Tuesday, September 16
In other news - go say hi to Alice Bachini, who has left her previous underscored, and therefore unreadable ( to me, anyway ) home. And hello again to Stephen Pollard, who is currently being traduced by the Guardian. He's had a site-redesign. It all looks a bit too much like a frog just vomited over my computer, but as a content-over-style man, I'm sure we'll all get used to it.
|
|
I supposed it was too much to expect. The Swedes voted Nej to the single currency, and the Guardian is bending over backwards to be nice about them. First, there's Caroline Lucas, who is an MEP for the Greens:
"The rejection of the euro by Swedish voters should give both sides of the debate in Britain pause for thought. The Swedish no camp won not on the basis of nationalist or conservative arguments, but a compelling case on the economics and politics of the decision - while the yes campaign lost in spite of the support of big business, the mainstream political parties and all major media outlets. Give voters the respect of a mature political debate, it seems, and they will turn out and make their minds up for themselves".
How very unnationalistic and unconservative. How very mature.
"If the EU is to stay relevant to everyday lives, and engage citizens - as it must to retain legitimacy - it needs to promote and protect democracy, sustainability, equity and jobs. Monetary union poses a lethal threat to all these objectives.
That's why the Swedes voted no on Sunday, after a referendum campaign based not on euroscepticism and xenophobia but sustainability and accountability - and that's why progressive internationalists, greens and a growing number of trade unions and left-thinkers are opposed to the euro here in the UK".
Well that's an interesting redefinition of euroscepticism, anyway. Then there's the leader column, which displays a remarkable sang froid:
"If traditional political stereotypes mean anything, Sweden ought to have been enthusiastic about the euro. Swedes, after all, have few of the cultural hang-ups about Europe that characterise Britain. Sweden is large, important and confident, an agenda-setting country. It is an outgoing trading nation, with a military tradition that exists alongside an advanced, even unmatched, sense of internationalism. As a generally left-of-centre country, and the embodiment of the welfare state that distinguishes the "European" as distinct from the "American" capitalist model, Sweden might have been expected to embrace the single currency with some optimism".
Large? With a population of nine million in contrast to our 58? And as for its military tradition, I assume we're going back in time a bit, maybe to the Vikings. In which case, what about Nelson? And as for agenda-setting... what and where? Bjorn Borg? Roxette? Or are we talking Toynbees here, and the fabled nil unemployment figures? Still, let's take a look at the bigger picture:
"Sweden's rejection of the euro poses a wider challenge. It comes as California stands on the threshold of unseating its leftwing governor by plebiscite, and as Italians collect signatures to challenge the immunities of their rightwing prime minister. All three events raise a question about the practice of modern politics and of representative democracy. It is easy and sometimes right to blame politicians for a nation's ills, but it can also be unjust and destructive. Direct democracy may seem like the answer to such dissatisfactions, but what is it worth if it eventually makes modern societies ungovernable?"
Too right. Let's get rid of all that horrid democracy. It's all a bit too complicated for those large, important, confident, and agenda-setting Swedes.
And finally... well it had to be Hugo. Not even this crusty commentator could take it upon himself to take on the Abba-lovers. Instead it's another country he's decided to pour his scorn over:
"we have ceased to be a sovereign nation. There's been a tremendous amount of talk about sovereignty in recent years. It became, and remains, the keynote issue at the heart of our European debate. Something to do with sovereignty was clearly operative in the Swedes' decisive rejection of the euro: more, many observers suspect, than the minutiae of economic policy - important, in the Swedish case, though those were. What it means to be an independent nation is a question that touches the wellsprings of a people's being. Yet it is one that our leader, as regards this war, has simply disguised from his people, egged on by sufficient numbers of North American papers and journalists who seem to be wholly delighted at the prospect of surrendering it".
Yup, it's the UK. What a Little Englander he is.
|
"The rejection of the euro by Swedish voters should give both sides of the debate in Britain pause for thought. The Swedish no camp won not on the basis of nationalist or conservative arguments, but a compelling case on the economics and politics of the decision - while the yes campaign lost in spite of the support of big business, the mainstream political parties and all major media outlets. Give voters the respect of a mature political debate, it seems, and they will turn out and make their minds up for themselves".
How very unnationalistic and unconservative. How very mature.
"If the EU is to stay relevant to everyday lives, and engage citizens - as it must to retain legitimacy - it needs to promote and protect democracy, sustainability, equity and jobs. Monetary union poses a lethal threat to all these objectives.
That's why the Swedes voted no on Sunday, after a referendum campaign based not on euroscepticism and xenophobia but sustainability and accountability - and that's why progressive internationalists, greens and a growing number of trade unions and left-thinkers are opposed to the euro here in the UK".
Well that's an interesting redefinition of euroscepticism, anyway. Then there's the leader column, which displays a remarkable sang froid:
"If traditional political stereotypes mean anything, Sweden ought to have been enthusiastic about the euro. Swedes, after all, have few of the cultural hang-ups about Europe that characterise Britain. Sweden is large, important and confident, an agenda-setting country. It is an outgoing trading nation, with a military tradition that exists alongside an advanced, even unmatched, sense of internationalism. As a generally left-of-centre country, and the embodiment of the welfare state that distinguishes the "European" as distinct from the "American" capitalist model, Sweden might have been expected to embrace the single currency with some optimism".
Large? With a population of nine million in contrast to our 58? And as for its military tradition, I assume we're going back in time a bit, maybe to the Vikings. In which case, what about Nelson? And as for agenda-setting... what and where? Bjorn Borg? Roxette? Or are we talking Toynbees here, and the fabled nil unemployment figures? Still, let's take a look at the bigger picture:
"Sweden's rejection of the euro poses a wider challenge. It comes as California stands on the threshold of unseating its leftwing governor by plebiscite, and as Italians collect signatures to challenge the immunities of their rightwing prime minister. All three events raise a question about the practice of modern politics and of representative democracy. It is easy and sometimes right to blame politicians for a nation's ills, but it can also be unjust and destructive. Direct democracy may seem like the answer to such dissatisfactions, but what is it worth if it eventually makes modern societies ungovernable?"
Too right. Let's get rid of all that horrid democracy. It's all a bit too complicated for those large, important, confident, and agenda-setting Swedes.
And finally... well it had to be Hugo. Not even this crusty commentator could take it upon himself to take on the Abba-lovers. Instead it's another country he's decided to pour his scorn over:
"we have ceased to be a sovereign nation. There's been a tremendous amount of talk about sovereignty in recent years. It became, and remains, the keynote issue at the heart of our European debate. Something to do with sovereignty was clearly operative in the Swedes' decisive rejection of the euro: more, many observers suspect, than the minutiae of economic policy - important, in the Swedish case, though those were. What it means to be an independent nation is a question that touches the wellsprings of a people's being. Yet it is one that our leader, as regards this war, has simply disguised from his people, egged on by sufficient numbers of North American papers and journalists who seem to be wholly delighted at the prospect of surrendering it".
Yup, it's the UK. What a Little Englander he is.
|
Monday, September 15
The Telegraph takes a shot at the BBC, and the Guardian is worried:
"This constant undermining of the BBC is a dangerous game. No institution can withstand such remorselessly hostile coverage indefinitely. One day the enemies of the licence fee may even get their way".
I suppose there are some cynics who think institutions can only be undermined by getting things wrong. The Guardian, thankfully, is not in their number.
|
"This constant undermining of the BBC is a dangerous game. No institution can withstand such remorselessly hostile coverage indefinitely. One day the enemies of the licence fee may even get their way".
I suppose there are some cynics who think institutions can only be undermined by getting things wrong. The Guardian, thankfully, is not in their number.
|
"New Labour has proved itself to be a necessary but increasingly insufficient response to the challenges facing Britain".
Or so say Tom Bentley and Sue Goss.
"The roots of drift lie in the deep pessimism that underpinned the original New Labour project".
Okay, then. Let's be optimistic. What's to do?
"First, equality must return to centre stage. Inequality is still rising, and undermines every attempt at wider social reform. A just society must be the centrepiece of the government's appeal. And if we are to realise the richness of human potential, government policy must connect pluralism and egalitarianism".
Yeah, pluralism. Second?
"second, we must reclaim the public sphere, championing public institutions and the values they embody. Public services cannot be reduced to competitive markets; and they must be decentralised if their innovation and dynamism is to be released. Local government must be re-empowered, making it once again the focus of democracy and public accountability".
I'm yawning, mate.
"Third, we have to revitalise the democratic process. We seek to build a 21st-century progressive society, yet our political institutions limp on with the apparatus of the late Victorian period. Parties, parliament, Whitehall, voting systems - all need radical makeover if the public are to be re-engaged. But so too does the culture of citizenship. We need to demand the public's responsibility for and involvement in the institutions we live and work in".
Equality, empowerment, and revitalisation. How original.
"Fourth, the central failure of nerve for New Labour has been a refusal to accept that modern consumer capitalism diminishes the prospects for equality, pluralism and democracy, and crowds out the public sphere. The market gives us a vast array of choices of things we can buy. But it does not give us - and may limit - the choice of those things we must buy together".
Too much capitalism. Not enough togetherness.
"Finally, Labour needs a vision of the good society to motivate and mobilise its members and supporters...".
You really don't want to believe the rest of that paragraph. In my humble opinion, New Labour won't die of disaffection, corruption, lies, and economic failure. It will simply die of boredom. Bentley and Goss, by churning out such vapid nonsense, will only quicken things along. More power to their elbow.
|
Or so say Tom Bentley and Sue Goss.
"The roots of drift lie in the deep pessimism that underpinned the original New Labour project".
Okay, then. Let's be optimistic. What's to do?
"First, equality must return to centre stage. Inequality is still rising, and undermines every attempt at wider social reform. A just society must be the centrepiece of the government's appeal. And if we are to realise the richness of human potential, government policy must connect pluralism and egalitarianism".
