Showing posts with label Russell Brand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russell Brand. Show all posts

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Rejoice! More Thoughts on the Death of Thatcher


It's looking quite possible that "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead" will be the most downloaded track of the week by the time Thatcher's funeral takes place next Tuesday. Meanwhile, street parties have been taking place, along with chants of "Maggie Maggie Maggie: Dead Dead Dead!"

It's impossible to underestimate just how hated Thatcher had become in this country by the time her Conservative colleagues got together and kicked her out of her Prime Ministership, on the grounds that she'd become an electoral liability and was quite possibly losing the plot completely, along with most of her marbles.

Today the House of Commons was recalled so that the Conservative party could come back together to tell one another what a brilliant leader she had been. There were 8 hours or so of speeches, which is in quite a big contrast to the 3 speeches that were made in Parliament to mark the death of Winston Churchill those many years ago.

Jon Snow ‏@jonsnowC4
How come MPs/Lords recalled at our expense for Mrs T when they could hve returned 4 free next Monday, before funeral, a week after she died?

Tom Delargy ‏@derekrootboy
Labour MPs will feel ashamed of themselves for not having guts to stand up and be counted. Only Glenda Jackson did it. Well done. #Thatcher

Seumas Milne ‏@SeumasMilne
#Thatcherism wreaked 'most heinous social, economic & spiritual damage' on Britain: @GlendaJacksonMP spells it out http://bit.ly/153YKA9

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84
Good on Glenda Jackson for smashing the Thatcherism love fest, and telling the truth about the social devastation unleashed in the 1980s


Owen Jones wrote this superb article for The Independent:
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe that still poisons us

We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-thatcherism-was-a-national-catastrophe-that-still-poisons-us-8564858.html

This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.

Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too.

We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal.  Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.

The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.

Russell Brand wrote an equally impressive piece for the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher

She became leader of the Conservatives the year I was born and prime minister when I was four. She remained in power till I was 15. I am, it's safe to say, one of Thatcher's children. How then do I feel on the day of this matriarchal mourning?

I see her in her hairy helmet, condescending on Nationwide, eviscerating eunuch MPs and baffled BBC fuddy duddies with her General Zodd stare and coldly condemning the IRA. And the miners. And the single mums. The dockers. The poll-tax rioters. The Brixton rioters, the Argentinians, teachers; everyone actually.

Thinking about it now, when I was a child she was just a strict woman telling everyone off and selling everything off. I didn't know what to think of this fearsome woman.

Perhaps my early apathy and indifference are a result of what Thatcher deliberately engendered, the idea that "there is no such thing as society", that we are alone on our journey through life, solitary atoms of consciousness.

Perhaps, though, Thatcher "the monster" didn't die yesterday from a stroke, perhaps that Thatcher died as she sobbed self-pitying tears as she was driven, defeated, from Downing Street, ousted by her own party.

I hope I'm not being reductive but it seems Thatcher's time in power was solely spent diminishing the resources of those who had least for the advancement of those who had most. I know from my own indulgence in selfish behaviour that it's much easier to get what you want if you remove from consideration the effect your actions will have on others.

Is that what made her so formidable, her ability to ignore the suffering of others?

If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else.

All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn ceremonial funeral, are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.

I can't articulate with the skill of either of "the Marks" – Steel or Thomas – why Thatcher and Thatcherism were so bad for Britain but I do recall that even to a child her demeanour and every discernible action seemed to be to the detriment of our national spirit and identity. Her refusal to stand against apartheid, her civil war against the unions, her aggression towards our neighbours in Ireland and a taxation system that was devised in the dark ages, the bombing of a retreating ship – it's just not British.

Alex Nunns ‏@alexnunns
Under Thatcher, crime rose by 79%. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/dispelling-the-thatcher-myths/ …

Dispelling the Thatcher myths

Alex Nunns offers an antidote to the media fawning over Thatcher – and argues her biggest victory was getting her opponents to buy into her mythology

When a political leader dies it becomes compulsory to lie about their record. While much of Britain openly rejoiced at the death of Margaret Thatcher, the media snapped into reverential mode, giving over hours of airtime and several thousand miles of column inches to representatives of the ruling class to solemnly recite myths about her achievements.

This wouldn’t matter so much if, like Thatcher, these myths were dead, and weren’t still shaping our politics. But they are. So here are some of them, debunked.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did more to institutionalise Thatcherism than the woman herself. Before New Labour, in the early 1990s, in the midst of a recession, it was a truism that Thatcherism had been an economic failure. The fact that many of the myths discussed here have been revived is in large part due to New Labour. When even Thatcher’s opponents accept Thatcherism’s success, why should the media challenge the record?

Blair responded to her death by admitting (although understating) what everyone already knew, that ‘some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour government’. It is often said that Blair’s only legacy will be Iraq, but he will also feature in the epilogue of every biography of Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher tore at the social fabric of Britain, destroyed swathes of its economy and inflicted vindictive harm on large sections of its population. But she built nothing. Her main success was in the minds of her opponents.







Monday, January 24, 2011

Layer 429 . . . Comedy, Justice, Miranda, Jonathan Ross, Michael Sandel, Fairness and Cruelty

.
I had a debate with my son on Saturday about whether Jonathan Ross is the right presenter for the British Comedy Awards. Ross still seems to have an image that's supposed to be cool, edgy, sharp, dangerous, alternative, hip, rebellious, sexy, post-modern and cynical - which are all deemed to be rather a good thing, apparently.

This is in contrast to someone like Miranda Hart who's persona suggests bumbling, unsexy, out of touch, foolish, uncoordinated, hopeless, unattractive, naive, desperate to be popular and distinctly uncool.

I put it to my son that there's at least a score of British comedians who would be a better presenter of the awards than Woss. The evening, was, after all, a celebration of the amazing talent we have in this country - some incredibly funny people. I could reel off the names of two dozen comedians and comic actors that I would gladly pay money to see.

