BOOKS
NORTH AND SOUTH, by Mrs (Elizabeth) Gaskell. An Anglican priest has a crisis of conscience, leaves his parish and takes his family from the leafy south to the dark Satanic mills of a northern town.
Mrs Gaskell was a colleague of Dickens, who regarded her as his slightly less talented kid sister. However, to be only slightly less talented than Charles Dickens is still to be very talented indeed, and in this book we see her literary skills displayed superbly. Her story of a beautiful young girl, uprooted from her origins and making her way in the unfamiliar grime and poverty of the North is as good a tale as you'll find in 19th century literature. And like Dickens, it is clear Mrs G also has an acute social sense.
THINGS FALL APART, by Chinwa Achebe. Life proceeds in a remote Nigerian village as it has for thousands of years, until the arrival of the White Man, who is determined to impose his religion and social values on the people, however unwelcome they may be.
An astounding piece of writing, the first, and perhaps the greatest of novels written in English by African writers. The reader is transported into the remote bush so vividly one can almost taste the dust and smell the woodsmoke and fragrant spices lingering in the air. A really terrific book.
THE OPTIMIST'S DAUGHTER, by Eudora Welty. An ageing judge goes to hospital for an eye operation, but there are complications, and he dies. Left behind are his young widow and his daughter. Unsurprisingly they don't get on... Eudora Welty was one of America's leading literary figures, winning many accolades including a Pulitzer Prize in a long and glittering career. She isn't that well known in Europe however, which is perhaps our loss. This tale of nostalgia and ennui has a brilliantly subtle emotional core, and is clearly drafted by a master wordsmith.
FILMS
FATA MORGANA (1969) D- Werner Herzog. A series of images depicting mirages (the alternate name for Fata Morgana) are shown, accompanied by a soundtrack of Mayan creation and destruction myths. Werner Herzog is on the shortlist for greatest living director, but unfortunately this film is lamentable. The filmed sequences are too repetitive and frankly not interesting enough, while the soundtrack was to my ears more annoying than moving. This film came as an extra to the really outstanding documentary "Lessons of Darkness"- which with its extraordinary sequences of the burning oil wells in Kuwait in 1991 is one of the most powerful anti-war tracts made in the last thirty years.This, on the other hand, you could safely do without watching.
ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) D- Joe Cornish. Vampire aliens invade Earth, but most unwisely choose a sink estate in East London as their starting point. Sort of Shaun of the Dead meets Independence Day, but with a harder, grittier edge than either of those films,it is also extremely funny; indeed I would call it comedy of the year. See it. Without delay.
SILENT LIGHT (2008) D- Carlos Peygadas. Families living in a Mexican Mennonite community appear on the surface to live pious, exemplary lives. But deep down they are only people, with the same failings as the rest of us. A sensitive, highly accomplished piece, offering valuable insights into that flawed being known as homo sapiens.
PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE (A Day in the Country) (1936) D- Jean Renoir. Based on a short story by Maupassant. Two young women go on a picnic in the countryside outside Paris, where they meet two attractive young men. They pair off and one couple falls desperately in love. However, years later we find the girl in question has not married the love of her life...
This begins so well one feels one is witnessing a masterpiece. But Renoir fled to the US before it was finished, and the ending was cobbled together by other hands. The result is a terribly unsatisfactory ending. A great shame.
WHERE DO WE GO NOW? (2011) D- Nadine Labaki. The women of an Arab village, where Muslims and Christians are in a constant state of conflict go to extraordinary lengths to keep them from fighting, even to the point of hiring a crew of Ukrainian hookers to keep them diverted. It's a clever idea, but the execution is disappointing. The style is uncertain, as if they didn't know quite how to play it.
IN TIME (2011) D- Andrew Niccoll. They say time is money, and in a future world, time has become currency. Everyone is allotted 25 years; after that we have to pay up or die. A plot idea reminiscent of "Logan's Run" this film has the look and feel of "Inception", and actually has several good things about it, though I remain unconvinced by Justin Timberlake in the lead role. His co-star Amanda Seyfried looks delectable however.
WILD ORCHID (1989) D- Zalman King. A pretty lawyer becomes caught up in the web of a lecherous billionaire. A truly appalling piece of crap, with Mickey Rourke as the tycoon enjoying himself hugely at our expense, and all round abysmally bad acting, writing and direction. In particular, Jacqueline Bisset is forced (please tell me she was forced) into one of the worst cameo performances ever seen on screen.
BODY HEAT (1981) D- Lawrence Kasdan. A down at heel lawyer (William Hurt) falls for a beautiful, but married woman (Kathleen Turner) and events take a dark turn when she suggests he murders her hubbie. A remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" or is it "Double Indemnity"? but in the event only a pale copy of either of those 40s classics.
SKYFALL (20120 D- Sam Mendes. An ageing James Bond is forcibly retired, but you can't keep a good man down... You might have anticipated something special with a Bond movie made by the golden boy of British cinema, and it does turn out to be a different, and superior offering from any of the Bonds in the last 30-odd years. The plot is tight, and there is a lot of good characterisation. (though I could have done without Javier Bardem's absurd haircut) And at least we've got rid of John Cleese playing "Q". My best moment: when someone sums up Bond's character by saying "Rebellious, anti-authoritarian personality due to childhood trauma" and I thought, that could be me they're talking about...
