. Cynics like myself need to see the likes of Obama keep their word on the few decent policies on offer to retain a glimmer of hope in mainstream politics. And though I wont be able to convince him, I know someone that surely can.
PS
As Colombia’s leading ally the USA has to take the lead in diplomatic pressure for reform, but that does not excuse the pathetic stance of the British government or that shower at the European Union. On 3 October, in response to a petition organised by the UK based network Justice for Colombia calling for a suspension of all military aid to Uribe’s government until human rights abuses were dealt with, Downing Street stated that it had no intention of doing so and that “we are encouraged by Colombia’s efforts to root out this problem.” And the EU provides Colombia with trade preferences that are exclusive for countries with respect for worker’s rights. Countries like Colombia, Israel and Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to be sitting pretty, sheltered from criticism.
Friday, October 17, 2008
US Elections: Who To Vote?
The US elections is probably the most internationally watched political struggle to the top of office in one of the most influentially political and cultural countries in the world; land of the free and home of the brave. Also home to the world's largest military industrial complex, spending more than all the military budgets of the United Nation members put together.
The international audience can be any number of Americans or non-Americans, or even un-Americans (depending on whether bin Laden gets cable in his cave), watching from any number of countries in their own living rooms, even without the excitment of being able to text in your vote to a 0900 number at 50p per text, such as that on Big Brother. And why not? You have the long months leading up to the final winner, like in BB. You have the scandals and gossip smeared all over the contestants, like in BB. You have the ex-beauty pageant celebrity with pregnant 17-year old daughter. Like in BB. What's not to like? But when you come to ponder who your favourite presidential candidate is for this fall's elections, it seems like it couldn't be any more of a no-brainer. If you're an not in the US.
Unlike the Americans who are plighted in their own domestic issues, many facing job losses in the tumbling economy, we immerse ourselves only with global issues such as global warming, trade, foreign policies, diplomacy and predominantly the war in Iraq. It seems then that Barak Obama becomes an obvious choice, even if only compared to Senator McCain. The Germans gathered in adoration for Obama's speech in Berlin. Scoring useless points with people who can't even vote for him! Silly man, you may say. So attention-seeking you may say. Like... like Britney or Paris Hilton you might say.
My thoughts exactly. McCain's campaign took this great opportunity to attack, criticising him for a useless tour abroad and waste of resources that could otherwise have been spent connecting with the Americans at home. This I hope is wrong.
Because Berlin this year, has no longer just been remembered for it's history of dictatorship when a man before Obama took to the podium before crowds of German people. By taking his campaign abroad, Obama has demonstrated his incredible likeability on the continent, and perhaps hints that his leadership will return America to the pre-Bush administration era. I hope that it is a sign of things to come. That America will restore her respect from citizens of the world, and return faith to her people, who long ago felt their flag was hijacked. There is no promise of perfection. But there is promise it will not be like the last 8 years.
So then, it is almost unheard of for non-Americans rooting for McCain unless you have some political agenda or diplomatic relation that contractually obliges your nose into Bush's colonic cavity *cough*Tony Blair. In the last 8 years, I can't think of anybody outside of politics or isn't a neo-fascist journalist who has a strong support for Bush, to the point where not liking Bush has become a fashion statement both on American soil and abroad. So if no one liked Bush then, why like the next Republican guy who voted for Bush's policies 100% this year and 90% in 2007 with a strong record of supporting the war in Iraq?
"Is Palin qualified for office" still seems to be the question on everyone's minds. Truth be told, I’m a little disappointed at the playground negative tactics both sides have been using. But I was particularly appalled at some of the slurs and aggression from some of McCain’s audience, although he’s made effort to tame this. Leech correctly points out however, that responding to a woman who calls Obama an "Arab" by saying "he's not an Arab, he's a decent family guy" implies you can only be one or the other. And I feel so racist for not having seen that implication coming. I am a strong believer the results of this election has potential to affect the course of global events greatly. McCain and Palin have earned respect and a reputation from Democrats for going against various core Republican issues. Palin who is anti-abortion even when an underaged girl is raped, did not push a bill to make it illegal in Alaska because she believed it infringed the constitution and/or rights of women, and McCain with his already well-established maverick status. Nonetheless, I can’t come to terms with the possibility of a man who has a track record in recent years, supported most of Bush’s policies including his vigorous support for the war. His comments on Russia’s invasion of Georgia and President Putin at a recent town hall meeting I believe very much shows that his presidency will bring no change to the status quo of America’s reputation around the world; one of aggression and not diplomacy. Palin on the other hand likes to describe herself as a pitbull with lipstick, a hockey mom from a small conservative fundamentally religious right-wing town. She will no doubt play a big part in how America deals with the mess in the Middle East in the coming decade if elected. Imagine that this couple will be the ones sat face to face with leaders of other superpowers like Russia to discuss delicate issues such as Georgia, then the possibility of invading Iran, and inevitably the ties between US and islamic countries. Then they sing the theme to Team America, high five each other and shout together "fuck yeah!" before putting on lipstick and going to a hockey game.
