...look to Irvine Welsh comments on Tony Wilson.
"Tony Wilson was a one-off, as brash, ballsy, knowing and erudite asthe city he loved so much. Manchester –and popular culture- are allthe poorer for his absence. This is the era of the Simon Cowell’s andPop Idol’s, instead of the Tony Wilson’s and Factory’s. Enough said. "
http://www.irvinewelsh.net/journalism.aspx
Thursday, 30 December 2010
X Factor
X Factor really is awful. Dreadful in fact. Here is Charlie Booker to explain why:
Since this video was made, Charlie Booker has married Konnie Huq, and the delightful Konnie now works, youv'e guessed it, on X Factor. I have no reason to believe that Charlie Booker's view has changed at all. I agree with him in all, but one respect. He claims the show is the same as last year, and previous years. Really? I believe him to be too generous. How about being exactly the same as the show last week??
Vasily Grossman's 'Life and Fate'
Continuing my theme of winter reading (see below Anne Applebaum's Gulag), I am now half way through Vasily Grossman’s fictional work Life and Fate. Written in Soviet Russia, it is an epic 860+ pages about the battle of Stalingrad. In order to read this book, I have found it to be extremely helpful to have previously read about the History of Twentieth Century Europe and of the Soviet Union in particular. Having said that, this book would be useful for anyone that wanted to learn about this period, so take note any students out there, this book will help you get op marks if you quote from it.
It also reminds me that for each book we read, context is everything. Clearly Grossman has understood the political and societal circumstances in which he is writing such an anti-Stalinist work, and he yet writes it anyway. This is brave stuff indeed. Moreover, what has equally impressed me is the level of that understanding. Grossman clearly knows about the purges of 1937, the famine surrounding collectivisation, the dehumanization of the Kulaks, the conditions of the Gulags as well as the nature of the Nazi regime the Soviets are fighting against. In fact he hammers home his understanding of both regimes and their capacity to inflict cruel and harsh punishments on the citizens underneath them.
On a personal note; this book has every chance of getting into my all time Top 5 books list, it is that good. A list, which has not had a new entry for quite some time, the impact the books have made on me has proved them to be so immovable.
It also reminds me that for each book we read, context is everything. Clearly Grossman has understood the political and societal circumstances in which he is writing such an anti-Stalinist work, and he yet writes it anyway. This is brave stuff indeed. Moreover, what has equally impressed me is the level of that understanding. Grossman clearly knows about the purges of 1937, the famine surrounding collectivisation, the dehumanization of the Kulaks, the conditions of the Gulags as well as the nature of the Nazi regime the Soviets are fighting against. In fact he hammers home his understanding of both regimes and their capacity to inflict cruel and harsh punishments on the citizens underneath them.
On a personal note; this book has every chance of getting into my all time Top 5 books list, it is that good. A list, which has not had a new entry for quite some time, the impact the books have made on me has proved them to be so immovable.
For more see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Fate
Playing at 70
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12083945
This Grandad of eight is still playing rugby at the age of 70 years young. He is my inspiration.
This Grandad of eight is still playing rugby at the age of 70 years young. He is my inspiration.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
The Windsor’s: Kings of the Propaganda Wedding
When it comes to her Maj and her offspring I cannot help but cringe. Our country does not seem able to outgrow the need for a monarchy. Realism must play its part here, over and above my own dislike for all things regal. There are no signs of Republicanism amongst the British people, despite some protesters throwing paint all over Charlie and “wicked’s” car. (But it isn’t Charlie and ‘wicked’ Camilla’s car is it? It’s our car really.) And when I call Camilla ‘wicked’ I make no moral judgement on her character. As I will make clear immediately below – I couldn’t give a thru pence halfpenny about her morality or otherwise; she is called ‘wicked’ because that is how she described her feelings on hearing the news of the imminent wedding of William and Kate wotsherface. I was shocked at the use of slang. In fact, you couldn’t have shocked me more than if she had followed this up, by declaring she was buying the happy couple rubber bondage gear and a pet lamb with which to tutor in the ways of righteousness.
Only about one third of the British people would prefer to elect their own head of State. If you listen to the royal watchers in the media, the assorted ‘court correspondents’ employed by TV, Radio and the newspapers, the Windsor’s did indeed have the most beastly time of it during the 1990s. There was all that awful business with divorces, affairs and what not. It really did mean the Windsor’s were in a right pickle and the public were beginning to turn against them.