In the event, Ross was pathetic. I kept half an eye on my son, and he was no more amused by Ross's schtick than I was - and I didn't so much as smirk or snigger at ANY of it. Not at all funny. Not even clever or vaguely amusing. In fact it would be true to say he was downright unfunny.

Whereas Miranda Hart carried off three of the major awards, and did so with aplomb. I admired her for the way in which received the awards too - since she seemed to do it whilst deliberately NOT being chummy or interactive with Ross, and in fact ignoring his foppish and unattractive presence as best she could.

Personally I couldn't give a damn about the outcry regarding Ross shooting himself in the foot by trying to outdo the brilliant Russell Brand in the Sachsgate non-scandal. Brand is still a genius. Ross isn't. He can't even get laughs from people who say they actually like him, such as my son. And it's to my son's credit that he didn't laugh at Ross's rubbish.

Obviously a lot of comedy is dependent on writers rather than witty improvisers. The lifetime achievement award went to Roy Clarke OBE - the  writer of shows including Last of the Summer Wine, Keeping Up Appearances and Open All Hours. These are not necessarily the kinds of programmes I'd watch myself, but I'd much rather watch Clarke's style of gentle, character-based comedy than watch any of Ross's preening, self-regarding , vastly overpaid wisecracking efforts. His radio programme was particularly bad since it was done with a sidekick whose role was to fawn and chuckle over each and every one of Ross's so-called witicisms.

It was good to see Simon Amstel's show, Grandma's House, getting some honourable mentions, and one award. In fact all of the awards were well merited. Just a pity about the man presenting the show itself. Will he still be doing it next year?

......................................

Earlier in the day I'd been reading a piece in the Guardian about comedians who try to get laughs from being deliberately cutting and cruel. People like the man Boyle, whose act seems to consist of picking on members of his audience and mercilessly taking the piss out of them. You might say his audience deserve whatever he dishes out, since they presumably enjoy it when he does it to others on TV, but that's a crap justification for a deeply unattractive individual.

Is comedy getting too cruel?

Was Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes turn funny, or just mean? Is comedy getting too cruel? Comedians Steve Punt and Shappi Khorsandi debate what is a joke too far

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/22/cruel-comedy-gervais-golden-globes

Some newspapers continued their campaign this week to have the controversial comedian Frankie Boyle purged from our screens for ever, and even suggested he has been snubbed by the British Comedy awards tonight. Are comedians really more offensive than ever?

SP: Television is driven by viewing figures. If really offensive comedy pulled huge audiences, they would continue to make it. The fact is, it doesn't; it pulls huge column inches and debate, but the shows people watch are Harry Hill and Michael McIntyre's Roadshow. What is comedy for? Is it designed to make you rush to the phone and dial Channel 4 in disgust, or designed to make you laugh? You don't want comedy to be bland and safe, but there's no reason why inoffensive should be bland.

....................................

Justice
This is a subject that's very close to my own heart. Michael Sandel's first programme on 'Justice' was on BBC4 last night. The two key themes were 'fairness' and 'the meaning of the Big Society'. Sandel is a terrific tutor, a professor of justice, and a skilled practitioner of this kind of interactive discussion. Unfortunately for him, and for this type of format, the contributions from the audience were leaden and plodding. You felt like you wanted Sandel to just speak to camera and cut out all the waffle from the Small Society in the studio. Most of it was standard boring waffle that you could hear on any studio discussion. Sandel was disappointingly low-key and indirect. The man's an absolute star, but he was guilty of being too democratic and too teacherly by allowing run of the mill comments from Joe Public to have equal time with his own contributions. The whole thing became too slow and too meandering.

Now it's fine for teachers to take this approach in the classroom, and in fact it's important to tease out from any group what they think about the issues before you can begin to move the majority of them forward. The problem is, this doesn't make for particularly riveting television, especially if the group you're working with is - what shall we say? - less than inspiring. Less than intellectually sparkling.

At the rate he was going it was likely to take several months before a lot of the people in the audience could be moved towards an enlightened attitude to social justice, fair pay, etc. This was a striking example of why it's so important, and why it's so necessary but also so difficult even for good teachers to differentiate for different learning needs and abilities - if you don't want to alienate individuals at both ends of the spectrum of understanding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/seasons/justiceseason/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xyzg7


Justice - A Citizen's Guide

Beginning in January 2011, BBC Four is hosting a wide-ranging debate on the state of justice in Britain and the world today.

Today (Monday)

A specially-commissioned documentary in which renowned Harvard professor Michael Sandel looks at the philosophy of justice.

Is it acceptable to torture a terrorist in order to discover where a bomb has been hidden? Should wearing the burka in public be banned in Europe, if the majority of citizens disapprove? Should beggars be cleared off the streets of London?

Sandel goes in search of Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, three philosophers whose ideas inform much contemporary thinking on justice, and tests their theories against a range of contemporary problems.

Filmed in Berlin, Boston, Athens and London, this thought-provoking film includes interviews with the world's great philosophers, modern day politicians and thinkers from all around the globe.

.............................................

More Under The Covers Cops

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/22/undercover-police-cleared-sex-activists

Mounting anger among women protesters will see female activists converge on Scotland Yard (today) to demand that the Met disclose the true extent of undercover policing. The demonstration is also, according to organisers, designed to express "solidarity with all the women who have been exploited by men they thought they could trust".

[A] former SDS officer claims a lack of guidelines meant sex was an ideal way to maintain cover. He admitted sleeping with at least two of his female targets as a way of obtaining intelligence.

"When you are on an undercover unit you were not given a set of instructions saying you could or couldn't do the following. They didn't say to you that you couldn't go out and drink because technically you're a police officer, that you shouldn't go out and get involved in violent confrontations, you shouldn't take recreational drugs.

"As regards being with women in very, very, very promiscuous groups such as the eco-wing, environmental movement, leftwing, or the Animal Liberation Front – it's an extremely promiscuous lifestyle and you cannot not be promiscuous in there.

"Among fellow undercover officers, there is not really any kudos in the fact that you are shagging other people while deployed. Basically it's just regarded as part of the job. It'd be highly unlikely that you were not [having sex].