Yeah, pluralism. Second?
"second, we must reclaim the public sphere, championing public institutions and the values they embody. Public services cannot be reduced to competitive markets; and they must be decentralised if their innovation and dynamism is to be released. Local government must be re-empowered, making it once again the focus of democracy and public accountability".
I'm yawning, mate.
"Third, we have to revitalise the democratic process. We seek to build a 21st-century progressive society, yet our political institutions limp on with the apparatus of the late Victorian period. Parties, parliament, Whitehall, voting systems - all need radical makeover if the public are to be re-engaged. But so too does the culture of citizenship. We need to demand the public's responsibility for and involvement in the institutions we live and work in".
Equality, empowerment, and revitalisation. How original.
"Fourth, the central failure of nerve for New Labour has been a refusal to accept that modern consumer capitalism diminishes the prospects for equality, pluralism and democracy, and crowds out the public sphere. The market gives us a vast array of choices of things we can buy. But it does not give us - and may limit - the choice of those things we must buy together".
Too much capitalism. Not enough togetherness.
"Finally, Labour needs a vision of the good society to motivate and mobilise its members and supporters...".
You really don't want to believe the rest of that paragraph. In my humble opinion, New Labour won't die of disaffection, corruption, lies, and economic failure. It will simply die of boredom. Bentley and Goss, by churning out such vapid nonsense, will only quicken things along. More power to their elbow.
|
"Everyone loves Dizzee Rascal",
says Martin Clark, in the Guardian, which is news to those of us who had never actually heard of Mr. Rascal. So who is he? Well, Mr. Clark is the "Mixmag UK garage correspondent and Deuce news editor". Which means, I imagine, that Mr. Rascal comes from the streets, and has something to do with trip-hop junglist urban rhythms. And the like. Further perusal of the article confirms the suspicion. Moreover, he doesn't just come from any old streets, No, he comes from ones not so very far from where I write: Bow, East London. He's also one with a dangerous message:
"Listen to the lyrics and ask yourself this: how can a country with a welfare state produce an artist this angry? Someone pushed this far?"
Good golly. People brought up on welfare are angry? Whatever next?
"I'm a problem for Anthony Blair," rhymes Dizzee on the album. He certainly should be.
The album depicts Dizzee's life in Bow, east London. Uncompromising, raging, it is not easy listening - but every MP in Westminster should be forced to hear it".
I wonder if this is fair. I mean, I bow down to nobody in my dislike and annoyance of every MP. But haven't they suffered enough? Wouldn't the Brandenburg concertoes be a bit more, well, life-affirming?
"The street language of Dizzee and his peers evolves daily: "coch" means to move undetected; you don't say "the street" but "road"; a "sket" is a sexually derogatory term for a girl; "shotters" and "blotters" are drug dealers; a "screwface" is the scowl etched on inner-city faces. And we'll leave it to the Radio 1 playlist team to explain what a "bowcat" is. Even a traditional word like "real" gets reinvented. When things are getting "real", life is harsh or violent.
Perhaps, therefore, it's understandable that politicians and the powerful can't translate this generation's message. (The Today programme stumbled at the first hurdle, calling him "Rapper Rascal".) But they have a responsibility to learn the language, and fast".
Do they? Why? If they want to be understood, why do we have to have Mr. Clark providing the translations?
"There is precious little dialog between the establishment and the street. Locked into US hip-hop, Jamaican ragga and UK garage culture, Dizzee and his peers couldn't be more isolated from Westminster. But Boy In Da Corner is a loud message from Bow to Blair".
If we could only understand it.
"But if Tony Blair doesn't listen to this message, and act on what he hears, perhaps even this glimmer of hope will be extinguished".
Poor old Tony. Osama to the left of him, Saddam to the right, and Dizzee Rascal coming straight at him down the middle. Maybe it's time to retire.
|
says Martin Clark, in the Guardian, which is news to those of us who had never actually heard of Mr. Rascal. So who is he? Well, Mr. Clark is the "Mixmag UK garage correspondent and Deuce news editor". Which means, I imagine, that Mr. Rascal comes from the streets, and has something to do with trip-hop junglist urban rhythms. And the like. Further perusal of the article confirms the suspicion. Moreover, he doesn't just come from any old streets, No, he comes from ones not so very far from where I write: Bow, East London. He's also one with a dangerous message:
"Listen to the lyrics and ask yourself this: how can a country with a welfare state produce an artist this angry? Someone pushed this far?"
Good golly. People brought up on welfare are angry? Whatever next?
"I'm a problem for Anthony Blair," rhymes Dizzee on the album. He certainly should be.
The album depicts Dizzee's life in Bow, east London. Uncompromising, raging, it is not easy listening - but every MP in Westminster should be forced to hear it".
I wonder if this is fair. I mean, I bow down to nobody in my dislike and annoyance of every MP. But haven't they suffered enough? Wouldn't the Brandenburg concertoes be a bit more, well, life-affirming?
"The street language of Dizzee and his peers evolves daily: "coch" means to move undetected; you don't say "the street" but "road"; a "sket" is a sexually derogatory term for a girl; "shotters" and "blotters" are drug dealers; a "screwface" is the scowl etched on inner-city faces. And we'll leave it to the Radio 1 playlist team to explain what a "bowcat" is. Even a traditional word like "real" gets reinvented. When things are getting "real", life is harsh or violent.
Perhaps, therefore, it's understandable that politicians and the powerful can't translate this generation's message. (The Today programme stumbled at the first hurdle, calling him "Rapper Rascal".) But they have a responsibility to learn the language, and fast".
Do they? Why? If they want to be understood, why do we have to have Mr. Clark providing the translations?
"There is precious little dialog between the establishment and the street. Locked into US hip-hop, Jamaican ragga and UK garage culture, Dizzee and his peers couldn't be more isolated from Westminster. But Boy In Da Corner is a loud message from Bow to Blair".
If we could only understand it.
"But if Tony Blair doesn't listen to this message, and act on what he hears, perhaps even this glimmer of hope will be extinguished".
Poor old Tony. Osama to the left of him, Saddam to the right, and Dizzee Rascal coming straight at him down the middle. Maybe it's time to retire.
|
Friday, September 12
Polly disses the Tories. Look, Poll, we can all quote people out of context to make them look ridiculous. But when you're living out on the streets, pushing a trolley with all your worldly belongings, and railing against the evils of Duncan Smithism and the Daily Mail, and with a can of Fosters only for company, then you'll be sorry. Capitulate to capitalism, baby! You know it makes sense.
|
|
"Any sensible person can see that cricket would be more enjoyable to watch, and perhaps play, if the number of stumps were increased to four, if the pitch were lengthened and no batsman would be out leg before wicket if he played a stroke".
Thus spake Simon Jenkins, in self-satirical mode. His computer ought to have a button that kills everything he has written in the previous hour, every time he uses the word 'sensible'. It would make life easier for everyone.
|
Thus spake Simon Jenkins, in self-satirical mode. His computer ought to have a button that kills everything he has written in the previous hour, every time he uses the word 'sensible'. It would make life easier for everyone.
|
Thursday, September 11
"It happened; it was truly awful. But life must go on".
Or so says the Guardian, reminiscing about events two years ago. Indeed it must. But not like this, surely? Likewise the Indy:
"The "war on terror" has produced only more war and more terror".
I wonder what they'd have said two years into WW2. These liberals, they always want it now, don't they? For lighter relief, check out this guy. The credibility of this wretched newspaper really does decline with each passing minute. David Carr got there first, and I don't think I can do better. He does get up early in the morning, doesn't he? I guess it's all that training he has to do.
|
Or so says the Guardian, reminiscing about events two years ago. Indeed it must. But not like this, surely? Likewise the Indy:
"The "war on terror" has produced only more war and more terror".
I wonder what they'd have said two years into WW2. These liberals, they always want it now, don't they? For lighter relief, check out this guy. The credibility of this wretched newspaper really does decline with each passing minute. David Carr got there first, and I don't think I can do better. He does get up early in the morning, doesn't he? I guess it's all that training he has to do.
|
Wednesday, September 10
Make your mind up, woman! One day he's washed out, the next he's on top of the world. Today, says our Polly, he's the master:
"He puts on a good show. No one might guess the shadows of Iraq could yet be his nemesis. Resolutely returning to domestics, the prime minister, launching the children's green paper at a London comprehensive, listened with shining eyes as the dynamo head teacher listed all her school's recent improvements. Not just GCSEs up 10%, but breakfast and after-school clubs with tea, plus TV, computers, homework help, drama, music and sport. Parents have a one-stop shop for benefits, plus classes in literacy and IT. This model "extended school" is exactly what the children's green paper is all about - with social services, health and counselling offering holistic, wrap-around care in one place".
Aren't the kiddies lucky? To have a PM that cares so much. And is so holistic about it too.
"So the Prime Minister came away beaming, as well he might".
He always beams, Poll. It's something to do with those shining eyes of his.
"One thing he certainly does know: he and his government are not getting political value for the money spent. Not, as the Tories claim, because taxpayers' money is "wasted", but because most taxpayers have no idea where it is going or what good it is doing, however often he tells them".
You at the back - listen! And be grateful.
"A quarter of a million more people now work in the public services, jobs multiplying to fill the new programmes. Do people realise how the public sector has flourished under Labour?"
Too right we do.
"Results in just about everything are improving and the poor see most of the improvement - but the public does not recognise social justice as Labour's mission. It means good policies like this children's paper are lost as one-day wonders, not part of a coherent story".
And yet, in spite of everything, it's all gone wrong.
"Hard facts revealed at last weekend's conference showed in chart after graph that upward mobility has stopped and has become near-impossible in a society itself growing ever more unequal. It is no longer plausible to pretend inequality doesn't matter so long as the poor are pulled upwards: the only societies with upward mobility are those that are already the most fair - Finland and Sweden".