To which I just sigh. I am a Republican because I quite simply don’t believe my head of state should depend upon who they happen to have been born to. The British people should get the opportunity to decide who they want as their head of state are and have the opportunity to replace them with someone else if they so desire. Any ill-feeling towards the Windsor’s in the 1990s had no Republican edge whatsoever if it is not based on that fundamental principle. Complaints about who slept with whom, and who treated who meanly, are merely an extension of the British obsession with Soap Opera. The Windsor’s pretend to be above us and celebrity culture, whilst needing to share their lives with their subjects, in the posh-est soap opera of them all.
So what does all this have to do with the Wedding in 2011? Allow me to explain. Many years ago I came across a rumour that the wedding in the early 1980s between Charlie and Lady Di was ‘arranged.’ For the Windsor’s, so the rumour went, the motives were clear. Good old Chuck, whatever else he was, wasn’t a looker. Nor for that matter is his current wife, but I digress. Charlie had to marry a good sort – decent breeding, blue blood, all that sort of thing, but above all, she had to be a good looking filly, don’t you know. The bride had to be good looking, to bear good looking children and thereby guarantee the monarchy, and the House of Windsor’s reign well into the next (and now current) century. Good looking heirs to the throne and a good looking Queenie-to-be are more photogenic with which to impress their subjects, after all. Why couldn’t they let love take its natural course? Well, says the rumour, who knows who Charlie would have ended up marrying? (Cue ‘wicked’ Camilla). So Enter Lady Di as the perfect replacement and bearer of well bred sproglettes.
Now if any of this is even partly true this isn’t just cynical, but positively barbaric. I am not suggesting for a second that William and Kate wotsherface do not have genuine affections for each other. I have no proof to make that claim and couldn’t care a less anyway.
Only about one third of the British people would prefer to elect their own head of State. If you listen to the royal watchers in the media, the assorted ‘court correspondents’ employed by TV, Radio and the newspapers, the Windsor’s did indeed have the most beastly time of it during the 1990s. There was all that awful business with divorces, affairs and what not. It really did mean the Windsor’s were in a right pickle and the public were beginning to turn against them.
To which I just sigh. I am a Republican because I quite simply don’t believe my head of state should depend upon who they happen to have been born to. The British people should get the opportunity to decide who they want as their head of state are and have the opportunity to replace them with someone else if they so desire. Any ill-feeling towards the Windsor’s in the 1990s had no Republican edge whatsoever if it is not based on that fundamental principle. Complaints about who slept with whom, and who treated who meanly, are merely an extension of the British obsession with Soap Opera. The Windsor’s pretend to be above us and celebrity culture, whilst needing to share their lives with their subjects, in the posh-est soap opera of them all.
So what does all this have to do with the Wedding in 2011? Allow me to explain. Many years ago I came across a rumour that the wedding in the early 1980s between Charlie and Lady Di was ‘arranged.’ For the Windsor’s, so the rumour went, the motives were clear. Good old Chuck, whatever else he was, wasn’t a looker. Nor for that matter is his current wife, but I digress. Charlie had to marry a good sort – decent breeding, blue blood, all that sort of thing, but above all, she had to be a good looking filly, don’t you know. The bride had to be good looking, to bear good looking children and thereby guarantee the monarchy, and the House of Windsor’s reign well into the next (and now current) century. Good looking heirs to the throne and a good looking Queenie-to-be are more photogenic with which to impress their subjects, after all. Why couldn’t they let love take its natural course? Well, says the rumour, who knows who Charlie would have ended up marrying? (Cue ‘wicked’ Camilla). So Enter Lady Di as the perfect replacement and bearer of well bred sproglettes.
Now if any of this is even partly true this isn’t just cynical, but positively barbaric. I am not suggesting for a second that William and Kate wotsherface do not have genuine affections for each other. I have no proof to make that claim and couldn’t care a less anyway.
What I do believe to be significant is that the wedding will be stage managed as an ‘event’, in no less a cynical way than Charlie and Diana’s wedding was. Big showpiece, give the crowd what they want. Hide the dress til the last minute. Because the plebs can’t wait to see it, and the whole thing will be televised, beamed across all four corners of the old empire. Order in some mugs (the china variety that is. It’s beneath me to suggest that those watching the Wedding Event of the spring are mugs. Although – it appears I just have. Besides, there won’t be any need to order them in, they can’t wait to lap it all up.)