So Obama’s not got the most impressively filling political resume and some say he’s glamorised too much. But I’d rather put my money on the guy who may offer change, than the guy whom I already know won’t.
The international audience can be any number of Americans or non-Americans, or even un-Americans (depending on whether bin Laden gets cable in his cave), watching from any number of countries in their own living rooms, even without the excitment of being able to text in your vote to a 0900 number at 50p per text, such as that on Big Brother. And why not? You have the long months leading up to the final winner, like in BB. You have the scandals and gossip smeared all over the contestants, like in BB. You have the ex-beauty pageant celebrity with pregnant 17-year old daughter. Like in BB. What's not to like? But when you come to ponder who your favourite presidential candidate is for this fall's elections, it seems like it couldn't be any more of a no-brainer. If you're an not in the US.
Unlike the Americans who are plighted in their own domestic issues, many facing job losses in the tumbling economy, we immerse ourselves only with global issues such as global warming, trade, foreign policies, diplomacy and predominantly the war in Iraq. It seems then that Barak Obama becomes an obvious choice, even if only compared to Senator McCain. The Germans gathered in adoration for Obama's speech in Berlin. Scoring useless points with people who can't even vote for him! Silly man, you may say. So attention-seeking you may say. Like... like Britney or Paris Hilton you might say.
My thoughts exactly. McCain's campaign took this great opportunity to attack, criticising him for a useless tour abroad and waste of resources that could otherwise have been spent connecting with the Americans at home. This I hope is wrong.
Because Berlin this year, has no longer just been remembered for it's history of dictatorship when a man before Obama took to the podium before crowds of German people. By taking his campaign abroad, Obama has demonstrated his incredible likeability on the continent, and perhaps hints that his leadership will return America to the pre-Bush administration era. I hope that it is a sign of things to come. That America will restore her respect from citizens of the world, and return faith to her people, who long ago felt their flag was hijacked. There is no promise of perfection. But there is promise it will not be like the last 8 years.
So then, it is almost unheard of for non-Americans rooting for McCain unless you have some political agenda or diplomatic relation that contractually obliges your nose into Bush's colonic cavity *cough*Tony Blair. In the last 8 years, I can't think of anybody outside of politics or isn't a neo-fascist journalist who has a strong support for Bush, to the point where not liking Bush has become a fashion statement both on American soil and abroad. So if no one liked Bush then, why like the next Republican guy who voted for Bush's policies 100% this year and 90% in 2007 with a strong record of supporting the war in Iraq?
"Is Palin qualified for office" still seems to be the question on everyone's minds. Truth be told, I’m a little disappointed at the playground negative tactics both sides have been using. But I was particularly appalled at some of the slurs and aggression from some of McCain’s audience, although he’s made effort to tame this. Leech correctly points out however, that responding to a woman who calls Obama an "Arab" by saying "he's not an Arab, he's a decent family guy" implies you can only be one or the other. And I feel so racist for not having seen that implication coming. I am a strong believer the results of this election has potential to affect the course of global events greatly. McCain and Palin have earned respect and a reputation from Democrats for going against various core Republican issues. Palin who is anti-abortion even when an underaged girl is raped, did not push a bill to make it illegal in Alaska because she believed it infringed the constitution and/or rights of women, and McCain with his already well-established maverick status. Nonetheless, I can’t come to terms with the possibility of a man who has a track record in recent years, supported most of Bush’s policies including his vigorous support for the war. His comments on Russia’s invasion of Georgia and President Putin at a recent town hall meeting I believe very much shows that his presidency will bring no change to the status quo of America’s reputation around the world; one of aggression and not diplomacy. Palin on the other hand likes to describe herself as a pitbull with lipstick, a hockey mom from a small conservative fundamentally religious right-wing town. She will no doubt play a big part in how America deals with the mess in the Middle East in the coming decade if elected. Imagine that this couple will be the ones sat face to face with leaders of other superpowers like Russia to discuss delicate issues such as Georgia, then the possibility of invading Iran, and inevitably the ties between US and islamic countries. Then they sing the theme to Team America, high five each other and shout together "fuck yeah!" before putting on lipstick and going to a hockey game.
So Obama’s not got the most impressively filling political resume and some say he’s glamorised too much. But I’d rather put my money on the guy who may offer change, than the guy whom I already know won’t.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
.jpg)
"In England those people like to vote for the losing party so that they can spend the next five years complaining about the party they didn't vote for down the pub.
Same idiots, different outlook."