You know, I would have thought that if the poor are being pulled upwards then that is, by definition, upward mobility, but anyway... Well she can jabber away all she likes about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, and even fairness of outcome, but so bleeding what? The more interesting fact to consider is that there's a referendum in Sweden this weekend on the Euro. I really hope they vote no. Not just for the obvious reasons. But just to read next week's Polly Toynbee column on how her beloved Swedes have let her down. Don't they know happiness when it's just around the corner? Must be the Daily Mail's fault.
|
"He puts on a good show. No one might guess the shadows of Iraq could yet be his nemesis. Resolutely returning to domestics, the prime minister, launching the children's green paper at a London comprehensive, listened with shining eyes as the dynamo head teacher listed all her school's recent improvements. Not just GCSEs up 10%, but breakfast and after-school clubs with tea, plus TV, computers, homework help, drama, music and sport. Parents have a one-stop shop for benefits, plus classes in literacy and IT. This model "extended school" is exactly what the children's green paper is all about - with social services, health and counselling offering holistic, wrap-around care in one place".
Aren't the kiddies lucky? To have a PM that cares so much. And is so holistic about it too.
"So the Prime Minister came away beaming, as well he might".
He always beams, Poll. It's something to do with those shining eyes of his.
"One thing he certainly does know: he and his government are not getting political value for the money spent. Not, as the Tories claim, because taxpayers' money is "wasted", but because most taxpayers have no idea where it is going or what good it is doing, however often he tells them".
You at the back - listen! And be grateful.
"A quarter of a million more people now work in the public services, jobs multiplying to fill the new programmes. Do people realise how the public sector has flourished under Labour?"
Too right we do.
"Results in just about everything are improving and the poor see most of the improvement - but the public does not recognise social justice as Labour's mission. It means good policies like this children's paper are lost as one-day wonders, not part of a coherent story".
And yet, in spite of everything, it's all gone wrong.
"Hard facts revealed at last weekend's conference showed in chart after graph that upward mobility has stopped and has become near-impossible in a society itself growing ever more unequal. It is no longer plausible to pretend inequality doesn't matter so long as the poor are pulled upwards: the only societies with upward mobility are those that are already the most fair - Finland and Sweden".
You know, I would have thought that if the poor are being pulled upwards then that is, by definition, upward mobility, but anyway... Well she can jabber away all she likes about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, and even fairness of outcome, but so bleeding what? The more interesting fact to consider is that there's a referendum in Sweden this weekend on the Euro. I really hope they vote no. Not just for the obvious reasons. But just to read next week's Polly Toynbee column on how her beloved Swedes have let her down. Don't they know happiness when it's just around the corner? Must be the Daily Mail's fault.
|
Tuesday, September 9
Never mind the Pollocks, here's Freddie Flintoff!
Yesterday was a good day for the forces of conservatism. England slaughtered South Africa, Sussex crept one step closer to their first ever county championship, and my feelings about Denis "the Menace" MacShane have been granted an even bigger readership. Nothing, not even Hugo Young claiming that "Blair will fight the next election and, in all probability, win it against the least equipped, most shapeless, most incompetent opposition anyone can remember" can spoil it. We'll see, Hugo my old china, we'll see.
UPDATE: The link to the Times article has expired, so here it is:
"Why do more people go to see meretricious American films than exciting European ones? Answer: because they are better. No, not according to our Minister for Europe.
Today is the launch of the New Europe Film Season, one of those publicly funded shindigs that no one goes to. Denis MacShane has decided to co-opt it for his own dubious agenda. Instead of simply saying how worthy European cinema is, he has decided to have a go at those dreadful Yankees.
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," MacShane told a newspaper.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great film making."
I suppose it is par for the course for some Eurogoon to use any excuse to bash the United States and indulge in crowd-pleasing rhetoric aimed at snooty, oversubsidised European intellectuals. But if Mr MacShane means any of this, and wants to turn this posturing into policy, we should all be petrified. He says he wants multiplexes to stop showing Hollywood blockbusters and "be more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
Of course, I stand second to no one in my admiration for Lithuanian cinema (though, for some unaccountable reason, I couldn't actually name any of its hits), but the idea that cinemas should remain empty so that otherwise unemployable European film-makers are kept in beer and sandwiches is one that barely deserves taking seriously.
Owners of multiplexes do not fill their cinemas with American blockbusters because they are all part of a great neo-conservative plot to take over the world. They do it because they are popular. To take issue with this is take issue not with the owners of multiplexes, but with the public.
America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. If Estonian cinema were better, it would put more bums on seats. You got a problem, buddy?
And this is really what Mr MacShane is about, when he tells us, in that revealing phrase, that American culture is "reducing everything to consumption". Which is liberal-speak for "giving the public what it wants". A guiding principle for the American film- maker but a positively subversive concept for those wedded to the European ideal that the public are basically morons.
That's not to say that all European films are terrible. I, like many men of my age, have whiled away many an hour at some arthouse, pretending to be impressed by all the sensitive camerawork, understated nuances and delicate sensibilities, while secretly longing for any opportunity to gawp at a scantily clad Nathalie Baye or Catherine Deneuve.
But the sad fact is that if all the film cameras in Europe simultaneously combusted and no more films were made here for the next ten years, a bunch of paper-pushers at the European film councils would notice, but not those queueing for tickets on a Saturday night.
Why? Not because European film-makers are less talented than their American counterparts, but largely because they are chasing grants from the Euro elites who are more interested in providing films that are good for you, rather than films that are good.
Given the choice between Arnie killing lots of bad people, and a bunch of menopausal women going naked and talking about buns, I know which I'd prefer".
|
Yesterday was a good day for the forces of conservatism. England slaughtered South Africa, Sussex crept one step closer to their first ever county championship, and my feelings about Denis "the Menace" MacShane have been granted an even bigger readership. Nothing, not even Hugo Young claiming that "Blair will fight the next election and, in all probability, win it against the least equipped, most shapeless, most incompetent opposition anyone can remember" can spoil it. We'll see, Hugo my old china, we'll see.
UPDATE: The link to the Times article has expired, so here it is:
"Why do more people go to see meretricious American films than exciting European ones? Answer: because they are better. No, not according to our Minister for Europe.
Today is the launch of the New Europe Film Season, one of those publicly funded shindigs that no one goes to. Denis MacShane has decided to co-opt it for his own dubious agenda. Instead of simply saying how worthy European cinema is, he has decided to have a go at those dreadful Yankees.
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," MacShane told a newspaper.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great film making."
I suppose it is par for the course for some Eurogoon to use any excuse to bash the United States and indulge in crowd-pleasing rhetoric aimed at snooty, oversubsidised European intellectuals. But if Mr MacShane means any of this, and wants to turn this posturing into policy, we should all be petrified. He says he wants multiplexes to stop showing Hollywood blockbusters and "be more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
Of course, I stand second to no one in my admiration for Lithuanian cinema (though, for some unaccountable reason, I couldn't actually name any of its hits), but the idea that cinemas should remain empty so that otherwise unemployable European film-makers are kept in beer and sandwiches is one that barely deserves taking seriously.
Owners of multiplexes do not fill their cinemas with American blockbusters because they are all part of a great neo-conservative plot to take over the world. They do it because they are popular. To take issue with this is take issue not with the owners of multiplexes, but with the public.
America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. If Estonian cinema were better, it would put more bums on seats. You got a problem, buddy?
And this is really what Mr MacShane is about, when he tells us, in that revealing phrase, that American culture is "reducing everything to consumption". Which is liberal-speak for "giving the public what it wants". A guiding principle for the American film- maker but a positively subversive concept for those wedded to the European ideal that the public are basically morons.
That's not to say that all European films are terrible. I, like many men of my age, have whiled away many an hour at some arthouse, pretending to be impressed by all the sensitive camerawork, understated nuances and delicate sensibilities, while secretly longing for any opportunity to gawp at a scantily clad Nathalie Baye or Catherine Deneuve.
But the sad fact is that if all the film cameras in Europe simultaneously combusted and no more films were made here for the next ten years, a bunch of paper-pushers at the European film councils would notice, but not those queueing for tickets on a Saturday night.
Why? Not because European film-makers are less talented than their American counterparts, but largely because they are chasing grants from the Euro elites who are more interested in providing films that are good for you, rather than films that are good.
Given the choice between Arnie killing lots of bad people, and a bunch of menopausal women going naked and talking about buns, I know which I'd prefer".
|
Monday, September 8
And for those wanting yet more conservative contemplation, Peter Cuthbertson is temporarily living here, while his old pad gets redecorated.
|
|
"My sense is American movies are quite tired now," reveals Dennis MacShane, our Minister for Europe, who has clearly been infected with the Cherry Potter virus.
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great filmmaking.
'I'm just astonished how thin easy-come, easy-go American and Hollywood movies are now - maybe when Arnold Schwarzenegger goes into politics that will release some space for serious new filmmaking".
And when Dennis leaves politics perhaps there might be a bit of a gap for some serious new political thinking. So what, anyway, does the great sage think our multiplexes should do, then?
"Just be a bit more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
I don't think Dennis has been talking to Tessa Jowell. our Minister for Culture, who told the Times about her favourite movie. Said Tessa:
"Although I saw it the first time with my husband, this is a film to be watched with girlfriends, a glass of wine, chocolate and a hankie. I have always loved films with that ineffable weepie quality — glamour, will they/won’t they, tragedy and finally triumph".
So, what exactly was this ninety minutes of celluloid that will be talked of long into the night, long after New Labour has been sucked into the vacuum of history? The Italian neo-realist classic Bicycle Thieves? That magnificent tale of Yorkshire grit and coal-mining, Kes? Or perhaps it was Yol, the Turkish masterpiece about the brutal nature of the prison system? No way, mate. No, it was that searing indictment of capitalism and patriarchy itself, Pretty Woman.
So this is what they argue about in the cabinet.