Now you may think I am being a bit too harsh on the Windsor’s. (Or should that be the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s[1], which is their original name before all that awful business in 1914 got in the way and forced them to look for something less, ahem, Germanic. Which raises another point, I had to raise a chuckle to see P. Harry over in Germany collecting some daft award – but was anyone else not embarrassed he didn’t bother to speak in German? He was home after all.) And I am certain they have more than enough people to defend them (don’t get me started on that poxy national anthem of ours). But we pesky Republicans refuse to go away. Yet, being realistic, I doubt we will see a Republic in my lifetime, and there are other battles more worthy of fighting.
No, we Republicans are in the minority in the UK now, and will be the other side of the Wedding. No Republic has ever been born without some recourse to violence, though who is to blame for that in the past, the Republicans or the Monarchists, is open to debate. I for one am not advocating some violent recourse here, or anywhere else. Much better to ignore the whole staged managed soap operatic pantomime. Indeed ignorance in this case, is the most effective response. So don’t expect me to be watching, or taking part in any street parties. I will be at home, telly off and reading some George Orwell. Now – where did I put that copy of 1984?
[1] http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
Now you may think I am being a bit too harsh on the Windsor’s. (Or should that be the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s[1], which is their original name before all that awful business in 1914 got in the way and forced them to look for something less, ahem, Germanic. Which raises another point, I had to raise a chuckle to see P. Harry over in Germany collecting some daft award – but was anyone else not embarrassed he didn’t bother to speak in German? He was home after all.) And I am certain they have more than enough people to defend them (don’t get me started on that poxy national anthem of ours). But we pesky Republicans refuse to go away. Yet, being realistic, I doubt we will see a Republic in my lifetime, and there are other battles more worthy of fighting.
No, we Republicans are in the minority in the UK now, and will be the other side of the Wedding. No Republic has ever been born without some recourse to violence, though who is to blame for that in the past, the Republicans or the Monarchists, is open to debate. I for one am not advocating some violent recourse here, or anywhere else. Much better to ignore the whole staged managed soap operatic pantomime. Indeed ignorance in this case, is the most effective response. So don’t expect me to be watching, or taking part in any street parties. I will be at home, telly off and reading some George Orwell. Now – where did I put that copy of 1984?
[1] http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
Friday, 17 December 2010
Dirk Gently
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/12/douglas-adams-dirk-gently-stephen-mangan.shtml
I always found Dirk Gently to be funnier than Hitchhikers. I am looking forward to this.
I always found Dirk Gently to be funnier than Hitchhikers. I am looking forward to this.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Good on ya Bob!
Just wanted to add my voice to the volumes of people that have supported Bob Ainsworth in his call for ending prohibition.
Its time that gangsters get out of the market.
No matter what regime we put in place of prohibition, it won't be perfect. But it will be better than what we have now.
Well done Bob. I support you.
Its time that gangsters get out of the market.
No matter what regime we put in place of prohibition, it won't be perfect. But it will be better than what we have now.
Well done Bob. I support you.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Dont bet on the Lords opposing the ConDems
A couple of months ago I got into a debate over the House of Lords. During which I was told that I was wrong, and that the House of Lords was a magnificent institution which had a higher level of debate than ‘the other place,’ or the House of Commons to you and me. And why would this be you may wonder? Well, according to my opponent, because the Lords are not elected, they can afford to scrutinise legislation without worrying about their position. They can be free of party ties and the party whips and can therefore ensure that legislation is to a higher standard than otherwise.
And this, my opponent claimed, was the reason for the volume of bills that were sent back to the Commons under the Labour years. At which my glib response was to mention the Dangerous Dogs Act, which is now a total dogs dinner, and wasn’t held up in the Lords to the extent that any second chamber worthy of its salt would have done.
Anyway, I was reminded of this conversation today on hearing the news that the ConDem government has managed to sail through the tuition fee legislation through the Lords. The debate lasted four hours and the Government won the vote with 283 for and 215 against.