"When you are using the tool of sex to maintain your cover or maybe to glean more intelligence – because they certainly talk a lot more, pillow talk – you would be ready to move on if you felt an attachment growing.

"The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else," said the officer, whose undercover deployment infiltrating anti-racist groups lasted from 1993 to 1997.

Amazing. But what's really amazing is that public money was spent on infiltrating anti-racist groups. That would be like Hitler using public funds to infiltrate anti-Nazi groups. You'd have to be a Nazi to want to do it.

The former SDS officer, who has now left the Met, said one stipulation by senior commanders was that undercover officers should be married, so that they had something to return to. He said the move was introduced when a spy never returned after five years undercover.

Some "thing" to return to?

.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Layer 84 Music, Politics, Neil Young and Laughter.

.
In the mornin' when you rise . . .

Are you thinkin' of telephones, and managers,
And where you got to be at noon?
You are living a reality I left years ago
It quite nearly killed me.
In the long run it will make you cry.
Make you crazy and old before your time.

So said Stephen Stills in ‘You Don’t Have To Cry’, in 1970, giving an impression of someone who’s well sorted, tuned in, turned on, dropped out and living a different reality. No more Affluenza for Mr Laid Back L.A. - Christ, he even had time to cry:

And the difference between me and you
I won't argue right or wrong,
But I have time to cry, my baby
You don't have to cry,
I said cry my baby, you don't have to cry
I said cry my baby, you don't have to cry

In reality this new wave of migrant songsters and sophisticates who moved into L.A., mostly in and around Laurel Canyon, were as obsessed with fame, recognition, happiness, ego gratification, status, money, power and acclaim as anyone else - which isn’t to say that CSNY and the other bands and singer/songwriters didn’t turn out some excellent music from time to time, because they certainly did.

They just weren’t as good as they thought they were, in most cases, and many of them certainly lost their muse, their focus and their inspiration (the counterculture!) in a haze of excess, idleness, hedonism, angst, petty squabbling, and, of course, the heavy use of narcotics, especially coke.

The collective values of the Haight-Ashbury and Woodstock generation had initially generated a sense of unbridled optimism, but the shooting of students at Ohio State and the murder that took place at the Stones’ Altamont concert created a sense of deep foreboding. Concerts were supposed to be fun. College campuses were supposed to be places of peace, love and protest.

The Manson murders in L.A. pretty much shook the rock fraternity to its core, and if such horrors were what drugs and madness could do to people who considered themselves part of an enlightened movement to change the world for the better, what hope was there after all?

Besides which, the brilliant Joni Mitchell was writing songs for her wonderful Blue album that spoke of her own jealousy and greed - so if even the gifted and somewhat saintly Joni could acknowledge these destructive emotions, then where did that leave the rest of them?

Pretty much with the Eagles, ‘country rock’, cowboy fantasies and songs of escapism that demonstrated a complete disengagement from politics. At that point The Eagles were the ultimate corporate rock band, and the L.A. scene had gone from hippie utopianism to the corporatisation of rock in the name of massive profits for all concerned, including legions of smart managers and lawyers.

The increasing use of heroin and speed, as well as shitloads of coke, coincided with increases in greed, anger and cynicism - a far cry from the days of Californian love and peace in low-rent communes. Increasingly there were security guards amongst the hangers-on, and even the clubs where the bands hung out became exclusive to the celebrities and high rollers.

Those who were there at the time recall the rise in self-centred craziness, and the darkness of mounting despair and alienation. The ‘emotional landscape’ had turned very bleak indeed.

Friday night’s repeated BBC4 documentary, HOTEL CALIFORNIA: LA FROM THE BYRDS TO THE EAGLES (Chris Wilson, 2007) offered a decent enough run through the history of the music business in LA, but made some strange omissions in its erratic little journey, such as no mention of The Doors or Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, who were LA-based megastars and surely impossible to ignore. Maybe Mr Wilson couldn’t get hold of any decent archive film of them.

BBC4’s mammoth evening of music on Friday was pretty engrossing, and a pure joy for not having your head invaded by a single bloody irritating advertisement. BBC4 itself is a pretty interesting phenomenon.

"There are lots of different ways of being intelligent or serious. There are things that are easily recognisable as television with a serious purpose, such as The Proms or world cinema. But other things are just as valuable. Last week we ran a fantastic programme called Hotel California which featured music from The Byrds to The Eagles. It was about music but it was also about culture, social history, politics, the feeling of the time. Our audience adored that."

So said the channel’s controller, Janice Hadlow, in an interview in the Indy last year: Welcome To The Sanctuary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc4--welcome-to-the-sanctuary-433125.html

---------------------------------------------------

“There’s a big difference between knowing what’s going on and physically doing something to change it.” - Graham Nash

The main focus of Friday evening on BBC4 was, of course, Neil Young, and what emerged from the hour-long documentary, ‘Don’t Be Denied’, was that NY was always a serious and committed musician, who didn’t give a shit about his image, or cashing in on fame by relentlessly recycling his back catalogue. He was even prepared to alienate audiences by following his muse and performing the music that was currently filling him with passion, even if they were turned off by it and clamored for the ‘hits’. He insisted on speaking of meaningful things. In order to sing something he always needed to feel it. He didn’t give a damn whether his records were commercial or not.

It was Neil Young, of course, who wrote ‘Ohio’ for CSNY in response to the National Guard killing the students - magnificently accusatory and polemical, and how many other artists can claim they made any kind of effort to “speak out against the madness”?

His sense of engagement (and enragement) with what’s happening in the real world burns as brightly today as it did back in the days of the Vietnam protests, as has resulted in him setting up a website, a sort of anti-CNN, anti-Fox news/magazine site, called Living With War Today - LWW.

http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html

On the site read the following article and prepare to be scared, very scared:
MY HOLIDAY WITH JOHN McCAIN

As you read it Mr Young will serenade you with ‘Let’s Impeach The President’.
Alternatively you can enjoy the video version:

http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/lwwvideos/letsimpeach_wm.html

The Restless Consumer has been around for some time and is a fantastic song, and is set to a brilliant video at:

http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/lwwvideos/therestlessconsumer_wm.html
where you can also download it for free.