FIVE BROKEN CAMERAS P-D- Ermad Burnat. Since the segregation wall was built across their land in 2005, a village in the West Bank has held a non-violent protest at the wall every week. And an amateur film maker has been there at every one, chronicling the action. And in that time, five of his cameras have been destroyed by the army. A deeply moving document, heartbreaking actually, which vividly demonstrates the oppression and persecution enacted by an inhuman Israeli occupation force against a group of peace-loving people who are determined only to live their own lives free of harassment. Brilliant.
MYSTIC RIVER (2003) D- Clint Eastwood. An ex-con's teenage daughter is found murdered, and, mad with grief, he will stop at nothing to find the culprit. From his days as Rowdy Yates in "Waggon Train" in the 1950s, through the Sergio Leone years as the Man With No Name, Clint has gradually grown in stature until he has now reached the status of one of Hollywood's finest film makers. And here he has perhaps approached his zenith in a sensitively made and superbly acted tail of childhood lost and pointless revenge. As the two principle protagonists, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins both received well deserved Oscars for their splendid performances.
THE PASSENGER (1975) D- Michaelangelo Antonioni. Somewhere in the Western Desert, a journalist meets a gun-runner. When the latter dies of natural causes, the journo (Jack Nicholson) decides for reasons that are never made clear, to adopt his identity. He even sells arms as his adopted role demands, but when he doesn't deliver things get a bit nasty. Some have described this as Antonioni's best film, and certainly it has a strange, dreamy quality which produces a rather hypnotic effect. Maria Schneider (you remember her in "Last Tango in Paris") is also strong as the girl Nicholson randomly hooks up with. Excellent, thoughtful stuff.
Friday, 30 November 2012
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
On press freedom
I selected the pseudonym "Pelagius" in tribute to the notable "opponent of St Augustine" who was executed by the early church for the heresy of suggesting that it was not necessary to require the services of a "middle man" ie a priest, in order to have direct communion with God. Naturally this was anathema to the church, so he was killed for it. Ever since the name Pelagius has become synonymous with freedom of speech and individuality.
Hence I have deep reservations about any formal vetting of the press. But freedom of speech has its limits. As Oliver Wendel Holmes said, freedom of speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. And there should be other limits too. When the McCanns lost their daughter Maddie, they experienced one of the worst tragedies known to a human being. I should know: I lost my own son 6 years ago and the pain and suffering from that event endure as brightly today as it did then. But even my tragedy pales besides the abduction of a child. Even so, the Daily and Sunday Express thought nothing of conducting a serious and extended campaign suggesting that the parents were responsible for the death of their child- this despite any real evidence coming to light whatsoever. The McCanns eventually had their day in court, and were handsomely compensated for the disgraceful libel they had suffered. But the McCanns are both doctors, and therefore able to mount an expensive campaign to win justice.
My view is that a special "Assistance Board" should be established to help people who have suffered at the hands of the media to get their "redress". Grants could be made to pay for the best lawyers around, which is fair enough. The press, with its very deep pockets, can afford the best, so why not the "victims"? We don't need any press regulation, but we are entitled to fight back if our reputations are trashed in the media, and a compassionate state should put the machinery in place to enable everyone to do just that, should it ever become necessary
Hence I have deep reservations about any formal vetting of the press. But freedom of speech has its limits. As Oliver Wendel Holmes said, freedom of speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. And there should be other limits too. When the McCanns lost their daughter Maddie, they experienced one of the worst tragedies known to a human being. I should know: I lost my own son 6 years ago and the pain and suffering from that event endure as brightly today as it did then. But even my tragedy pales besides the abduction of a child. Even so, the Daily and Sunday Express thought nothing of conducting a serious and extended campaign suggesting that the parents were responsible for the death of their child- this despite any real evidence coming to light whatsoever. The McCanns eventually had their day in court, and were handsomely compensated for the disgraceful libel they had suffered. But the McCanns are both doctors, and therefore able to mount an expensive campaign to win justice.
My view is that a special "Assistance Board" should be established to help people who have suffered at the hands of the media to get their "redress". Grants could be made to pay for the best lawyers around, which is fair enough. The press, with its very deep pockets, can afford the best, so why not the "victims"? We don't need any press regulation, but we are entitled to fight back if our reputations are trashed in the media, and a compassionate state should put the machinery in place to enable everyone to do just that, should it ever become necessary
Sunday, 25 November 2012
In praise of Star Trek
I was watching re-runs of the first series of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" the other day (OK, I grant that that is a little bogus, not to say sad) when I came across an episode called "Where No One has Gone Before". In it a character appears who has "special knowledge" of the Enterprise's warp drive. To the humans aboard he appears to be a rather weak-looking, vulnerable humanoid life form, but nonetheless he (with the assistance of Wesley Crusher, the teenage ensign who does a line in the worst jumpers in the known galaxy) is able to save the ship from disaster, while taking it "beyond warp 10", and therefore covering every furthest point in the Universe simultaneously).