Now let us be clear here. I am not necessarily saying that the new tuition fees legislation is bad law, in the way that the Dangerous Dogs act was and still is. And whether the Government should be doing it is another question. But last nights vote really does highlight that Tory Governments find the House of Lords a much more amenable chamber than Labour ones ever have done. It would be very interesting indeed to find our how much more legislation is sent back from the Lords under Labour, compared to the Tories?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2010/12/15/labour-peers-fail-to-block-rise-in-england-s-tuition-fees-91466-27827779/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6BD5TO20101215
And this, my opponent claimed, was the reason for the volume of bills that were sent back to the Commons under the Labour years. At which my glib response was to mention the Dangerous Dogs Act, which is now a total dogs dinner, and wasn’t held up in the Lords to the extent that any second chamber worthy of its salt would have done.
Anyway, I was reminded of this conversation today on hearing the news that the ConDem government has managed to sail through the tuition fee legislation through the Lords. The debate lasted four hours and the Government won the vote with 283 for and 215 against.
Now let us be clear here. I am not necessarily saying that the new tuition fees legislation is bad law, in the way that the Dangerous Dogs act was and still is. And whether the Government should be doing it is another question. But last nights vote really does highlight that Tory Governments find the House of Lords a much more amenable chamber than Labour ones ever have done. It would be very interesting indeed to find our how much more legislation is sent back from the Lords under Labour, compared to the Tories?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2010/12/15/labour-peers-fail-to-block-rise-in-england-s-tuition-fees-91466-27827779/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6BD5TO20101215
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Winter reading, "Gulag: A History" by Anne Applebaum
It is winter here in northern Europe. What better than to stay indoors, wrap up warm with a cup of hot chocolate and a good book. The perfect accompaniment to the winter snow is to read Anne Applebaum's 'Gulag: A History'.
It is also a cracking good read - lots of personal stories and with plenty of analysis for the more academically minded. This isn't a full review (I havent finished it yet.) But this morning's snow made me thankful of the more benign era and location that I live in.
It is also a cracking good read - lots of personal stories and with plenty of analysis for the more academically minded. This isn't a full review (I havent finished it yet.) But this morning's snow made me thankful of the more benign era and location that I live in.
Friday, 19 November 2010
News on Irvine Welsh and Skagboys
The latest news is that Irvine Welsh's new book is due for a release in 2012. Curious as I was led to believe it would be this year.
You have nothing to hide...or do you?
If you ever hear someone say that the security services should have more powers to protect its citizens, then I would hope you brush up on this defence of our liberties. Below is a review of Grayling's book on liberty:
The Economist 20-06-2009 “Paying the price” p91-2 Review of ‘Liberty in the Age of Terror: A defence of civil society and enlightenment values’ by A C Grayling
“He describes the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide argument as ‘one of the most seductive betrayals of liberty’ imaginable. The assumption being it is, he says, ‘that the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in ‘mission creep’, with more and more uses to their new powers and capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which people can be placed under suspicion – and so considerably on.’”
“But as freedom without some risk is impossible, it is obvious that people cannot expect politicians to put protecting them from every conceivable danger (something they are anyway powerless to do) before all other duties to society.”
“As Benjamin Franklin observed: ‘They that can give up essential to liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’”
“The most important freedom is the freedom of speech: it is the freedom that supports all other freedoms.”
I believe in a strong defence for the UK, but A C Grayling is right. There is little point in having a defence if it ends up destroying the very thing we want to defend. The 'nothing to hide ' argument is spurious in that most people subscribing to it do so because they see the benefits but none of its costs, (it is not them that will come under suspicion after all), it is also a poor idea to entirely trust the suspicions of the security services even if the only people suspected and then detained are wearing religious clothing or the kind of sporting apparel common to those that are the subjects of certain confrontational day time TV shows; for such suspicions are based on prejudice rather than evidence, and as we all know, prejudice restricts the mind rather than expands it, and is as unlikely to protect us as it is to find a writer that can get all this down in one sentence.
The Economist 20-06-2009 “Paying the price” p91-2 Review of ‘Liberty in the Age of Terror: A defence of civil society and enlightenment values’ by A C Grayling
“He describes the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide argument as ‘one of the most seductive betrayals of liberty’ imaginable. The assumption being it is, he says, ‘that the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in ‘mission creep’, with more and more uses to their new powers and capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which people can be placed under suspicion – and so considerably on.’”
“But as freedom without some risk is impossible, it is obvious that people cannot expect politicians to put protecting them from every conceivable danger (something they are anyway powerless to do) before all other duties to society.”