You can also catch it on U-Tube:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IEA7wcxjJvw

Includes great images of a silent, smiling Dick Cheney. Pure evil.

Sample lyric:

Don't need no ad machine
Telling me what I need
Don't need no Madison Avenue War
Don't need no more boxes I can see
Covered in flags but I can't see them on TV

Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies

The restless consumer flies
Around the world each day
With such an appetite for taste and grace

People from around the world
Need someone to listen
We're starving and dying from our disease
We need your medicine
How do you pay for war
And leave us dyin' ?
When you could do so much more
You're not even tryin'.

Read the rest here:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/therestlessconsumer.html

It’s hard to imagine anyone feeling more passionate or trying to do more than NY has been doing to combat what the White House has been up to these many years.

Here’s a short video of Neil and the band laying down the track in the studio:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LWI1Wzu-7NE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To try to raise some anti-war feeling in the USA in 2006 Neil decided to reform CSNY and take the band out on the road, literally in buses, to perform across the nation. The documentary of the tour, CSNY Déjà Vu, was also screened on Friday, and was pretty arresting stuff.

Was is naivety on the part of the band or was it deliberately provocative to sell tickets to their concerts without advertising the fact that the evening would effectively be an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Republican rally? Maybe the Republican-voting punters were just too stupid to realise that the whole point of the tour was to rally people against the ‘war on terror’.

There were some stunning shots of Bushites going into a state of total melt-down when the band launched into songs like Let’s Impeach The President. Those good old boys, and their good ladies, wanted to inflict some terrible violence on the band members, but were mostly reduced to yelling, raising the finger, and walking out, ranting and raving. Said one young woman to the camera, following a volley of expletives from her partner, “It was a little political”. Y’all.

But as someone else wrote in a review, “What a rarity - a concert that sent you home thinking, feeling and rocking.”

Here’s the trailer:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GBxrCY980f4&NR=1
http://www.csny-dejavu.com/

--------------------------------------------------

There’s one of the best-ever covers on Private Eye this week - a real classic:
CORFU! WHAT A STINKER!

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1222&

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joy and laughter seem to me to be the vital ingredients for a life well lived, and of spiritual intelligence, and though they’re not always on tap, they ought to be accessible at frequent intervals. The question is, what gives joy, what raises our spirits, what produces laughter?

This has been quite a week for Russell Brand, and true to form his column in the sport section of The Guardian yesterday was brilliant. On the surface, not a word about what’s been happening to him personally, even though he begins with this paragraph,

“What a palaver! In a season that I'd already judged to be utterly barmy we have seen another week so hysterical and incomprehensible that I'm beginning to wonder if our country is in the grips of a cosmic fever.”

He then writes about crazy things happening in the world of football, and he concludes,

“In these rare displays, these athletic requiems, the player and the game issue an elation that I've struggled to find in a cathedral or a Caravaggio, so we endure the drab, rain-spattered Sundays, the financial indiscretions, the scandals and the heartbreak because instinctively we know that within this sport there is the potential for grace and redemption and incredible beauty. No matter how insane things become or how far from the truth we are led by histrionics and lies, the truly, objectively beautiful remains untainted.”

By some wonderful coincidence the second series of “Russell Brand’s Ponderland” began on Channel 4 last Thursday, and predictably there were critics who sneered at it and pronounced it unfunny. Like the Guardian’s, for example,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2008/oct/31/russell-brand-channel4

(check out the variety of readers’ comments at the end of the article, including a pathetic response to these responses by the author of the piece.)

This first episode had him pondering the subject of pets, and he showed a series of clips of total nutters who did things like keep a lion in a garage, dye doves in primary colours, put up with regular assaults from their ‘pet’ dogs and ponies, and at the other extreme have sex with their pets.

This kind of thing is priceless, and had me in tears of laughter. Try to catch it on the C4 website.
Other subjects coming up in series 2 are families, education and class.

If you could do with a quick chuckle or two then try these clips from series 1:

http://www.channel4.com/video/russell-brands-ponderland/

And on Google Video, the whole of the programme on science:

http://www.channel4.com/video/russell-brands-ponderland/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/01/russell-brand This week’s column.
.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Layer 83 Looting The Public Wealth.

.
There’s a brilliant cartoon by the wonderful Martin Rowson in yesterday’s Guardian , a perfect Halloween summary of the state of our society. It sums up more graphically and powerfully the insanity that’s all around us than any amount of well-argued column inches.

In the background, silhouetted against the light and smoke of flaming torches, are the unmistakable figures of Russell Brand, who’s dangling from a gallows, and J Ross who’s still fighting off a mob that’s armed with pitchforks and rakes.

In the foreground are two hideously fat, grinning, pinstripe-suited fat cats with a case bulging with bank notes, unconcerned about the mob which is clearly not interested in them. One of them says, looking towards us, the readers, “Hey! HE fucked your economy!! Ha Ha Ha!”

And his companion responds, “An’ I ain’t going to APOLOGISE or RESIGN or NUFFINK!”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2008/oct/31/cartoon-credit-crunch-crisis

---------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, alongside the cartoon, there’s a column by Reihan Salam, an editor at Atlantic magazine, who begins, “Despite running one of the worst presidential campaigns I’ve ever seen, John McCain would, I’m convinced, make an excellent president”.

So in other words, he’s convinced that a man who can’t even run a half-decent political campaign is capable of running the most powerful, complex and significant country on earth. Brilliant.

His rationale, naturally, goes like this: “Only Nixon could go to China, and only McCain can reconcile conservatives to some of the hard steps that the US will have to take”.

Reconcile? Interesting word. They have to be reconciled do they? And those hard steps can’t be taken if they’re not? Hmmmm. We shall see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/john-mccain-us-elections-barack-obama

------------------------------------------------------------

The wonderful Naomi Klein, who’s been sadly missing from the Guardian of late, though it’s possible to read her columns at http://www.thenation.com/ , is back with a brilliant piece called, “The Bush gang’s parting gift - a final, frantic looting of public wealth.”