UPDATE: You say Denis and I say Dennis. Throughout this article he's called Dennis, but elsewhere he seems mostly to be called Denis. A bit like Shakespeare and Shakspear, I suppose.
|
"American culture is running out of steam. It has become meretricious and so obsessed with money-making. You can't have a culture that reduces everything to consumption and hope you'll find the space for art that allows great filmmaking.
'I'm just astonished how thin easy-come, easy-go American and Hollywood movies are now - maybe when Arnold Schwarzenegger goes into politics that will release some space for serious new filmmaking".
And when Dennis leaves politics perhaps there might be a bit of a gap for some serious new political thinking. So what, anyway, does the great sage think our multiplexes should do, then?
"Just be a bit more outward-looking and let people understand that Lithuanian, Estonian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian and Turkish films are a pretty good thing".
I don't think Dennis has been talking to Tessa Jowell. our Minister for Culture, who told the Times about her favourite movie. Said Tessa:
"Although I saw it the first time with my husband, this is a film to be watched with girlfriends, a glass of wine, chocolate and a hankie. I have always loved films with that ineffable weepie quality — glamour, will they/won’t they, tragedy and finally triumph".
So, what exactly was this ninety minutes of celluloid that will be talked of long into the night, long after New Labour has been sucked into the vacuum of history? The Italian neo-realist classic Bicycle Thieves? That magnificent tale of Yorkshire grit and coal-mining, Kes? Or perhaps it was Yol, the Turkish masterpiece about the brutal nature of the prison system? No way, mate. No, it was that searing indictment of capitalism and patriarchy itself, Pretty Woman.
So this is what they argue about in the cabinet.
UPDATE: You say Denis and I say Dennis. Throughout this article he's called Dennis, but elsewhere he seems mostly to be called Denis. A bit like Shakespeare and Shakspear, I suppose.
|
Friday, September 5
Hoon's a goon. Which is almost a pity. I judge politicians almost entirely by appearances, and I always quite liked his calm, robotic streak. Like a more human Stephen Byers, I suppose. Anyway, he's finished.
And so another brick in the crumbling edifice hits the concrete. I wonder who's next. Polly Toynbee puts it all a lot more colourfully, of course, and she knows who to blame:
"Get the politicians, catch the government lying, denigrate, mock, kill. Never mind the substance of a policy - that's boring and time-consuming. The fun is targeting the next minister who might be knocked off his or her perch - will Hoon be the next Byers? (The public barely heard of either dull fellow until they came under fire.) This is political decadence, games filling the vacancy in ideals and ideas".
No it's not. It is politics.
"Journalism has become obsessed with the processes of government, but incurious about any complex problem that cannot be blamed upon some hapless minister".
Rightly so too. These cretins insist on controlling as many aspects of our lives as they can get away with - usually in the guise of liberalism, or some particularly brainless version of equality - so why shouldn't we, and the press on our behalf, complain when they get things wrong? Does Polly really want us to lie down and die?
"This approach is in danger of making the country nearly ungovernable: were Iain Duncan Smith to win power, his government would get barely more respite these days. Journalism of left and right converges in an anarchic zone of vitriol where elected politicians are always contemptible, their policies not just wrong but their motives all self-interest. Those on the left should take this very seriously indeed. The right is individualist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-collective provision. Undermining the idea that government is a force for good is its ideological aim, alongside the mad militias of Idaho".
And those eminently respectable people over at Samizdata.
"But the left, which purports to believe in government, should be wary of joining the same all-governments-are-rubbish camp. This anarcho-individualism is a very British mindset - and it is not compatible with social democracy".
I hate to break this to you, Poll, but Idaho is not in Britain, you ignorant halfwit.
"Competition in the media is pernicious: shrieking headlines fighting for fickle readers on newsstands drive out thoughtfulness and balance. The famous US papers are monopolies in their cities and calmly balanced as a result".
Welcome to Polly's world. The old girl really does appear to think that if only there was one newspaper everything would be all right. I wonder which one, though. Presumably not this one.
UPDATE: David Carr, incidentally, also has a go at this one, and he too spotted her geographical error. I somehow had a premonition it might capture his imagination, you know.
|
And so another brick in the crumbling edifice hits the concrete. I wonder who's next. Polly Toynbee puts it all a lot more colourfully, of course, and she knows who to blame:
"Get the politicians, catch the government lying, denigrate, mock, kill. Never mind the substance of a policy - that's boring and time-consuming. The fun is targeting the next minister who might be knocked off his or her perch - will Hoon be the next Byers? (The public barely heard of either dull fellow until they came under fire.) This is political decadence, games filling the vacancy in ideals and ideas".
No it's not. It is politics.
"Journalism has become obsessed with the processes of government, but incurious about any complex problem that cannot be blamed upon some hapless minister".
Rightly so too. These cretins insist on controlling as many aspects of our lives as they can get away with - usually in the guise of liberalism, or some particularly brainless version of equality - so why shouldn't we, and the press on our behalf, complain when they get things wrong? Does Polly really want us to lie down and die?
"This approach is in danger of making the country nearly ungovernable: were Iain Duncan Smith to win power, his government would get barely more respite these days. Journalism of left and right converges in an anarchic zone of vitriol where elected politicians are always contemptible, their policies not just wrong but their motives all self-interest. Those on the left should take this very seriously indeed. The right is individualist, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-collective provision. Undermining the idea that government is a force for good is its ideological aim, alongside the mad militias of Idaho".
And those eminently respectable people over at Samizdata.
"But the left, which purports to believe in government, should be wary of joining the same all-governments-are-rubbish camp. This anarcho-individualism is a very British mindset - and it is not compatible with social democracy".
I hate to break this to you, Poll, but Idaho is not in Britain, you ignorant halfwit.
"Competition in the media is pernicious: shrieking headlines fighting for fickle readers on newsstands drive out thoughtfulness and balance. The famous US papers are monopolies in their cities and calmly balanced as a result".
Welcome to Polly's world. The old girl really does appear to think that if only there was one newspaper everything would be all right. I wonder which one, though. Presumably not this one.
UPDATE: David Carr, incidentally, also has a go at this one, and he too spotted her geographical error. I somehow had a premonition it might capture his imagination, you know.
|
Thursday, September 4
"Does it matter if the world loses its rich diversity of film cultures and one nation dominates international cinema?"
asks Cherry Potter, in the Guardian. The sensible answer is no, of course. Provided that one nation isn't Britain. Notting Hill, Little Voice, Billy Elliott? I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than watch those narcoleptic monstrosities again.
"Or have we all grown so used to ubiquitous Hollywood that it seems churlish even to ask the question?"
Yes, you are being churlish, Chezza. America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. What is the problem?
"What happened to the time when film promised to be the definitive cultural medium of the modern world? Until as little as 20 years ago, one of the most exciting (and educational) experiences for each new generation was the discovery, often at university film societies, of the diversity of the world's cinema cultures".
Actually, for those of us who never joined a film society, there were other institutions. Late night television, the Electric Cinema, the Scala. But anyway, I get the point. So what went wrong?
"Then came the heady free-market climate of the 80s. Financial institutions had to go global or go bust. National allegiances were no longer important, what mattered was maximising profit".
So it was government control that made good movies, was it? This really isn't accurate. The French have had a big state-subsidised film business for years, and I can say that this is one of the few good things the state have ever done anywhere. Chabrol and Rohmer - fine by me. But who's to say that they might have been even better if they'd been unleashed on the free market. You have a monopoly, now and again things are going to work in it. But consider this - if Louis Malle had directed the Star Wars trilogy, surely the world would be a better place for it?
"As for the smaller nations with their patchwork of different languages, cultures and histories, how could they compete in the international box office? The answer, so it seemed to many ailing British and European production companies, was to make films like the Americans or films that Americans like. We must take on board the philosophies and value systems that formerly characterised Hollywood cinema: the conflict on the mythical "frontier" between good (white, heroic, Christian) and evil (wild, out of control, foreign), and the individualistic, goal-driven quest for success or the American dream".
Now, Cherry, you're being silly.
"The urgency of the European quest to understand their own complex history, philosophy and values has, as far as film is concerned, been relegated to the margins. Except at Oscar time, when a smidgen of cultural prestige in the form of "art-movies" such as Schindler's List and The Pianist are useful to pull the wool over the world's eyes, to disguise the extent of film's fall from grace".
It's our old friend complexity again. European films, you see, are too sophisticated. And that's why they're such failures. Because the cinema-going public are all completely stupid. It's simple, when you think about it.
|
asks Cherry Potter, in the Guardian. The sensible answer is no, of course. Provided that one nation isn't Britain. Notting Hill, Little Voice, Billy Elliott? I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than watch those narcoleptic monstrosities again.
"Or have we all grown so used to ubiquitous Hollywood that it seems churlish even to ask the question?"
Yes, you are being churlish, Chezza. America dominates movies. Australia dominates cricket. Ethiopia dominates long-distance running. What is the problem?
"What happened to the time when film promised to be the definitive cultural medium of the modern world? Until as little as 20 years ago, one of the most exciting (and educational) experiences for each new generation was the discovery, often at university film societies, of the diversity of the world's cinema cultures".
Actually, for those of us who never joined a film society, there were other institutions. Late night television, the Electric Cinema, the Scala. But anyway, I get the point. So what went wrong?
"Then came the heady free-market climate of the 80s. Financial institutions had to go global or go bust. National allegiances were no longer important, what mattered was maximising profit".
So it was government control that made good movies, was it? This really isn't accurate. The French have had a big state-subsidised film business for years, and I can say that this is one of the few good things the state have ever done anywhere. Chabrol and Rohmer - fine by me. But who's to say that they might have been even better if they'd been unleashed on the free market. You have a monopoly, now and again things are going to work in it. But consider this - if Louis Malle had directed the Star Wars trilogy, surely the world would be a better place for it?