There is another episode in the original (captain Kirk/Mr Spock) series where they encounter a race that can manipulate reality and which Spock pronounces as " as far ahead of humankind as we are above the amoeba".
For us to achieve this level of complexity , how far must our "civilisation" have to go to reach a similar level? A million years? A billion? Is it even conceivable we could last that long, given our precarious state currently? It's an open question. But let us look at the age of the Universe. Currently aged at 13.7 billion years, within 1 billion years of its creation, the early galaxies had already formed,with many stars with Earth-like planets orbiting them. The latest research is now indicating that Earth-like planets, floating in a Goldilocks zone where water can exist in its liquid state, probably litter all galaxies and in a profusion than wasn't believed possible just a few years ago. It is perfectly possible that there are life forms out there that have been in existence, and evolving, not for just 3 billion years like here, but at least twice as long.
Can you imagine what they might have achieved with that sort of head start? Travel between the stars might be elementary for them; indeed, they might be able to manipulate all the laws of nature to their own advantage. In other words, they would be so far ahead of us they would be indistinguishable from what we might call God. If they have lasted that long, they might have found it necessary to relocate, as their home star eventually died and they needed to find another. They might not even need a planet by that stage of their evolution, having no corporeal existence at all, but simply existing as unimaginable whorls of energy. They could certainly travel here, though I'm sure they would have some non-interference policy, like the "Prime Directive" so beloved by Star Fleet.
At present there are restrictions laid down by the laws of physics; we can't go faster than light, we can't travel in time and so on. But that's only at the level we currently understand how the Universe works. But one day, if we can avoid destroying the only home we have in the meantime, these little obstructions may be overcome. Can we make it? I think we can.
What's all this got to do with Star Trek? Just that it helped open my mind, and many others, to the possibilities of the infinite. And let's face it, you can't say that about most TV programmes.
There is another episode in the original (captain Kirk/Mr Spock) series where they encounter a race that can manipulate reality and which Spock pronounces as " as far ahead of humankind as we are above the amoeba".
For us to achieve this level of complexity , how far must our "civilisation" have to go to reach a similar level? A million years? A billion? Is it even conceivable we could last that long, given our precarious state currently? It's an open question. But let us look at the age of the Universe. Currently aged at 13.7 billion years, within 1 billion years of its creation, the early galaxies had already formed,with many stars with Earth-like planets orbiting them. The latest research is now indicating that Earth-like planets, floating in a Goldilocks zone where water can exist in its liquid state, probably litter all galaxies and in a profusion than wasn't believed possible just a few years ago. It is perfectly possible that there are life forms out there that have been in existence, and evolving, not for just 3 billion years like here, but at least twice as long.
Can you imagine what they might have achieved with that sort of head start? Travel between the stars might be elementary for them; indeed, they might be able to manipulate all the laws of nature to their own advantage. In other words, they would be so far ahead of us they would be indistinguishable from what we might call God. If they have lasted that long, they might have found it necessary to relocate, as their home star eventually died and they needed to find another. They might not even need a planet by that stage of their evolution, having no corporeal existence at all, but simply existing as unimaginable whorls of energy. They could certainly travel here, though I'm sure they would have some non-interference policy, like the "Prime Directive" so beloved by Star Fleet.
At present there are restrictions laid down by the laws of physics; we can't go faster than light, we can't travel in time and so on. But that's only at the level we currently understand how the Universe works. But one day, if we can avoid destroying the only home we have in the meantime, these little obstructions may be overcome. Can we make it? I think we can.
What's all this got to do with Star Trek? Just that it helped open my mind, and many others, to the possibilities of the infinite. And let's face it, you can't say that about most TV programmes.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Growth is good, or so we're told
There are certain givens out there, universal truths if you like, which seem to be accepted without debate: "Terrorism is bad" is an excellent example, but perhaps an even better one is the belief that "Growth is good". It must be, surely, after all if there isn't any, then we're in a recession and that's bad, right? But the idea of the whole world "growing" is untenable. The Earth is only so large and has a finite amount of resources, so we can't all keep growing. If one section of the world grows, it usually means another part of it pays for it.
Even at home the "growth is good" idea is about to cause some big problems for all of us. David Cameron recently announced that, in the furtherance of growth, the government is to relax planning laws to enable development to proceed untrammelled by awkward little considerations like the environment or the views of local people who might be affected by said development. What lies ahead is not a pretty prospect. How long is it before all the green space, excepting perhaps the mountainous areas that are too expensive to bother developing, are carpeted by industrial parks, out-of-town hypermarket complexes or golf courses?
This is the way out of the recession apparently. Growth is the altar at which we shall sacrifice everything that is important to our national well being. Sure some people will get a lot richer, mainly those who are already wealthy, but never mind. As long as the economy grows, we're all right, right? Actually no. The world needs to husband its resources with great care lest we destroy our own habitat. Animals in the wild do not shit in their own lairs, but that's exactly what the human race does when it worships the false god of growth.