“There has been no nationalisation, partial or otherwise. American taxpayers have gained no meaningful control over the banks, which is why the banks are free to spend the new money as they wish. At Morgan Stanley, it looks as if much of the windfall will cover this year's bonuses. Citigroup has been hinting it will use its $25bn buying other banks, while John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, told analysts: "At least for the next quarter, it's just going to be a cushion." The US government, meanwhile, is reduced to pleading with the banks that they at least spend a portion of the taxpayer windfall for loans - officially, the reason for the entire programme.

What, then, is the real purpose of the bail-out? My fear is this rush of dealmaking is something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business: that the Bush version of "partial nationalisation" is rigged to turn the US treasury into a bottomless cash machine for the banks for years to come. Remember, the main concern among the big market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the honesty of the big financial players, and with good reason.

This is where the treasury's equity pays off big time. By purchasing stakes in these financial institutions, the treasury is sending a signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Not because their level of risk has been accurately assessed at last. Not because they have renounced the kind of exotic instruments and outrageous leverage rates that created the crisis. But because the market will now be banking on the fact that the US government won't let these particular companies fail. If they get themselves into trouble, investors will now assume that the government will keep finding more cash to bail them out, since allowing them to go down would mean losing the initial equity investments, many of them in the billions.

This tethering of the public interest to private companies is the real purpose of the bail-out plan: Paulson is handing all the companies admitted to the programme - a number potentially in the thousands - an implicit treasury department guarantee. To skittish investors looking for safe places to park their money, these equity deals will be even more comforting than a triple-A from Moody's rating agency.

Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best part is that the government is paying them to accept its seal of approval. For taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson's original idea of buying up $700bn in toxic debts. Now taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity.

Not only were profits privatised while risks were socialised, but the implicit government backing created powerful incentives for reckless business practices.

With the new equity purchase programme Paulson has taken the discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge swath of the private banking industry. Again, there is no reason to shy away from risky bets, especially since the treasury has made no such demands of the banks (apparently it doesn't want to "micromanage".)

This may be Bush's most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism.

Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bail-out was sold to the public on false pretences. Clearly, it was never really about getting loans flowing. It was always about doing what it is doing: turning the state into a giant insurance agency for Wall Street, a safety net for the people who need it least, subsidised by the people who will most need state protections in the economic storms ahead.

This duplicity is a political opportunity. Whoever wins on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It should be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bail-out funds, not after the inauguration but right away. All deals should be renegotiated, this time with the public getting the guarantees.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/useconomy-banking

-------------------------------------------------------

It’s all happening just as George Orwell forecast it would in 1949, in “1984”.

Wikipedia says,

The book has major significance for its vision of an all-knowing government which uses pervasive and constant surveillance of the populace, insidious and blatant propaganda, and brutal control over its citizens.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is set in Oceania, one of three intercontinental totalitarian super-states. The story occurs in London, the "chief city of Airstrip One", itself a province of Oceania that "had once been called England or Britain"

Winston Smith has in his possession a book called The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

When the aforementioned Reihan Salam talks about reconciling “conservatives” to the steps the country needs to take he is, of course, referring to the oligarchs whose collective views and decisions determine what goes on in the country, with “conservatives” like McCain (or Mandleson, or Osborne, or Cameron, or Brown) acting as their mouthpiece.

Arguably there are four, and not three, “intercontinental totalitarian super-states” - the US and its satellites (including the UK and Japan), the EU, Russia and its remaining satellites, and China. Things are a little blurred, however, by the existence of NATO, which acts as a unifier for the US and the EU.

What’s clear, however, is that in the USA, at least, there’s now no separation whatsoever between the government and business (the oligarchs), and the government is now clearly and blatantly revealed in its role as first and foremost supporting US finance and US business (think Halliburton and Blackwater as well as the banks and Wall Street), which in turn determine the policies of the government.

This is in contrast to a social democratic system of government which sets out to make we, the people, the governors of the country’s business and financial sectors - laying down strict regulations to ensure that their activities benefit the nation as a whole, rather than enrich those who already possess most of its wealth and are greedy to possess even more.

Control of the planet, as such, is now less of an issue than control of its remaining oil and gas reserves, as they now begin to go into serious decline, at a time when consumers in China and India are beginning to compete very seriously for these resources with consumers in the so-called First World.

Control of the planet’s finances also seems to be a key issue, and China holds several trump cards. The US, as the world’s biggest debtor, would appear to be in considerable difficulties. They borrowed low in order to lend high, but will the creditors want to continue to make credit available?

We’re now entering a very interesting period of history in which the power of the US is being seriously challenged and there are several possible scenarios ahead of us.

1) The US becomes even more of a neo-fascist militaristic superstate, which is less likely to happen if Obama wins. In this scenario the US presses ahead with military expansion and a quest for world domination, with disastrous consequences for world peace, justice and enlightened cooperation between nations.

2) The “intercontinental totalitarian super-states” compete ever more vigorously, but peacefully, for power, influence and resources, with dire consequences for the masses, the proles.

3) The superstates realise that the only possible way of achieving a stable, sustainable, peaceful and viable planet is for governments to work together with an agreed set of principles based on human values. Perhaps set up an umbrella organization called something like the United Nations. George Orwell’s preferred option.

Place your bets.
.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Layer 82 Different Realities.

.
Listened to a guy doing Desert Island Discs today - Ian Bostridge - who sounded like a grown up version of the clever little choirboy he used to be. He’s now an opera and classical singer. And a CBE.

The usual background - posh schools and uni - Dulwich College, Westminster School and Oxbridge. He now lives on Planet High Culture, and lives in the different reality where posh boys who’ve had posh educations go to live.

He tells stories of how he and his schoolboy chums used to spend their time debating whether Wagner was any good. As do we all. Though he quite liked Punk’s ‘vigour and energy’.