"As for the smaller nations with their patchwork of different languages, cultures and histories, how could they compete in the international box office? The answer, so it seemed to many ailing British and European production companies, was to make films like the Americans or films that Americans like. We must take on board the philosophies and value systems that formerly characterised Hollywood cinema: the conflict on the mythical "frontier" between good (white, heroic, Christian) and evil (wild, out of control, foreign), and the individualistic, goal-driven quest for success or the American dream".
Now, Cherry, you're being silly.
"The urgency of the European quest to understand their own complex history, philosophy and values has, as far as film is concerned, been relegated to the margins. Except at Oscar time, when a smidgen of cultural prestige in the form of "art-movies" such as Schindler's List and The Pianist are useful to pull the wool over the world's eyes, to disguise the extent of film's fall from grace".
It's our old friend complexity again. European films, you see, are too sophisticated. And that's why they're such failures. Because the cinema-going public are all completely stupid. It's simple, when you think about it.
|
Wednesday, September 3
"The sound and fury of the press in a moral panic is a fine old British sport. The country's going to the dogs, again! Off to hell in a handcart, down the slippery slope to perdition!"
Yes, it's Polly Toynbee once again, acting as a cool calm corrective against the press. Which in her case, seems to mean all the other papers except the Guardian. After reading this opening paragraph I tried to decide what she was worried about this time. The Hutton inquiry? England's latest cricketing disaster? And then I checked the cool and calm title to the piece:
"There is only one way to tame these savage infants"
I see. It's the killer kiddiwinks. The Pollster continues:
"It is usually youth to blame, but this week's moral degenerates are only five years old. "Parents have raised worst generation yet!" the Sunday Telegraph splashed across its front page, flamming up a brief interview that set the whole pack running. Tally ho! Off went the Sun in hot pursuit: "Stone age kids". "Shame of the bad parents failing kids", said the Express. The gist was this: children arriving in primary school are no better than savages - unable to do up buttons, use a knife and fork, sit still or even speak. Parents leave them stuck in front of the television instead of speaking, reading or playing with them. Their lives are "disrupted and dishevelled" without discipline at home, leaving schools to struggle with poor verbal and behavioural skills".
All right, Poll. You've made your point. You're reasonable, everyone else is hysterical. It's an old trick, patented by Simon Jenkins. But let's cut to the chase: Is there a problem with these tearaway toddlers, or isn't there?
Well apparently, indeed it's "undeniably true - far too many children do arrive at school already so damaged that they are often beyond help: any primary teacher in a poor district will agree. Reception teachers are often struck by huge differences in the five-year-olds who arrive, their social background and parental aspiration already stamped upon them almost indelibly. The start of school is often too late to alter a child's trajectory towards failure".
Marvellous. So there is a problem. The Sun, the Sunday Telegraph, and the Express are onto something after all. But what our Poll is actually agitated about, though it takes a while to get there, is that they propose different solutions. They blame the parents. She blames everyone for not paying enough tax, so that the state can take over the tots. We have been here before, of course. Johann Hari tried it a couple of months back, in a rapturous encomium on the joys of the Sure Start scheme. So now it's Polly's turn.
"It is still too early to assess Sure Start's effect in the (too few) areas where it operates".
You've got to love those brackets. If it's too early to assess, then how does she know there are "too few" areas in which it operates?Anyway, it isn't too early to assess. Polly's got lots of assessing to do.
"The first babies picked up from birth to be given intensive parenting support and good childcare have not yet reached primary age. But, when they do, primary teachers ought to see the difference".
Ought? She then quotes some research:
"Testing babies for attainment at the age of 22 months, their progress was followed according to social class. It found very bright children from poor homes and dim but rich babies at the other end of the scale were already on a steep trajectory in the opposite directions, the poor/bright travelling fast downwards, the rich/dim moving up. By nursery school at three, they have nearly converged. At the age of six, the children's lines cross and then diverge for evermore as they head off into opposite futures".
So the rest of school is just remedial to repair early damage already done. That is why David Bell says that the main hope of reducing the number of children failing in secondary school is to catch them before they reach nursery school. Ofsted's own recent study comparing British school results with Finland and Denmark suggests Nordic absence of poverty, plus universal childcare, makes primary teaching more open and relaxed: here discipline is teachers' major worry".
There's no poverty in Finland and Denmark? Well I'm afraid I can't take Polly's word for that. She's full of shit, so why should I trust her on this? But of course, there is little new in any of this. The radical egalitarians have always been on the lookout for some panacea to sort out the age and most significant gesture that will somehow level things out between rich and poor, black and white, straight and gay. It's been the justification for the NHS, for state education, and for all manner of totalitarian fantasies. Now the age is getting lower and they want to get their grubby little hands on the neo-nates. Who knows, next it'll be research that toffee-nosed foetuses have a better chance than tenement embryos, and Polly and Johann will be demanding higher taxes and even more state control.
"As for the moral panickers, if they want to avoid future generations of scary youth, they should urge higher taxes to pay the state to become the best possible nanny to all babies".
It's not the savage infants I'm worried about. It's the savage liberals.
|
Yes, it's Polly Toynbee once again, acting as a cool calm corrective against the press. Which in her case, seems to mean all the other papers except the Guardian. After reading this opening paragraph I tried to decide what she was worried about this time. The Hutton inquiry? England's latest cricketing disaster? And then I checked the cool and calm title to the piece:
"There is only one way to tame these savage infants"
I see. It's the killer kiddiwinks. The Pollster continues:
"It is usually youth to blame, but this week's moral degenerates are only five years old. "Parents have raised worst generation yet!" the Sunday Telegraph splashed across its front page, flamming up a brief interview that set the whole pack running. Tally ho! Off went the Sun in hot pursuit: "Stone age kids". "Shame of the bad parents failing kids", said the Express. The gist was this: children arriving in primary school are no better than savages - unable to do up buttons, use a knife and fork, sit still or even speak. Parents leave them stuck in front of the television instead of speaking, reading or playing with them. Their lives are "disrupted and dishevelled" without discipline at home, leaving schools to struggle with poor verbal and behavioural skills".
All right, Poll. You've made your point. You're reasonable, everyone else is hysterical. It's an old trick, patented by Simon Jenkins. But let's cut to the chase: Is there a problem with these tearaway toddlers, or isn't there?
Well apparently, indeed it's "undeniably true - far too many children do arrive at school already so damaged that they are often beyond help: any primary teacher in a poor district will agree. Reception teachers are often struck by huge differences in the five-year-olds who arrive, their social background and parental aspiration already stamped upon them almost indelibly. The start of school is often too late to alter a child's trajectory towards failure".
Marvellous. So there is a problem. The Sun, the Sunday Telegraph, and the Express are onto something after all. But what our Poll is actually agitated about, though it takes a while to get there, is that they propose different solutions. They blame the parents. She blames everyone for not paying enough tax, so that the state can take over the tots. We have been here before, of course. Johann Hari tried it a couple of months back, in a rapturous encomium on the joys of the Sure Start scheme. So now it's Polly's turn.
"It is still too early to assess Sure Start's effect in the (too few) areas where it operates".
You've got to love those brackets. If it's too early to assess, then how does she know there are "too few" areas in which it operates?Anyway, it isn't too early to assess. Polly's got lots of assessing to do.
"The first babies picked up from birth to be given intensive parenting support and good childcare have not yet reached primary age. But, when they do, primary teachers ought to see the difference".
Ought? She then quotes some research:
"Testing babies for attainment at the age of 22 months, their progress was followed according to social class. It found very bright children from poor homes and dim but rich babies at the other end of the scale were already on a steep trajectory in the opposite directions, the poor/bright travelling fast downwards, the rich/dim moving up. By nursery school at three, they have nearly converged. At the age of six, the children's lines cross and then diverge for evermore as they head off into opposite futures".
So the rest of school is just remedial to repair early damage already done. That is why David Bell says that the main hope of reducing the number of children failing in secondary school is to catch them before they reach nursery school. Ofsted's own recent study comparing British school results with Finland and Denmark suggests Nordic absence of poverty, plus universal childcare, makes primary teaching more open and relaxed: here discipline is teachers' major worry".
There's no poverty in Finland and Denmark? Well I'm afraid I can't take Polly's word for that. She's full of shit, so why should I trust her on this? But of course, there is little new in any of this. The radical egalitarians have always been on the lookout for some panacea to sort out the age and most significant gesture that will somehow level things out between rich and poor, black and white, straight and gay. It's been the justification for the NHS, for state education, and for all manner of totalitarian fantasies. Now the age is getting lower and they want to get their grubby little hands on the neo-nates. Who knows, next it'll be research that toffee-nosed foetuses have a better chance than tenement embryos, and Polly and Johann will be demanding higher taxes and even more state control.
"As for the moral panickers, if they want to avoid future generations of scary youth, they should urge higher taxes to pay the state to become the best possible nanny to all babies".
It's not the savage infants I'm worried about. It's the savage liberals.
|
Tuesday, September 2
I'd never heard of Oliver James until a few years ago when he suddenly started popping up on television bellyaching about isolation and consumerism and Thatcher and stuff. He had a book to promote, you see. Evidently he's some sort of shrink, and ever since he's been doing the same sort of shtick. But today, in the Guardian, the old boy surpasses himself as he puts Dubya on the couch. It does not make for edifying reading, and makes James out to be even more of a charlatan than ever. He must really despise himself for pumping out this sort of ignorant, specious crud:
"As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own...
this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian... On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him...
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own... He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so...
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother".
You get the picture.
"The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism".
QED: Dubya is a Nazi.
"Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues".
And they could equally be ascribed to the editorial staff at the Guardian. They've been described as such, many times, by enemies and bloggers.
"The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s.".
Perhaps? Is a stray perhaps really good enough? Is this how James analyses his patients? Moreover, Dubya apparently hates Jews, blacks and homosexuals, as evinced by his anti-abortion stance. Hello? Am I missing something here?
"Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil".
Once upon a time shrinks used to let their patients lie on sofas, and rabbit away to their hearts' content. Now it's the other way round.
|
"As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own...
this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian... On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him...
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own... He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so...
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother".
You get the picture.
"The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism".
QED: Dubya is a Nazi.
"Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues".
And they could equally be ascribed to the editorial staff at the Guardian. They've been described as such, many times, by enemies and bloggers.
"The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s.".
Perhaps? Is a stray perhaps really good enough? Is this how James analyses his patients? Moreover, Dubya apparently hates Jews, blacks and homosexuals, as evinced by his anti-abortion stance. Hello? Am I missing something here?
"Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil".
Once upon a time shrinks used to let their patients lie on sofas, and rabbit away to their hearts' content. Now it's the other way round.
|
Monday, September 1
The definitive comment on the passing of Alastair Campbell comes from this letter ( entitled BBC spot on ) to the Telegraph from a Charles Banner:
"Sir - On July 25, the Prime Minister's spokesman called a BBC report forecasting Alastair Campbell's impending departure "wishful thinking" and "another example of the BBC fixing upon gossip rather than substance''.
In his statement on August 29, though, Mr Campbell said that his resignation was agreed with Tony Blair "on April 7 of this year".
This is either another example of Number 10 attempting to rewrite history, or further evidence of the habitual mendacity of the Prime Minister's office.
Perhaps Mr Campbell would enlighten us on which it is?"
'Nuff said.
|
"Sir - On July 25, the Prime Minister's spokesman called a BBC report forecasting Alastair Campbell's impending departure "wishful thinking" and "another example of the BBC fixing upon gossip rather than substance''.
In his statement on August 29, though, Mr Campbell said that his resignation was agreed with Tony Blair "on April 7 of this year".
This is either another example of Number 10 attempting to rewrite history, or further evidence of the habitual mendacity of the Prime Minister's office.
Perhaps Mr Campbell would enlighten us on which it is?"
'Nuff said.
|
I suppose that's what comes from listening to too much Johnny Hallyday. Sheena is a punk, Judy is a punk ( as well as a runt ), and Jackie is a punk. But Sharon? He's Prime Minister of Israel.
|
|
Saturday, August 30
Friday, August 29
One of my most irrational prejudices is that anyone who reads the Guardian with any enthusiasm is incapable of reaching any kind of sexual satisfaction. It's a prejudice slightly undermined by this breathless appreciation of a swingers club. Not just any old swingers club, mark you, full of jaded toffs charging fifty quid a night, but this socially-inclusive, positively Blairite swingers club. Angelique Chrisafis tells it like it is:
"It is midnight on a typical Friday night outside Sheffield's La Chambre club. In the shadows of the car park, a haunted-looking man sits in his old estate car eating sandwiches and pouring himself tea from a flask. Curiosity has propelled him here, but he is too scared to go in. A few miles away, members of the local church will be on their knees before bed, praying for an end to the abomination of whatever goes on inside this hellhole. They repeat these mutterings when passing the door in daylight: "Oh Lord, pray for the souls of the swingers."
I reckon that's a load of bollocks, by the way. But then there's a whole load of bollocks coming up.
"The Victorian redbrick facade of the former steelworkers' pub is gently uplit with low-wattage lights. The windows are blacked out with cream Perspex, stencilled with images of the Eiffel Tower and old-fashioned French portraits. It is a reminder, as one regular swinger points out, that the French regard as "absolutely, perfectly normal" the "mastery of jealousy and the fully consenting, supportive swapping of husbands and wives".
The sooner we join the Euro the better.
"In the lounge bar, the glitter-ball throws diamonds of light across modest portions of cleavage and thigh. Polished plastic spider plants shine under the disco lights. With the armchairs, the banter, the laughter, the wisecracks, the slagging off of Margaret Thatcher and the goading of the poor old stand-in DJ, it is like a cosy, close-knit northern social club of folklore - but without the drink. Swingers don't indulge, lest it hamper their performance".
Yes, but do they smoke?
"There are women chatting, wearing all manner of outfits they have made themselves. No one leers unless the women make the first move. A few mums and grannies in leather skirts go up to the stage to try dancing around the pole - bending bandy legs, flicking ankles and pouting. Somehow, it seems innocent".
And refreshingly non-sexist.
"Upstairs in the Arabian room, Iris, 61, is leaning against the hand-stitched cushions having sex with an energetic man she has just met. At least a dozen other men with towels pinned loosely round their waists are watching. One of the spectators is her husband. Dozens more peer in through a fogged-up observational window, focused in silent concentration, willing Iris on. "Ey, I had a right good time in there," she sighs when it is over".
I said there was a load of bollocks, didn't I? Anyway, our Angelique soon dismisses the myth that "swinging is the last bastion of the British class system". Not true, "it is a world in which refuse collectors cosy up to barristers, split along moral lines rather than social ones".
Yes. But it's actually better than that, really.
"What has been omitted from the hype is the fact that the scene is dominated, and often organised, by women - 90% of whom are bisexual. The term "wife-swapping" sends them mad with rage, implying they sit around with tickets on their wrists, waiting to be selected. Nor does anyone participate in the mythical car-key lucky dips. Antonia, 27, who has a live-in male partner and a business, recently chose to have sex with 100 men in one night.
"This is about flying free from society's restraints on female sexuality," says Marie Calvert, 51, who is exhausted after stitching togas for the next Roman night. "Women are held down by the expectations of society. They are still victims of society. Guys can go to brothels, but where is a woman supposed to go if she wants more than one man? Women are not expected to think about sex. Here, if you say you want five men, no one says you are a slag or a slut. That's why women rule here - they do the picking and choosing."
This really does not sound like my cup of tea at all.
"La Chambre is the now biggest swingers club in Britain".
Really? It sounds like my idea of hell. Leathery feminists crawling around demanding sex from docile blokes. Let me out of here!
"Its 10,000 members include millionaires, actors, lawyers, American tourists and a plumber and his wife who drive their white van from Southampton and back every Saturday night. But mostly they are public-sector workers: police officers, fire fighters from Newcastle, every type of council worker and an "overwhelming" number of doctors and nurses, "maybe because bodily functions hold no mystique for them", offers one".
Every type of council worker, eh? This gets sexier and sexier.
"People confuse love and sex, but to us they are different things," says Barry. "It's a bodily function. In many ways, it's just like having a good shit, no more than that."
Yes. And that's what it will come to, for the council workers and other public sector parasites. They'll all be joining clubs where for fifty quid a night you can go and have a shit. It's just a matter of time.
|
"It is midnight on a typical Friday night outside Sheffield's La Chambre club. In the shadows of the car park, a haunted-looking man sits in his old estate car eating sandwiches and pouring himself tea from a flask. Curiosity has propelled him here, but he is too scared to go in. A few miles away, members of the local church will be on their knees before bed, praying for an end to the abomination of whatever goes on inside this hellhole. They repeat these mutterings when passing the door in daylight: "Oh Lord, pray for the souls of the swingers."
I reckon that's a load of bollocks, by the way. But then there's a whole load of bollocks coming up.
"The Victorian redbrick facade of the former steelworkers' pub is gently uplit with low-wattage lights. The windows are blacked out with cream Perspex, stencilled with images of the Eiffel Tower and old-fashioned French portraits. It is a reminder, as one regular swinger points out, that the French regard as "absolutely, perfectly normal" the "mastery of jealousy and the fully consenting, supportive swapping of husbands and wives".
The sooner we join the Euro the better.
"In the lounge bar, the glitter-ball throws diamonds of light across modest portions of cleavage and thigh. Polished plastic spider plants shine under the disco lights. With the armchairs, the banter, the laughter, the wisecracks, the slagging off of Margaret Thatcher and the goading of the poor old stand-in DJ, it is like a cosy, close-knit northern social club of folklore - but without the drink. Swingers don't indulge, lest it hamper their performance".
Yes, but do they smoke?
"There are women chatting, wearing all manner of outfits they have made themselves. No one leers unless the women make the first move. A few mums and grannies in leather skirts go up to the stage to try dancing around the pole - bending bandy legs, flicking ankles and pouting. Somehow, it seems innocent".
And refreshingly non-sexist.
"Upstairs in the Arabian room, Iris, 61, is leaning against the hand-stitched cushions having sex with an energetic man she has just met. At least a dozen other men with towels pinned loosely round their waists are watching. One of the spectators is her husband. Dozens more peer in through a fogged-up observational window, focused in silent concentration, willing Iris on. "Ey, I had a right good time in there," she sighs when it is over".
I said there was a load of bollocks, didn't I? Anyway, our Angelique soon dismisses the myth that "swinging is the last bastion of the British class system". Not true, "it is a world in which refuse collectors cosy up to barristers, split along moral lines rather than social ones".
Yes. But it's actually better than that, really.
"What has been omitted from the hype is the fact that the scene is dominated, and often organised, by women - 90% of whom are bisexual. The term "wife-swapping" sends them mad with rage, implying they sit around with tickets on their wrists, waiting to be selected. Nor does anyone participate in the mythical car-key lucky dips. Antonia, 27, who has a live-in male partner and a business, recently chose to have sex with 100 men in one night.
"This is about flying free from society's restraints on female sexuality," says Marie Calvert, 51, who is exhausted after stitching togas for the next Roman night. "Women are held down by the expectations of society. They are still victims of society. Guys can go to brothels, but where is a woman supposed to go if she wants more than one man? Women are not expected to think about sex. Here, if you say you want five men, no one says you are a slag or a slut. That's why women rule here - they do the picking and choosing."
This really does not sound like my cup of tea at all.
"La Chambre is the now biggest swingers club in Britain".
Really? It sounds like my idea of hell. Leathery feminists crawling around demanding sex from docile blokes. Let me out of here!