Even at home the "growth is good" idea is about to cause some big problems for all of us. David Cameron recently announced that, in the furtherance of growth, the government is to relax planning laws to enable development to proceed untrammelled by awkward little considerations like the environment or the views of local people who might be affected by said development. What lies ahead is not a pretty prospect. How long is it before all the green space, excepting perhaps the mountainous areas that are too expensive to bother developing, are carpeted by industrial parks, out-of-town hypermarket complexes or golf courses?
This is the way out of the recession apparently. Growth is the altar at which we shall sacrifice everything that is important to our national well being. Sure some people will get a lot richer, mainly those who are already wealthy, but never mind. As long as the economy grows, we're all right, right? Actually no. The world needs to husband its resources with great care lest we destroy our own habitat. Animals in the wild do not shit in their own lairs, but that's exactly what the human race does when it worships the false god of growth.
Friday, 16 November 2012
Gaza kicks off again, not many dead (yet)
Apparently one of the first things Obama did having secured victory in the US election was to phone Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority and beg him not to embarrass everyone by going for observer status at the UN again. Get real!It was thrown out last time, and it's doomed this time too. This is not the best way forward, he probably said; what you need to do is to start negotiating with the Israelis.
I imagine Abbas's response was something like: "Have you tried negotiating with them? They won't budge an inch on anything." And Barack would only need to look at the Wikileaks documents of secret "negotiations"between the 2 sides to realise that Abbas is right. Despite many far-reaching concessions from the Palestinian side, the Israeli team completely failed to alter their position on anything substantive. And of course they can rest secure in the knowledge that they will receive Obama's support in pretty much anything they do, whether it's espanding the already illegal settlements (they are planning to open a university at one of them soon), or responding to a rocket attack by destroying whole appartment blocks full of families.
Last week the Israelis "responded" to the launching of rockets into southern Israel by pounding Gaza with air strikes. Little has been said of a previous event where Israeli soldiers opened fire during a demonstration and killed a small child. Today we hear the rocket attacks, and their completely disproportionate counter-strikes from the Israelis have entered a new cycle.
The last time this happened, the Israelis levelled extensive areas in Gaza and killed at least ten times as many people as they lost. You may feel the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against these rocket attacks, but what of the Palestinian right to defend themselves? The fact remains that the Israeli government is running an Apartheid regime, with the Palestinians playing the role of the blacks, and the Israelis the role of the white South Africans. The whole world thought that was wrong and eventually the pressure told and that appalling regime collapsed. But with America's stalwart support the Israelis think they are safe to behave however they please, and with Obama's recent victory they are going about proving just that.
I realise Hamas does not exactly hold the moral high ground either. No organisation, be it "terrorist" or state (like Iran) is going to get very far by insisting the Israelis be simply pitched into the sea, or "go and live in Alaska" as Iran's premier said they should not long ago. The Israelis are there for the long haul: get used to it. And I don't believe in the 2 state solution either. An independent Palestinian state could not operate autonomously. What the Palestinians need is to be granted full human rights and civil liberties identical to those enjoyed by the Israeli people; only then can the process of living in harmony begin. It seems an awfully long way off right now, but it's the only way.
I imagine Abbas's response was something like: "Have you tried negotiating with them? They won't budge an inch on anything." And Barack would only need to look at the Wikileaks documents of secret "negotiations"between the 2 sides to realise that Abbas is right. Despite many far-reaching concessions from the Palestinian side, the Israeli team completely failed to alter their position on anything substantive. And of course they can rest secure in the knowledge that they will receive Obama's support in pretty much anything they do, whether it's espanding the already illegal settlements (they are planning to open a university at one of them soon), or responding to a rocket attack by destroying whole appartment blocks full of families.
Last week the Israelis "responded" to the launching of rockets into southern Israel by pounding Gaza with air strikes. Little has been said of a previous event where Israeli soldiers opened fire during a demonstration and killed a small child. Today we hear the rocket attacks, and their completely disproportionate counter-strikes from the Israelis have entered a new cycle.
The last time this happened, the Israelis levelled extensive areas in Gaza and killed at least ten times as many people as they lost. You may feel the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against these rocket attacks, but what of the Palestinian right to defend themselves? The fact remains that the Israeli government is running an Apartheid regime, with the Palestinians playing the role of the blacks, and the Israelis the role of the white South Africans. The whole world thought that was wrong and eventually the pressure told and that appalling regime collapsed. But with America's stalwart support the Israelis think they are safe to behave however they please, and with Obama's recent victory they are going about proving just that.
I realise Hamas does not exactly hold the moral high ground either. No organisation, be it "terrorist" or state (like Iran) is going to get very far by insisting the Israelis be simply pitched into the sea, or "go and live in Alaska" as Iran's premier said they should not long ago. The Israelis are there for the long haul: get used to it. And I don't believe in the 2 state solution either. An independent Palestinian state could not operate autonomously. What the Palestinians need is to be granted full human rights and civil liberties identical to those enjoyed by the Israeli people; only then can the process of living in harmony begin. It seems an awfully long way off right now, but it's the only way.