He played a Dylan track and said some bullshit about Bob being ‘the inheritor of the Schubert tradition’. Oh yeah. Nothing at all to do with the Blues tradition, the folk tradition, African traditions, etc.

“Bob Dylan’s got a dreadful voice, but it expresses emotion.” So that’s OK.

He’s such a fucking cultural absolutist and snob he could never understand that Dylan actually has a great voice, which is HIS voice, and which strikes deep emotional and spiritual chords with millions of people in ways that his own fucking ‘tenor’ warblings never could. He really could never see that people like me are entitled to feel absolute revulsion for the sentimental, supercilious, melodramatic elitist bollocks that constitutes ‘classical’ singing.

I had to laugh out loud when he went on about falling in love in his schooldays with some German guy’s voice even though he couldn’t understand a word of what he was singing. This story was supposed to make him sound ‘deep’ and ‘sensitive’ and ‘serious’, but actually makes him sound like a pretentious twat.

--------------------------------------------------

On the Today programme today there was an item on tonight being ‘Neil Young night’ on BBC4. I wonder what Ian Bostridge and his pals might make of it. “Oh yah - lots of vigour and energy.”

“The whole evening of programmes about the singer is centred round a documentary about his life called Don't Be Denied.”

Director of the documentary Ben Whalley and author Barney Hoskyns today discussed the rare interviews and film not previously broadcast. Both big NY fans, obviously.

They seemed to agree that Young’s up there with Dylan as a songwriter, singer, musician and performer. They said he’s ‘less cerebral, more instinctual’ than Bob. Interesting that - opposite ends of the ‘IQ’ spectrum of intelligence.

They spoke about Neil matching the intensity and danger of the Rolling Stones with the lyricism of Dylan. He’s able to do ‘loud and intense’ and also ‘soft, quiet and tender’ - absolutely brilliantly.

He does what he pleases and doesn’t follow trends and fashions. He’s grounded in reality. He’s got unswerving honesty. And as he himself says, he ‘didn’t get dragged down by success’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7701000/7701334.stm

-------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the web address of the Today programme interview with the teenage gang boys that was broadcast yesterday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7697000/7697198.stm

-------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, last night on This Week, cuddly posh girl Diane Julie Abbott MP (Harrow County Grammar and Cambridge) was banging on about Russell Brand, calling him stupid and disgusting, and saying he has no talent. Which just shows how ignorant, uninformed and dull she is. Fair enough to say that things he said in his infamous broadcast were stupid and disgusting, but Brand is the very opposite of stupid, having a brain and a wit that’s as sharp as a razor.

As for no talent, he’s unbelievably bursting with talent, not least for making people laugh and making them think. He’s probably the most cerebral comedian and commentator at work today, truly a man in the mould of the great Bill Hicks.

-------------------------------------------------

Lord knows we need sharp and ascerbic commentators in these dark times, preferably ones that make us laugh. There’s such a mountain of nonsense and bullshit out there, and it gets bigger every day.

Yesterday I was in a shopping mall and noticed a booth which I first took to be an ordinary passport photo booth. On closer inspection it turned out to be a device called ‘Dance Heads Recording’, inviting people to ‘Be A Star’ - ‘No Talent Required’. Quite so.

This thing appeals to talentless wannabees who are gagging to be on TV and DVD, ‘performing’ in some way - singing and dancing. The machine takes your photo/video and then superimposes your singing head on a stupid gyrating cartoon figure as you sing along to your chosen song. I imagine the ‘I Will Survive’ option is very popular.

You end up with a DVD to take away and impress your family and friends. Harmless fun? Maybe - if it satisfies someone’s longing to see their silly face singing (miming) on a TV screen. Or maybe it also records their actual voice, singing in the booth? That might be funny.

Meanwhile ‘Mr China’ was displaying in his shop window a sign offering a free 5 minute massage, which had been altered from its original wording of a free 5 minute message. Now that I could have gone for - what kind of mystical oriental message might that have been? Something like an oral fortune cookie, at much greater length.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Last night’s Daily Show featured an interview with Obama himself, and very impressive he was too. Jon Stewart teased him about ‘The Bradley Effect’ - whether his mother’s white genes would allow him to actually vote for himself. He dealt with it very well.

He also handled the charge of being a socialist very well, saying that his willingness to share his toys when he was in his Nursery class (‘subversive activity’) clearly marked him out.

Here’s some of the interview, including bits that More Four missed out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/barack-obama-on-the-daily_n_97889.html

Here’s a brilliant must-watch spoof video the Daily Show made of Barak’s ‘informercial’:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/the-daily-shows-obama-bio_n_122350.html

Catch up with the Daily Show at Comedy Central, including another version of the Obama interview:

http://www.comedycentral.com/

Check out the “Barack's Millions” video. The Muppet Show bit is brilliant.

Also have a look at this bit about Sarah Palin ‘Going Rogue’:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189759&title=goin-rogue

It includes a wonderful Bob The Builder interview.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G2 had an interesting feature yesterday on The West Wing predicting this year’s presidential contest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/westwing-television-usa-elections-obama

There’s an hilarious photo in the Guardian of George Osborne and friends gathered for the Bullingdon Club shooting match, with a very funny article giving a run-down on who’s who and who’s wearing what:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/30/fashion-bullingdon-george-osborne-oxford

Check out this article on whether Russell Brand has turned to Hare Krishna:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/russell-brand-celebrity
.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Layer 80 Hands, Hearts, Minds, Education, Jay-Z, Russell B, Gok Wan, Gad Saad, Oasis, Ray Charles, and the End of Civilisation.

.
Just when you think you’ve seen just about everything, something else happens. There are still tomatoes ripening in the garden, the days are sunny and bright, the leaves on the lilacs, sycamores and ash trees are still solidly green, and last night it snowed. There was a real blanket of snow on the cars in the street. Apparently it’s the first time it’s snowed in London in October since 1934. Global warming?

