You will notice:
- a new logo.
- the staff Top 10 is back.
- we are going to be an MP3 blog from now on, except for those entries when we’re not. We’re going to try and think of interesting ways to present and discuss MP3s.
- I’m going to have a purge/rebuild of the sidebar links to make them a bit more useful.
it’s not that complimentary to be known as a “good politician” (cf the phrase “he got off bcz he had a good lawyer”) – but is the victor in an election simply by DEFINITION the better politician? process-heads would i imagine argue – as they do in fact in re the evils of cynical legalistic gamesplaying – that the value of the system we have is that it works pretty well not DESPITE the gamesplaying but in fact through and out of the gamesplaying (ie a pol’s own ambitions, self-love, “technique” etc, combine w.all the other forces present to produce the NEEDED result, even or especially when this is distinct from the DESIRED or WILLED result). also “honest conviction” is NOT in itself enough, as any fule kno: better that a rogue get a good policy enacted than a saint fail*
on the other hand, ppl call eg churchill a GREAT politician bcz – apparently in the service of the Greater Anti-Tyranny Good of Humanity as a Whole blah blah – he oversaw the effective dismantlement of some of his own personal deepest commitments (viz to the continued health of the brit emp: he chose a course which saw the shut-down of the BE, yet stuck w.this the clearer it became) (and interestingly WSC skipped straight from “failed” to “great” w/o ever passing through “good”): eg churchill’s grebtness lies somewhat in the gritty selflessness (aka colossal vanity if you like) of his opportunism
i’m askin this i think cz i feel that
i. blair is the most cannily intuitively gifted politician of our times (by some way) , but
ii. if he wins BECAUSE of this, this may actually be a bad thing (it will demonstrate the effectiveness of all manner of dodgy shifts in process), and
iii. he may actually LOSE bcz of this (which makes no sense i know)
*(this is ps the second but more important weakness in the verit4s platform: rks = a villain who thinks himself a hero, but the constituency for the kind of hero he thinks he is is SMALL)
I stumbled across The End on BBC3 last Thursday, and a more jolly, optimistic programme you could not imagine to find in the schedules. An hour long show, predicated on Groundhog Day where a scientist trying to get to America to run his potentially world ending Black Hole generator is constantly scuppered by the world ending in other forms. So twice he is prevented from getting on the plane by an earthquake, a tsunami, he is quarantined due to a deadly virus outbreak and diverted because of a meteor strike. And the global threat du jour ? the Jellystone Supravolcano destroys much of North America before he can get there. Luckily for us though in the final scenario he makes it to New York, generates not a black hole but some “strangerons” which proceed to gobble up Planet Earth. Like I say all jolly stuff.
Also rather cheap stuff. The program was on the main a bit of stealth recycling. The hour contained about twenty minutes of original acting, plus constant bogus news reports (the BBC love using bogus news reports to tell us the plot these days). The incidental TV?s (in Curry’s and at the airport) seemed to be stuck on some sort of Horizon Channel, as all of the explanatory science bits were all cobbled together from old editions of BBC2′s flagship science show. Amusingly they were all much the same.
a) Scienitists tell us about the mechanics of disaster
b) Tell us that it is already long overdue
c) Say, in funereal terms “It is not a matter of if it will happen, rather when!!!”
The only exception to this was the Black Hole generator which everyone tended to agree was about as dangerous as winning the lottery three weeks in a row. Which doesn’t sound dangerous to me at all.
It should also be noted that these world ending scenarios tended actually to just destroy the US or Germany. No idea why these two countries were constantly singled out.
i have to confess it is stuff like THIS which turns me most chomskyish abt the uk press: i find it reactionary, intellectually corrupt, cynical, diversionary ect ect PLUS ALSO NEVER EVER CLEVER OR FUNNY!!?!
“Look, this is a movie I was genetically predisposed to love” says Kevin Smith. At no point does he say “It’s daaaaaarrk, innit”
Alan in Do You See • No Comments