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
A tricky removal
Not long ago my father-in-law lost his struggle to live at home and was admitted to an old people's home specialising in "EMI" (Elderly Mentally Infirm). It is hard to put yourself in his place and see the transition from his perspective. But we can be sure it will be registered as a change, and therefore a stressful event in his mind, even though outwardly he seems to show little sign of disturbance. But what is he really feeling on the inside? It's impossible for us to identify with his plight, though we can try
For us too it heen a traumatic time. It has been heartbreaking to witness his loss of independence, that thing which all of us aspire to so dearly. And now his house is empty, we are faced with the task of gradually getting it into condition for its sale. This morning I took on the task of clearing the old pots and pans from his kitchen. It proved much more difficult than I had anticipated. What seemed to be a straightforward job of bagging up the now useless utensils, turned into a kind of nightmarish journey of ennui and nostalgia. The origins of that word, of course. come from a Greek word having to do with pain. And painful it was. In fact, at one point it became too much for me. I found his old shoe-cleaning box, complete with brushes and polishes of all kinds, everything neatly packed into a plastic box and tucked in a conveniently accessible place under the kitchen sink.
Other items were also redolent of a more capable past, but I was more easiy able to dispatch these to the waiting black sacks, three of which I eventually filled with ironware of all descriptions, weighing more than 10 kg in total.
But I just couldn't bring myself to throw that cleaning kit away, so intensely personal to him as it was. So it lies there still, in a handy place right under the kitchen sink, ready to shine shoes at any moment, but destined never to do so again.
For us too it heen a traumatic time. It has been heartbreaking to witness his loss of independence, that thing which all of us aspire to so dearly. And now his house is empty, we are faced with the task of gradually getting it into condition for its sale. This morning I took on the task of clearing the old pots and pans from his kitchen. It proved much more difficult than I had anticipated. What seemed to be a straightforward job of bagging up the now useless utensils, turned into a kind of nightmarish journey of ennui and nostalgia. The origins of that word, of course. come from a Greek word having to do with pain. And painful it was. In fact, at one point it became too much for me. I found his old shoe-cleaning box, complete with brushes and polishes of all kinds, everything neatly packed into a plastic box and tucked in a conveniently accessible place under the kitchen sink.
Other items were also redolent of a more capable past, but I was more easiy able to dispatch these to the waiting black sacks, three of which I eventually filled with ironware of all descriptions, weighing more than 10 kg in total.
But I just couldn't bring myself to throw that cleaning kit away, so intensely personal to him as it was. So it lies there still, in a handy place right under the kitchen sink, ready to shine shoes at any moment, but destined never to do so again.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
A bad week for capitalism, and it's only Tuesday
It isn't often you find Tories excoriating huge international brands for doing what they were designed to do, ie making a lot of money, but it happened yesterday, when executives from the British arms of three of the world's biggest companies were interrogated by a parliamentary committee.
It seems the 3 companies, Google, Amazon and Starbucks have all been using some very creative accounting techniques (and quite legally apparently) to make it look like they were hardly making any money at all out of their British operations. Odd, that. What are they then, charities, only in Britain to provide a useful service to the public? I thinknottle. These companies make millions of pounds out of their British franchises, and yet they're paying tax like someone on the minimum wage. They say this is legal? OK, so change the fucking law then. I for one am fed up with these people ripping off the British public through clever little legal loopholes..
Then only this morning we hear that the price of gas is being carefully manipulated in order to maximise profits to the dealers, another activity which is perfectly legal, but morally bankrupt.
In China this week, a new set of leaders will be presented to the people. The people, of course, will have had no say in deciding who is to rule them. All they can hope is that there will be steady improvement in their civil rights and freedoms. If they are realistic they will accept that any progress will probably be very slow indeed.
China now is in a very similar position to where the UK was at the beginning of the 19th century. Their industrial revolution has set in big time, and a few masters are reaping the benefits in undreamed of wealth and power. But just like Britain in those early days, that wealth is being created by the sweat of millions who have sold their souls to the company store, and for a pathetically cheap price. Oh, we are so much more civilised than that now, aren't we? Er, no, we are not, and for evidence may I refer you to my opening paragraphs. Our capitalism is certainly more sophisticated than the Chinese variety, but it's just as wrong.
It seems the 3 companies, Google, Amazon and Starbucks have all been using some very creative accounting techniques (and quite legally apparently) to make it look like they were hardly making any money at all out of their British operations. Odd, that. What are they then, charities, only in Britain to provide a useful service to the public? I thinknottle. These companies make millions of pounds out of their British franchises, and yet they're paying tax like someone on the minimum wage. They say this is legal? OK, so change the fucking law then. I for one am fed up with these people ripping off the British public through clever little legal loopholes..
Then only this morning we hear that the price of gas is being carefully manipulated in order to maximise profits to the dealers, another activity which is perfectly legal, but morally bankrupt.
In China this week, a new set of leaders will be presented to the people. The people, of course, will have had no say in deciding who is to rule them. All they can hope is that there will be steady improvement in their civil rights and freedoms. If they are realistic they will accept that any progress will probably be very slow indeed.