-------------------------------------------

There was an item on the Today programme this morning which allowed a couple of 14 year olds who live in Edmonton a chance to speak at length about their involvement in gangs, and gang culture in general. I happen to know that Edmonton is a seriously scary place, and I say that as someone who’s lived is many different parts of our inner cities.

When I decided to earn a little extra money as a young, broke teacher some years ago I signed up to work on the Census, and was dispatched to Edmonton with a patch of several streets to survey. Not a good experience - and that was way back in the days before carrying knives and even guns became commonplace. Those dark streets had a real air of menace.

When asked why young people belong to gangs, these kids said, “We just hang about our territory. We got nothing else to do.” In other words, the kids just congregate together on the streets - the parents don’t want them bringing their mates into the home. They are there because they’re there. They’re unwanted and rejected, so they stick together and become allies. If one of them gets picked on and beaten up by ‘outsiders’ then they go out looking for revenge. This is all that life has to offer them. They know no other.

One of the kids said, “It happens when this stuff kicks off - it make the gang angry, innit”. Quite.

Destructive emotions play havoc with the lives of groups of emotionally and spiritually unintelligent young people who are bored, frustrated and angry.

And then right at the end of the interview one of the lads said, “Everyone’s got a talent. But this government ain’t doing nothing for us.” How very true.

I remember well the discussions that took place when the government decided to fund a ‘gifted and talented’ programme in schools in an attempt to placate the middle classes by pushing more of their Level 4 predicted kids up to Level 5. Those of us who argued that the money should be used to fund non-academic pursuits for kids whose talents were clearly elsewhere, in the arts and creativity for example, were told very clearly that the funding was ring-fenced for raising test scores, essentially. In order to qualify for the extra funding the schools had to agree to set targets for the academic progress that would be made by those kids who were so-called ‘gifted and talented’.

Listening to these interviewees it was patently obvious that they weren’t talking about wanting the government to do more to push them to higher academic attainment. They clearly recognised that they were never, ever, going to compete in the race to get to university to do conventional academic studies. But they had a sense of their own burning energy and desire to do something fruitful, creative and positive with their lives.

----------------------------------------------------------

Before going on to say something about Jay-Z, as well as something about the architects of New Labour’s education policies, I must mention something someone said on Thought For Today just now.

He was talking about how American forces in Iraq have, through actual contact with Iraqis and through working alongside them, come to realise just how idiotic all their previous stereotyping has been.

It’s pretty obvious, really, that you only really get to know people by spending time with them, especially if you’re doing something constructive together.

The speaker then talked about what he called a “Hand to Heart to Mind” formula, which I think nicely encapsulates what we should be doing in every situation that requires people of different backgrounds to know one another better, which roughly means all of us, all of the time.

The Jesuits always talked about needing proper balance in our lives, and that every day should contain “something for the hands, something for the heart, and something for the head”. I wonder how many people actively seek such a balance?

The formula clearly works, and you can see in any good school that learning begins with practical activities that engage students physically in doing something constructive or creative - an experiment, building something, a survey, etc.

Through helping and supporting one another through success and failure they build up emotional bonds, respect, and a proper sense of their common strengths and weaknesses.

From all of that - understanding emerges. We learn at a deep level from activity, experience and involvement with others.

Except when we don’t - which is in traditional model schools where the learning is based on didacticism, individualism and competition. No wonder kids become alienated and can’t stand school.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I read somewhere this week that Andrew (‘Lord’) Adonis, who’s done so much to push schools back towards concentration on raising test and exam scores, towards being concentration camps, along with other idiots like ‘Sir’ Michael Barber (another academic/pundit/politician/nobleman whose vile ideology has done so much to set back the cause of real education), was being courted by the Conservative party to join their ranks. Well he would be, wouldn’t he? There’s not a jot of difference between Blairite/New Labour views on schools and education and that of the Tories.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3934165.ece

Lest we forget, according to a website called “Politico’s” (sic?),

“Sir Michael Barber has a real record of delivery in the Blair government, first at the Department for Education and Employment (1997–2001), and then as head of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (2001–5), where he was tasked with ensuring the government's public service reforms delivered significant results.”

“His vision of a restructured school system was a major influence on Blair's education reforms.”
“He now works for a major global consulting firm advising governments around the world on how they can improve their performance.”

He advises governments! On improving their performance!

So many arrogant, ignorant academics and so-called advisors, who’ve been messing around with the school system and with kids’ lives, have made the lives of even the more able kids far more competitive, dull, uncreative and stressful, and have done literally nothing for those who were never even part of the academic rat race to begin with. I doubt they will ever go to hang out in Edmonton, though.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jay-Z, on the other hand, grew up in Brooklyn, which makes Edmonton look like pussyland. A bad boy made good if ever there was one. From the age of nine, when he encountered hip-hop, his love of language and of music synched with his intelligence and his need for self-expression and he began rhyming his own raps and developing his talent for this essentially verbal art form.

Of course he didn’t do well academically, and he was never destined to follow a conventional mainstream career. He even amazed himself when people began offering him money to perform and to make records.

However, he also discovered he had a talent for business, set up his own record label, and subsequently developed his own brand through diversifying into clothing, fashion, and so on. He’s now more of an entrepreneur and a businessman than he is a performer, though music remains his first love.

Being of a certain generation I didn’t even know this guy existed until the controversy blew up this year over him being invited to headline at Glastonbury. And when Noel Gallagher sounded off about Glasto making a huge mistake having him as the star of the festival I thought he probably had a point, since I’ve never liked the little I knew about the boastfulness, misogeny and the glorification of violence in rap and hip-hop.

When Jay-Z came on stage with a guitar and did a great performance of “Wonderwall” to start his set it was immediately obvious that this guy not only had a sense of humour but he was also a magnificent performer whose music was powerful, thoughtful and intelligent. I was pretty much blown away, just watching it on TV. The guy is a force of nature.