"Its 10,000 members include millionaires, actors, lawyers, American tourists and a plumber and his wife who drive their white van from Southampton and back every Saturday night. But mostly they are public-sector workers: police officers, fire fighters from Newcastle, every type of council worker and an "overwhelming" number of doctors and nurses, "maybe because bodily functions hold no mystique for them", offers one".
Every type of council worker, eh? This gets sexier and sexier.
"People confuse love and sex, but to us they are different things," says Barry. "It's a bodily function. In many ways, it's just like having a good shit, no more than that."
Yes. And that's what it will come to, for the council workers and other public sector parasites. They'll all be joining clubs where for fifty quid a night you can go and have a shit. It's just a matter of time.
|
"I know this is a case that many may find unpalatable, but we must recognise that the striving for equality should not blind us to the fact that we are different".
says Mo Mowlem, the government's former Ireland secretary. Cue the music, cue the diversity-speak, cue the gobbledygook. She might as well have said:
"I know this is a case that many may find unpalatable, but we must recognise that the striving for diversity should not blind us to the fact that we are equal".
Really.
|
says Mo Mowlem, the government's former Ireland secretary. Cue the music, cue the diversity-speak, cue the gobbledygook. She might as well have said:
"I know this is a case that many may find unpalatable, but we must recognise that the striving for diversity should not blind us to the fact that we are equal".
Really.
|
"With an actor's and a lawyer's art, he can deliver scripted, finessed answers with insouciant pauses, thoughtful hesitations, casual language and no trace of late-night briefings, rehearsals or 900 documents inwardly digested. It was a masterclass in understated persuasion".
Yes, it's Polly, at her most obsequious.
"How lightly he sidestepped the vision of a leader unduly obsessed with media coverage. One Today programme story, one Mail on Sunday article - blink and you missed them - led to this courtroom: why did Blair and Campbell lose the plot? Or was the story so nearly true it maddened them into losing all sense of proportion?
To counter that idea, the master littered his evidence with vignetttes from his diary to remind us that this was all a sideshow, while the real world seized most of his attention: the foundation hospitals vote in the Commons, the Olympic bid, a weekend of foreign heads of state, a 36-hour round-the-world trip - lightly mentioned in passing".
The master, eh? She intends this as a compliment. Yet anyone who has ever seen Dr. Who knows the truth: The Master was incredibly evil, more evil in fact than the Daleks. I hope Tony is consulting his lawyers. He usually is.
|
Yes, it's Polly, at her most obsequious.
"How lightly he sidestepped the vision of a leader unduly obsessed with media coverage. One Today programme story, one Mail on Sunday article - blink and you missed them - led to this courtroom: why did Blair and Campbell lose the plot? Or was the story so nearly true it maddened them into losing all sense of proportion?
To counter that idea, the master littered his evidence with vignetttes from his diary to remind us that this was all a sideshow, while the real world seized most of his attention: the foundation hospitals vote in the Commons, the Olympic bid, a weekend of foreign heads of state, a 36-hour round-the-world trip - lightly mentioned in passing".
The master, eh? She intends this as a compliment. Yet anyone who has ever seen Dr. Who knows the truth: The Master was incredibly evil, more evil in fact than the Daleks. I hope Tony is consulting his lawyers. He usually is.
|
Thursday, August 28
I remember when Harold Wilson quit as Prime Minister. I was a schoolboy and one of my fellows rushed in with the news. When the story spread so that one of our teachers heard it, he boomed: "Don't be ridiculous. Wilson will never resign!"
Or something like that. ( It was twenty-seven years ago. ) He was wrong, anyway. Wilson had indeed resigned.
As I write, the grinning shyster is being interrogated about the late Dr. Kelly. I take it as axiomatic, like that teacher, that the charlatan will survive. He always does, always will. But of course, he's got to go one day. And he's such a self-conscious geek that I can't see him going into an election with any risk at all that he could actually lose it: he'd rather Gordon Brown had that privilege. So is the writing on the wall? Rod Liddle seems to think so:
"I for one am convinced that the Prime Minister is palpably guilty".
Well if it's good enough for Rod it's good enough for me. The question is: is it good enough for the Labour party? They seem such a shell-shocked bunch, indulging in so much self-questioning and navel-gazing that I really think, never mind for me and the Tories, but it would be good for them too, to get rid of the pillock. I don't approve of them much, but at least Prescott and dear old Harry have some sort of principles. Bring back old Labour, all is forgiven.
|
Or something like that. ( It was twenty-seven years ago. ) He was wrong, anyway. Wilson had indeed resigned.
As I write, the grinning shyster is being interrogated about the late Dr. Kelly. I take it as axiomatic, like that teacher, that the charlatan will survive. He always does, always will. But of course, he's got to go one day. And he's such a self-conscious geek that I can't see him going into an election with any risk at all that he could actually lose it: he'd rather Gordon Brown had that privilege. So is the writing on the wall? Rod Liddle seems to think so:
"I for one am convinced that the Prime Minister is palpably guilty".
Well if it's good enough for Rod it's good enough for me. The question is: is it good enough for the Labour party? They seem such a shell-shocked bunch, indulging in so much self-questioning and navel-gazing that I really think, never mind for me and the Tories, but it would be good for them too, to get rid of the pillock. I don't approve of them much, but at least Prescott and dear old Harry have some sort of principles. Bring back old Labour, all is forgiven.
|
Wednesday, August 27
Polly Toynbee must have had a lousy bank holiday.
"The work goes on... but it gets grindingly more difficult".
I suppose she's right. Pretending that inequality and poverty are one and the same must be a bit of a downer.
"After six long years, brave new policies rolled out to fanfares now feel like rolling boulders uphill. Even without the disastrous distraction of Iraq or Hutton, halfway through the second term would anyway be a testing time for delivery".
Distraction? Since when has levelling out incomes been more important than killing bad people?
"Turn to almost any policy and difficult stumbling blocks seem to obstruct the path at the moment. Why?
Two mighty elephants sit on the cabinet table, leaning heavily on most social policies - glaringly obvious yet politically unmentionable. Their names are Inequality and Under-taxation. Whatever social problem the government tackles, whatever public service it tries to improve, sooner rather than later one or other of these great tuskers makes its heavy presence felt. There just is no way round them, no triangulating them, no third way or "reform" to bypass their bulk".
New Labour is dead. Long live Old Labour.
"The point is that you can't get blood out of a stone. If Britain is under-pensioned, that's because it has a large, very low-paid population."
And a very low-taxed one, too, apparently.
"Universities need the funds: students arriving from competitors such as the US, where lecture notes are delivered to each student that evening, find facilities in our top universities medieval, in the worst sense.
The answer lies with the two elephants: the better-off should be taxed at European levels and universities should be well-funded".
That's right. In order to be as good as the US we need to adopt European policies.
"Inequality is best challenged in the under-fives, where all extra money should be spent: those who pass A-levels have already triumphed over their backgrounds".
Time to start pouring all your holiday Euros into little Johnny's piggy-bank.
You know, sometimes I get the vague feeling that Polly will one day undergo a Paul Johnson-like conversion and, in about ten years' time, start tearing into egalitarianism with the same gusto she currently tears into the evil Tories. On current readings it might take a little longer. Say fifteen. This Ros Coward-like hostility to the market can't last forever, can it?
|
"The work goes on... but it gets grindingly more difficult".
I suppose she's right. Pretending that inequality and poverty are one and the same must be a bit of a downer.
"After six long years, brave new policies rolled out to fanfares now feel like rolling boulders uphill. Even without the disastrous distraction of Iraq or Hutton, halfway through the second term would anyway be a testing time for delivery".
Distraction? Since when has levelling out incomes been more important than killing bad people?
"Turn to almost any policy and difficult stumbling blocks seem to obstruct the path at the moment. Why?
Two mighty elephants sit on the cabinet table, leaning heavily on most social policies - glaringly obvious yet politically unmentionable. Their names are Inequality and Under-taxation. Whatever social problem the government tackles, whatever public service it tries to improve, sooner rather than later one or other of these great tuskers makes its heavy presence felt. There just is no way round them, no triangulating them, no third way or "reform" to bypass their bulk".
New Labour is dead. Long live Old Labour.
"The point is that you can't get blood out of a stone. If Britain is under-pensioned, that's because it has a large, very low-paid population."
And a very low-taxed one, too, apparently.
"Universities need the funds: students arriving from competitors such as the US, where lecture notes are delivered to each student that evening, find facilities in our top universities medieval, in the worst sense.
The answer lies with the two elephants: the better-off should be taxed at European levels and universities should be well-funded".
That's right. In order to be as good as the US we need to adopt European policies.
"Inequality is best challenged in the under-fives, where all extra money should be spent: those who pass A-levels have already triumphed over their backgrounds".
Time to start pouring all your holiday Euros into little Johnny's piggy-bank.
You know, sometimes I get the vague feeling that Polly will one day undergo a Paul Johnson-like conversion and, in about ten years' time, start tearing into egalitarianism with the same gusto she currently tears into the evil Tories. On current readings it might take a little longer. Say fifteen. This Ros Coward-like hostility to the market can't last forever, can it?
|
The government has brought in a bit of privatisation viz our telephone directories. Ros Coward is not impressed:
"What is particularly offensive is that this bunch of fly-by-night companies will be ripping off those who find paying phone bills difficult in the first place. It's the elderly who will probably ring 192 to get their "randomly ascribed" company and be lured into accepting the offer of connection. It is people who depend on mobiles who will be charged more, and people whose lives are already too stretched to think about "best deals".
It is the children who are too busy taking ecstasy, it is the gays who are too busy listening to Barbra Streisand, it is the women too busy waiting for IVF treatment... you get the picture.
"It's already clear, from the current stories of ill-informed operatives charging by the minute while they scrabble around for information, that all these delights now lie ahead with directory inquiries. Competition may sometimes be good for utility prices, but its invariably bad for service. Its time we decided which matters more".