China now is in a very similar position to where the UK was at the beginning of the 19th century. Their industrial revolution has set in big time, and a few masters are reaping the benefits in undreamed of wealth and power. But just like Britain in those early days, that wealth is being created by the sweat of millions who have sold their souls to the company store, and for a pathetically cheap price. Oh, we are so much more civilised than that now, aren't we? Er, no, we are not, and for evidence may I refer you to my opening paragraphs. Our capitalism is certainly more sophisticated than the Chinese variety, but it's just as wrong.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Obama wins, now ever' lil thing's gonna be all right
You wish. It is true that the world is suddenly a slightly safer place this morning than if the other guy had won. But the problems faced around the world in terms of human rights abuses and especially "religious" intolerance continue just as before.
Watching "The Wright Stuff" on the TV this morning (that's right: I do have too much time on my hands) the estimable Yasmin Alibi Brown reminded us of Britain's hypocrisy in selling arms to Saudi Arabia despite their disgraceful record on human rights, especially their treatment of women. They showed a clip of Cameron defending his position, saying that nations around the world had a right to defend themselves, and that it was legitimate to sell them the means to do just that. But Matthew Wright, God bless, wondered how he squared his own support of gay marriage with the fact that homosexuality is a capital offence in that awful country.
Our defence industry supports 300,000 jobs; indeed, we remain one of the world's biggest arms producers. What of all those jobs if we were to start getting all moral about who we sold our arms to? Yasmin was ready for this. The same argument was used in the early 19th century to justify slavery, upon which thousands of jobs depended. But eventually it was decided that they might be better employed in less heinous occupations, and slavery was abolished.
The world changes agonisingly slowly at times, but it does change. And I suspect that the fewer republicans there are in the White House over the next few decades, the better the world, and America, will be. Well done Barack! You're not the greatest, but you are definitely a big improvement on Mr Mitt!
Watching "The Wright Stuff" on the TV this morning (that's right: I do have too much time on my hands) the estimable Yasmin Alibi Brown reminded us of Britain's hypocrisy in selling arms to Saudi Arabia despite their disgraceful record on human rights, especially their treatment of women. They showed a clip of Cameron defending his position, saying that nations around the world had a right to defend themselves, and that it was legitimate to sell them the means to do just that. But Matthew Wright, God bless, wondered how he squared his own support of gay marriage with the fact that homosexuality is a capital offence in that awful country.
Our defence industry supports 300,000 jobs; indeed, we remain one of the world's biggest arms producers. What of all those jobs if we were to start getting all moral about who we sold our arms to? Yasmin was ready for this. The same argument was used in the early 19th century to justify slavery, upon which thousands of jobs depended. But eventually it was decided that they might be better employed in less heinous occupations, and slavery was abolished.
The world changes agonisingly slowly at times, but it does change. And I suspect that the fewer republicans there are in the White House over the next few decades, the better the world, and America, will be. Well done Barack! You're not the greatest, but you are definitely a big improvement on Mr Mitt!
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Which ever candidate they vote for, the president gets in
Today millions of Americans vote to choose their next president. But what choice do they really have? Both candidates are agreed on many key issues, ensuring there will be no real change (the big buzz word in America these days). In the "mid-east" for instance, both parties have once again thrown their weight behind Israel, which doesn't bode well for the Palestinian people, who are under the yoke of an apartheid regime. (By the way, if you think that's an exaggeration, remember that a recent poll there supported the idea of Israelis and Palestinians using separate roads! And I think you can guess who would get to ride the dual carriageways and who would be left to bump along dirt tracks)
And neither party has had anything to say about gun control, the greatest shame of that great nation, because the slightest suggestion that guns should be even slightly harder to obtain would lose them millions of votes from voters who are locked into a pioneer mentality that was actually out of date more than a century ago. Similarly there has been no debate about capital punishment or the fact that the US locks up a bigger percentage of its citizens than any other "democratic country", and that a worryingly disproportionate amount of them are from ethnic minorities. Don't go there, they have been told by their advisers: it's electoral suicide. Hence in reality, very little changes.
When Obama won in 2008, it emerged that his campaign, estimated to cost over $76 million, was the most expensive in history. Mitt Romney, a man who himself is worth over $200 million and pays tax at less than 13% (significantly less than the average American), as well as believing in a made-up religion (actually I suppose all religions are made up really), has learnt from this and spent even more on his campaign this time around. Obama's supporters have had to invest a similar amount (some estimates put the price paid as high as £1 billion) just to keep up.
And what do we hear them say? The same, meaningless little flash-phrases, over and over again until like some Pavlovian dog the electorate heads towards the food bowl that suits them best. Romney accuses Obama of presiding over the world financial crash, but as I remember it it had happened by the time Obama took the oath of allegiance. And as for him not fulfilling his electoral promises, it's not surprising since every change Obama tried to make was opposed every inch of the way by a congress determined to thwart his every initiative. In his turn Obama points the finger at the GOP for helping create the crash, though it is plain that democratic party supporters were equally implicated in what was one of the biggest displays of greed the world has ever seen.