Last night Alan Yentob’s ‘Imagine’ documentary on BBC1 did a brilliant exposition of the life and times of Jay, and gave a real sense of the man’s brilliance and his importance in modern culture. It also powerfully conveyed a sense of how otherwise wasted lives can be transformed through individuals discovering their creative talents, and doing so without any benefit from a school system that fails to recognise talent in the first place, let alone does anything to develop it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-Z

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Coincidentally, this week the BBC also broadcast the Oasis concert that took place at the Round House as part of their ‘Electric Proms’ series of concerts. I still don’t really get Oasis, especially their lead singer, and the band seems to work a lot better when he steps back and leaves the vocals to brother Noel, who’s clearly the talent driving the band.

Liam’s entire body language at the microphone is a total turn-off, and his singing is less than inspirational. What IS that idiot stuff about bending his knees in order to sing upwards into a downward-pointing microphone? Ridiculous.

The concert was interesting, though, for its employment of a huge choir behind the band, which certainly added another dimension. The show ended with a very original version of the Beatles’ ‘I Am The Walrus’ which was certainly arresting and powerful, and completely unexpected. I don’t get this stuff about Oasis being some sort of clone of the Beatles. Clearly they’re not, and their music has never had even a passing resemblance to the wit and originality of the Beatles. Fair enough, though, to say that a love of the Beatles’ music is what got them wanting to play and to write their own music.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Noel G is a big mate of Russell Brand, and Russell and his mate Jonathan Ross are in big trouble today over their antics on Russell’s Radio 2 programme 10 days ago. Seemingly they did some pretty childish things - making obscene phone calls to a well-known actor - and the Beeb allowed it to be broadcast. The ridiculous thing is that when the show went out there were only two complaints about it - because the audience for Brand’s show actually enjoy the stuff he does.

However, thanks to everyone else piling on the bandwagon and calling for the sacking and disembowelment of Brand and Ross, including the bloody Prime Minister it seems, they’ve seemingly offended at least half the population, who wouldn’t otherwise have known or cared about it.

Brand has apologized and says he’s made a mistake. We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Odds must be on the BBC dropping his programme, which would be ludicrous, considering Brand is not only incredibly talented and funny but he’s also one of the lone voices calling for a saner, more spiritual and more human society, which presumably means he’s even more annoying to reactionaries and Tories.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081029/ten-sack-the-bbc-sickos-ea4616c.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Gok Wan (crazy name, crazy guy) is also in trouble today.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081028/ten-gok-defends-new-show-ea4616c.html

His new TV programme, Miss Naked Beauty, which was broadcast last night, showed women being blasted with a water hose to remove their makeup. Big Deal.

I really like Gok. He’s a great character, and he’s done so much to promote the idea that women should be proud of their bodies, no matter what they look like. Apparently he was once 21 stones in weight himself, which is quite hard to believe.

His work always seems to promote the idea that women should stop worrying about their body shapes and concentrate of wearing flattering, well-made clothes as well as the minimum of makeup, together with a decent haircut. Most of all, women need to really believe they’re worthwhile as an individual, no matter how different they look from the contemporary ideals and stereotypes of womanhood.

Amazingly he’s never, as far as know, advocated either dieting or cosmetic surgery, which goes completely against the grain of our culture’s contemporary fixation with both of those things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gok_Wan

---------------------------------------------------

There was a very interesting article in G2 yesterday about women and stiletto heels, called ‘Are we just masochists’. The article takes up three whole pages, such is the importance of this subject.

There’s a quote from Dr Gad Saad (crazy name, crazy guy!) who’s associate professor of marketing at Concordia University, Canada, and author of The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption: “High heels may well be the most potent aphrodisiac ever concocted.”

Hmmm. And they might not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/28/fashion

-------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, the main article in G2 was a four-page piece on whether we’re seeing the beginning of the death throes of our planetary civilisation, and whether the financial chaos is likely to lead to the destruction of the world’s financial and economic system, with predictable effects on human life on earth. It also links with the climate and the ecological disaster that’s being widely predicted.

I must say these same thoughts have been occurring to me for some time now in my darker moments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/28/climatechange-population

----------------------------------------------------------

On the brighter side, my record of the week is a new triple-disc CD of the early recordings of Ray Charles, roughly 1949 - 1956: The Great Ray Charles (Not Now Music).

This was the period before rock and roll, and before the mainstream acceptance in America (and elsewhere) of black musicians. Ray plays incredible blues and jazz on this collection, and as the CD notes point out, he’s pretty much the originator of soul music through his fusion of blues, R & B and gospel.

Subsequent to this period he regrettably, though unsurprisingly, moved on to make more ‘commercial’ records, cashing in on the public’s new-found taste for rock n’ roll and pop & rock generally. He did some great stuff, but nothing better than what appears here, which shows his true inventive genius, regardless of its lack of commercial mainstream appeal.

Also of note on this album is the quality of the musicians Ray chose for his band. This quote from Will Flannery’s piece on Amazon gives a flavour:

“The best slow sax tune ever recorded, in my opinion, is residing right on this CD. Unfortunately, at the time of this review, Amazon has not sampled it for your online listening pleasure, but, maybe by the time you read this, they will have. The tune - "Ain't Misbehavin", the sax man - Ray's regular sax man at the time of this recording, David "Fathead" Newman. It's a great tune to begin with, but Fathead doesn't play it straight. He throws down one incredibly perfect phrase after another, taking the tune and twisting it just a little, pulling the listener into his own unique harmonic space, and it is as pleasurable a place as you'll ever find yourself. This is a unique tune, and, of course, Fathead never plays cliches, and the result is incomparable to any other performance I know. It is completely relaxed, but full of fascination and energy. Is it really the best slow sax tune every recorded? Well, that's a subjective call; for me, it is, and in any case it is an extraordinary performance.”

Here’s an interesting piece on Ray Charles that Van Morrison wrote for Rolling Stone a few years back:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939211/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_10_ray_charles

-------------------------------------------------------
Stop Press

Sex Gag: Ross And Brand Suspended

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081029/tuk-sex-gag-ross-and-brand-suspended-45dbed5.html

I guess the young lady at the centre of this row might do quite well out of the publicity, as might her ‘burlesque troop’, Satanic Sluts.
.