I look forward to the merger of the Guardian with the Independent. It would make life so much easier.
|
"What is particularly offensive is that this bunch of fly-by-night companies will be ripping off those who find paying phone bills difficult in the first place. It's the elderly who will probably ring 192 to get their "randomly ascribed" company and be lured into accepting the offer of connection. It is people who depend on mobiles who will be charged more, and people whose lives are already too stretched to think about "best deals".
It is the children who are too busy taking ecstasy, it is the gays who are too busy listening to Barbra Streisand, it is the women too busy waiting for IVF treatment... you get the picture.
"It's already clear, from the current stories of ill-informed operatives charging by the minute while they scrabble around for information, that all these delights now lie ahead with directory inquiries. Competition may sometimes be good for utility prices, but its invariably bad for service. Its time we decided which matters more".
I look forward to the merger of the Guardian with the Independent. It would make life so much easier.
|
Tuesday, August 26
In today's Guardian Andrew Anthony muses on the contrast between Britain's treatment of immigrants and her treatment of tourists, and claims that:
"in its relatively brief history of mass immigration, Britain has undoubtedly become a more tolerant society. In no small part that is due to the armies of people working to make the country a more open, multiracial society. To pretend otherwise is not only an insult to those efforts but it also implies there is no such thing as social change. And, if you think about it, only the most illiberal of minds would want to play host to that idea.
That said, only the softest of brains could entertain the notion that Britain has become more attractive for the holidaymaker".
This, as usual in the Guardian, is incredibly true. What we need are armies of people working to make the country more open to our holidaymakers. What we need is a Commission for Tourist Equality. To pretend otherwise is to imply that there is no such thing as social change. And, if you think about it, only the most illiberal of minds would want to play host to that idea.
If you think about it.
|
"in its relatively brief history of mass immigration, Britain has undoubtedly become a more tolerant society. In no small part that is due to the armies of people working to make the country a more open, multiracial society. To pretend otherwise is not only an insult to those efforts but it also implies there is no such thing as social change. And, if you think about it, only the most illiberal of minds would want to play host to that idea.
That said, only the softest of brains could entertain the notion that Britain has become more attractive for the holidaymaker".
This, as usual in the Guardian, is incredibly true. What we need are armies of people working to make the country more open to our holidaymakers. What we need is a Commission for Tourist Equality. To pretend otherwise is to imply that there is no such thing as social change. And, if you think about it, only the most illiberal of minds would want to play host to that idea.
If you think about it.
|
Monday, August 25
"How can this be right in a multicultural society?"
I suppose some people think that multiculturalism and equality are one and the same. I don't think this story helps their case exactly.
|
I suppose some people think that multiculturalism and equality are one and the same. I don't think this story helps their case exactly.
|
Roy Hattersley writes an article about begging today, his attention concentrated on a woman "who spends her days under a theatre awning on the other side of the road from my office".
He continues:
"If someone would convince me that the woman outside the theatre has £400 a week to spend - whether it comes from gullible passers-by, social security fraud or the prudent investment of her inheritance - I could get on with my work instead of staring out of the window and wondering what should be done about her.
When I see well-heeled pedestrians - normally on their way to expensive restaurants or the taxi rank - pass her by as if she were invisible, I wonder what should be done about them".
I myself spend far too much time wondering what should be done about Roy Hattersley.
|
He continues:
"If someone would convince me that the woman outside the theatre has £400 a week to spend - whether it comes from gullible passers-by, social security fraud or the prudent investment of her inheritance - I could get on with my work instead of staring out of the window and wondering what should be done about her.
When I see well-heeled pedestrians - normally on their way to expensive restaurants or the taxi rank - pass her by as if she were invisible, I wonder what should be done about them".
I myself spend far too much time wondering what should be done about Roy Hattersley.
|
"We now live longer, healthier, wealthier and less violent lives than at any time in history", claims Mick Hume in the Times.
"Violence, indignity and miserable sex are, in the British mind, something experienced by other people's children in other people's countries", trills Mary Riddell, in the Observer.
I think they are both right. I've just returned from a week's holiday in Norfolk. The contrast with my day trip to Paris earlier in the month could hardly be more marked. We'd barely stepped off the Eurostar to be confronted with dozens of garlic-eating toddlers all sodomising one another, and squeeling with misery at the sheer horror of it all. Once they had finished, they, in a thoroughly undignified manner, took turns in beating each other to bits. In Norfolk last week, it was as peaceful and as sexually fulfilling as even Robin Cook could hope. Every adult I could see was grinning, having very happy and uplifiting sex, and spending their hard-earned cash on ice-creams and deck-chairs. And there wasn't a warmonger in sight. It's a shame to be back.
|
"Violence, indignity and miserable sex are, in the British mind, something experienced by other people's children in other people's countries", trills Mary Riddell, in the Observer.
I think they are both right. I've just returned from a week's holiday in Norfolk. The contrast with my day trip to Paris earlier in the month could hardly be more marked. We'd barely stepped off the Eurostar to be confronted with dozens of garlic-eating toddlers all sodomising one another, and squeeling with misery at the sheer horror of it all. Once they had finished, they, in a thoroughly undignified manner, took turns in beating each other to bits. In Norfolk last week, it was as peaceful and as sexually fulfilling as even Robin Cook could hope. Every adult I could see was grinning, having very happy and uplifiting sex, and spending their hard-earned cash on ice-creams and deck-chairs. And there wasn't a warmonger in sight. It's a shame to be back.
|
Monday, August 18
You've always got to remember that however distasteful you find the freakazoids who write for the Guardian to be - Hugo Young, Zoe Williams, Roy Hattersley, say - the people who write letters to it are infinitely worse. Take Dr Aroup Chatterjee, for example:
"The notion anybody can aspire to high office is false, as the last presidential election showed. George Bush was, in effect, chosen by judges selected by his father. It is fine for an Austrian-born person to run for governor as long as he represents the right. When Michael Dukakis ran against Ronald Reagan, the former's Greek ancestry was frequently cited, as was the fact that he was a "liberal". Being liberal is dangerous in the US, increasingly in the grip of Christian mullahs. Teaching evolution is fraught with difficulties; doctors are killed for performing abortions. Not quite the land of the free. I prefer old Europe".
I wonder what he's a doctor of. I wouldn't want him fondling my testicles. Then there is a certain Jenny Steel, defending current educational practices:
"I'm sick of all this whining following good A-level results about what second-rate subjects students choose. What did the older generation learn with their supposedly breathtaking mastery of long division etc? They learnt to attack and exploit the poor all over the world, abandon the vulnerable of their own society, and generally not give a damn about anything apart from the statistics of "progress".
Maybe with our more humanities-based curriculum, with its emphasis on finding something for everyone, we might learn that numbers are to serve people, and not the other way around".
There's one for the root causes brigade: long division turns you into a rampaging capitalist. And finally, the celebrated tv personality Melvyn Bragg chips in with this:
"Christine Mavrakis's letter (August 13) prompts me to say what I have felt like saying several times over the past year or so. On domestic politics, especially the Labour party and on the Middle East, David Aaronovitch, in my view, has emerged as a commentator of very rare quality and integrity. You are lucky to have him; and so are we".
That's the Guardian letters page for you. If they're not writing in to condemn America and long division, it's a general love-in for Aaro. What a mixed-bag, eh? Makes you almost yearn for the quiet calm and reasoning of Matthew Engel. Almost.
|
"The notion anybody can aspire to high office is false, as the last presidential election showed. George Bush was, in effect, chosen by judges selected by his father. It is fine for an Austrian-born person to run for governor as long as he represents the right. When Michael Dukakis ran against Ronald Reagan, the former's Greek ancestry was frequently cited, as was the fact that he was a "liberal". Being liberal is dangerous in the US, increasingly in the grip of Christian mullahs. Teaching evolution is fraught with difficulties; doctors are killed for performing abortions. Not quite the land of the free. I prefer old Europe".
I wonder what he's a doctor of. I wouldn't want him fondling my testicles. Then there is a certain Jenny Steel, defending current educational practices:
"I'm sick of all this whining following good A-level results about what second-rate subjects students choose. What did the older generation learn with their supposedly breathtaking mastery of long division etc? They learnt to attack and exploit the poor all over the world, abandon the vulnerable of their own society, and generally not give a damn about anything apart from the statistics of "progress".
Maybe with our more humanities-based curriculum, with its emphasis on finding something for everyone, we might learn that numbers are to serve people, and not the other way around".
There's one for the root causes brigade: long division turns you into a rampaging capitalist. And finally, the celebrated tv personality Melvyn Bragg chips in with this:
"Christine Mavrakis's letter (August 13) prompts me to say what I have felt like saying several times over the past year or so. On domestic politics, especially the Labour party and on the Middle East, David Aaronovitch, in my view, has emerged as a commentator of very rare quality and integrity. You are lucky to have him; and so are we".
That's the Guardian letters page for you. If they're not writing in to condemn America and long division, it's a general love-in for Aaro. What a mixed-bag, eh? Makes you almost yearn for the quiet calm and reasoning of Matthew Engel. Almost.
|
- Comment Central
- Stephen Pollard
- Natalie Solent
- Two Blowhards
- Tim Blair
- Daimnation!
- Machinery of Night
- The Bewilderness
- Freedom and Whisky
- Jackie Danicki
- Biased BBC
- Civitas
- Samizdata
- Normblog
- Jim Miller
- White Sun of the Desert
- Progressive Reaction
- Dodgeblog
- Laban Tall
- Atlantic Blog
- House of Dumb
- Blognor Regis
- Burning Our Money
- The England Project
- Mick Hartley
- Iain Dale
- Tim Worstall
- An Englishman's Castle
- Unenlightened Commentary
- Squander Two
- Patrick Crozier
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Guido Fawkes
- Brian Micklethwait
- Nothing British
- Battenburg.co.uk
- The Devil's Kitchen
-
- February 2002
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009