So, good luck America, you enjoy your day of so-called "democracy". Just one thing, a word to the wise, as it were: whoever wins, please don't invade Iran. The American public is easily conned (as are the rest of us), and it might do wonders for your approval ratings at home, but I fancy it might go down rather less well with the rest of the world...
And neither party has had anything to say about gun control, the greatest shame of that great nation, because the slightest suggestion that guns should be even slightly harder to obtain would lose them millions of votes from voters who are locked into a pioneer mentality that was actually out of date more than a century ago. Similarly there has been no debate about capital punishment or the fact that the US locks up a bigger percentage of its citizens than any other "democratic country", and that a worryingly disproportionate amount of them are from ethnic minorities. Don't go there, they have been told by their advisers: it's electoral suicide. Hence in reality, very little changes.
When Obama won in 2008, it emerged that his campaign, estimated to cost over $76 million, was the most expensive in history. Mitt Romney, a man who himself is worth over $200 million and pays tax at less than 13% (significantly less than the average American), as well as believing in a made-up religion (actually I suppose all religions are made up really), has learnt from this and spent even more on his campaign this time around. Obama's supporters have had to invest a similar amount (some estimates put the price paid as high as £1 billion) just to keep up.
And what do we hear them say? The same, meaningless little flash-phrases, over and over again until like some Pavlovian dog the electorate heads towards the food bowl that suits them best. Romney accuses Obama of presiding over the world financial crash, but as I remember it it had happened by the time Obama took the oath of allegiance. And as for him not fulfilling his electoral promises, it's not surprising since every change Obama tried to make was opposed every inch of the way by a congress determined to thwart his every initiative. In his turn Obama points the finger at the GOP for helping create the crash, though it is plain that democratic party supporters were equally implicated in what was one of the biggest displays of greed the world has ever seen.
So, good luck America, you enjoy your day of so-called "democracy". Just one thing, a word to the wise, as it were: whoever wins, please don't invade Iran. The American public is easily conned (as are the rest of us), and it might do wonders for your approval ratings at home, but I fancy it might go down rather less well with the rest of the world...
Friday, 2 November 2012
Comments on my blog
I don't get many comments on my blog; I expect people to read it, maybe go hmm, and then move on to other areas of their doubtless busy lives.. But comments, though they are scarce, are always most welcome.
Unfortunately, hitherto I have been negligent in looking at my comments and have only just remedied the situation this evening after a long interval. I published all of them, including an incomprehensible one from "Patrick", a delightful affirmation from " Jackie" and a vituperative bombast, the likes of which I might myself have been proud. This too was hard to understand, though Beowulf may be a trifle less enamoured of the concept of the European Union than I am.
As it happens, dear Beowulf, I wrote another blog on this very subject only recently. In it I pointed out how this is one of those unusual issues that can unite thinkers from both the far right and the radical left: where are you on the spectrum, I wonder?
I'll try to be more vigilant checking my comments from now on, so please leave em whenever the mood strikes: I promise I'll publish all of them
Unfortunately, hitherto I have been negligent in looking at my comments and have only just remedied the situation this evening after a long interval. I published all of them, including an incomprehensible one from "Patrick", a delightful affirmation from " Jackie" and a vituperative bombast, the likes of which I might myself have been proud. This too was hard to understand, though Beowulf may be a trifle less enamoured of the concept of the European Union than I am.
As it happens, dear Beowulf, I wrote another blog on this very subject only recently. In it I pointed out how this is one of those unusual issues that can unite thinkers from both the far right and the radical left: where are you on the spectrum, I wonder?
I'll try to be more vigilant checking my comments from now on, so please leave em whenever the mood strikes: I promise I'll publish all of them
Thursday, 1 November 2012
October book and film review
BOOKS
B. TRAVEN- THE LIFE BEHIND THE LEGENDS, by Karl S. Guthrie. B Traven, the author of many international best sellers including "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and "The Death Ship" was an enigma throughout his life, which was exactly how he wanted it. He assumed many aliases and in other diverse ways disguised his true identity until he was finally tracked down in the autumn of his years, hiding in total obscurity in Mexico city. Why? Turns out B Traven was originally Ret Marut, an anarchist agitator in post WW1 Germany who was arrested by the authorities and (according to legend at least) was within 15 minutes of being executed when he managed to escape from his guards. He disappeared, and a new incarnation appeared in Mexico, writing books that have since captured the imagination of the world with their humanity and strongly libertarian bent. A fascinating read.
A FINE NIGHT FOR DYING, by Jack Higgins. A man is found drowned off the coast of southern England. Later evidence shows him to have been murdered. Enter our hero, a sort of James Bond figure, to sort out the mystery and bring the guilty to justice. Higgins's writing is very simple, but he is a highly talented story- teller, and ones attention is gripped from the outset. Unusually for me, I read it in a single sitting.
FILMS
BUTLEY (1973), D- Harold Pinter (from the play by Simon Gray). A bisexual university lecturer's life begins to unravel over the course of a day. Very stagy, as we might expect from a film adaptation of a play, but still effective, down in large part to the strong performance of the eponymous lead, played by Alan Bates. Intriguing and subtle stuff.
THE LUCKY TEXAN (1932) D-Robert W Bradbury. A young man (a very youthful John Wayne) and his grizzled associate (Gabby Hayes) nearly get cheated out of their gold mine, but come through heroically at the last. Notable for its 3 way chase between horses, a train and a car, this film rattles along like a galloping stallion. Watchable.
NINE QUEENS (2000) D- Fabian Bielinsky An experienced conman takes on a junior assistant to effect the theft of some valuable stamps. But just who is being conned? Fascinating Argentinian offering that keeps one guessing until the final frame.
X MEN 2 (2003) D- Bryan Singer (aka X2) Professor Xavier and his mutant cohort fight against the forces that would exterminate them. I like the X Men franchise, but somehow seem to have missed the 2nd in the series, which is shown on the television much less often than the others (why I'm not sure). It is graced, as are the others, by some very fine actors (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen inter alia) as well as clever plotting and special effects. Give 'em a try. All of 'em.
WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957) D- Ingmar Bergman. An eminent old physician is being honoured by his old university, and decides to drive across southern Sweden to receive it in person. On the way, he undergoes a strange and magical journey into his youthful origins. I have seen this film before, just once, nearly 50 years ago and all I could remember of it was that it was brilliant. So I include it in this list, even though I usually confine myself to films I have seen for the first time. Brilliant it definitely is, as our hero finds himself mystically transported in time to his childhood and teenage years in a series of cameo experiences, not all of which are pleasant. But would that we could have such experiences ourselves... One of Bergman's greatest films.
OSS:117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES (2006) D- Michel Hazanavicius. A secret agent is brought in to make peace in the Middle East (no big task there then) and somehow, by sheer elan, he manages it! Highly enjoyable spoof on the James Bond brand, funny; well acted (especially by Jean Dujardin, you'll remember him in "The Artist") and despite its apparent naivete, very knowing. Excellent.
B. TRAVEN- THE LIFE BEHIND THE LEGENDS, by Karl S. Guthrie. B Traven, the author of many international best sellers including "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and "The Death Ship" was an enigma throughout his life, which was exactly how he wanted it. He assumed many aliases and in other diverse ways disguised his true identity until he was finally tracked down in the autumn of his years, hiding in total obscurity in Mexico city. Why? Turns out B Traven was originally Ret Marut, an anarchist agitator in post WW1 Germany who was arrested by the authorities and (according to legend at least) was within 15 minutes of being executed when he managed to escape from his guards. He disappeared, and a new incarnation appeared in Mexico, writing books that have since captured the imagination of the world with their humanity and strongly libertarian bent. A fascinating read.
A FINE NIGHT FOR DYING, by Jack Higgins. A man is found drowned off the coast of southern England. Later evidence shows him to have been murdered. Enter our hero, a sort of James Bond figure, to sort out the mystery and bring the guilty to justice. Higgins's writing is very simple, but he is a highly talented story- teller, and ones attention is gripped from the outset. Unusually for me, I read it in a single sitting.
FILMS
BUTLEY (1973), D- Harold Pinter (from the play by Simon Gray). A bisexual university lecturer's life begins to unravel over the course of a day. Very stagy, as we might expect from a film adaptation of a play, but still effective, down in large part to the strong performance of the eponymous lead, played by Alan Bates. Intriguing and subtle stuff.
THE LUCKY TEXAN (1932) D-Robert W Bradbury. A young man (a very youthful John Wayne) and his grizzled associate (Gabby Hayes) nearly get cheated out of their gold mine, but come through heroically at the last. Notable for its 3 way chase between horses, a train and a car, this film rattles along like a galloping stallion. Watchable.
NINE QUEENS (2000) D- Fabian Bielinsky An experienced conman takes on a junior assistant to effect the theft of some valuable stamps. But just who is being conned? Fascinating Argentinian offering that keeps one guessing until the final frame.
X MEN 2 (2003) D- Bryan Singer (aka X2) Professor Xavier and his mutant cohort fight against the forces that would exterminate them. I like the X Men franchise, but somehow seem to have missed the 2nd in the series, which is shown on the television much less often than the others (why I'm not sure). It is graced, as are the others, by some very fine actors (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen inter alia) as well as clever plotting and special effects. Give 'em a try. All of 'em.
WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957) D- Ingmar Bergman. An eminent old physician is being honoured by his old university, and decides to drive across southern Sweden to receive it in person. On the way, he undergoes a strange and magical journey into his youthful origins. I have seen this film before, just once, nearly 50 years ago and all I could remember of it was that it was brilliant. So I include it in this list, even though I usually confine myself to films I have seen for the first time. Brilliant it definitely is, as our hero finds himself mystically transported in time to his childhood and teenage years in a series of cameo experiences, not all of which are pleasant. But would that we could have such experiences ourselves... One of Bergman's greatest films.
OSS:117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES (2006) D- Michel Hazanavicius. A secret agent is brought in to make peace in the Middle East (no big task there then) and somehow, by sheer elan, he manages it! Highly enjoyable spoof on the James Bond brand, funny; well acted (especially by Jean Dujardin, you'll remember him in "The Artist") and despite its apparent naivete, very knowing. Excellent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)