“As Benjamin Franklin observed: ‘They that can give up essential to liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’”
“The most important freedom is the freedom of speech: it is the freedom that supports all other freedoms.”
I believe in a strong defence for the UK, but A C Grayling is right. There is little point in having a defence if it ends up destroying the very thing we want to defend. The 'nothing to hide ' argument is spurious in that most people subscribing to it do so because they see the benefits but none of its costs, (it is not them that will come under suspicion after all), it is also a poor idea to entirely trust the suspicions of the security services even if the only people suspected and then detained are wearing religious clothing or the kind of sporting apparel common to those that are the subjects of certain confrontational day time TV shows; for such suspicions are based on prejudice rather than evidence, and as we all know, prejudice restricts the mind rather than expands it, and is as unlikely to protect us as it is to find a writer that can get all this down in one sentence.
If that doesn't convince you then hopefully AC Grayling can. You have been warned.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Thinking of the children when it comes to drugs? Think Again
The link for this video is in a previous post to access on You Tube - but I thought I would download it straight on to here anyway. If you are worried about the kids, then maybe we need to get in place some age restrictions.
Concern over Iain Duncan Smith
Earlier, this column drew concern over Iain Duncan-Smith's influence over the Conservative Party, for which read, influence over the Con-Dem government as a whole.
I am glad to acknowledge that LBR is not alone to be concerned with Mr Duncan Smith. Elements even within the Torygraph...whoops, sorry, The Telegraph have concerns too.
Read Tom Chivers here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100048529/iain-duncan-smith-is-cherry-picking-stats-on-broken-homes-and-criminality/
I am glad to acknowledge that LBR is not alone to be concerned with Mr Duncan Smith. Elements even within the Torygraph...whoops, sorry, The Telegraph have concerns too.
Read Tom Chivers here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100048529/iain-duncan-smith-is-cherry-picking-stats-on-broken-homes-and-criminality/
I particularly like the comment that Mr Duncan-Smith using the misleading statistic. This struck me particularly after listening to Radio 4's 'Thinking Aloud' program, broadcast to podcast on 27-10-10. On the show, Pat Thane of King's College London said that broken marriages are not down to lower morals in today's society.
People like Duncan-Smith seem to hanker for a golden age that didn't exist and are keen to blame the complex problems of society on to a lack of morality. Especially if those lacking in morality happen to be other people. It is good to see that at least some parts of the media are not prone to this type of babble.
Dismal science and good looks
Recently I read somewhere that Economics is considered to be "the dismal science" and that Politics is "show business for ugly people."
This got me wondering. Does it mean that Political Blogging is politics for even uglier and more dismal people?
This got me wondering. Does it mean that Political Blogging is politics for even uglier and more dismal people?
"Ten Storey Love Song" by Richard Milward
This is the author’s second book, following on from the fantastic “Apples.” A departure for this book is that it has no paragraphs and no chapters. Or rather the book consists of simply one paragraph and one chapter. To begin with this makes this novel a challenging read, as there are no natural breaks with which to put the book down, make a cup of tea, go to work, and drink beer or whatever one would do in those moments in between reading. The lack of paragraphs and chapters seems to suggest the ‘interconnectedness of everything’ or at least all the characters in this book. However I am open to other suggestions. If you have heard the phrase of ‘interconnectedness of everything’ before, then look no further than Douglas Adams’ Dirk Gently. One is more than happy to purge others for inspiration after all. Milward is my kind of writer. Observant, funny and original, plus the story is about intoxication. What could be better than that?
Just set aside huge chunks of time to yourself in order to read it.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Somebody think of the children! Vote Yes on Prop. 19
Are you from California? Are you worried about your Kids?
Then, this November, vote YES to Prop. 19.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g29WZuhD8OY&feature=sub
Then, this November, vote YES to Prop. 19.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g29WZuhD8OY&feature=sub
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Why Women should support drug policy reform
Jack Cole used to be an undercover narcotics officer for the New Jersey State policy.
Here he explains why women should support drug policy reform. Please watch and get involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGy-j2AjqN0
Here he explains why women should support drug policy reform. Please watch and get involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGy-j2AjqN0
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Warning to the Conservative Party; leave people alone and get the Government out of their lives
Despite not being its leader for a number of years, the quiet man of the Tory party, Iain Duncan-Smith appears to be able to exert an amount of influence on its social policy.
Hence winning the battle over Welfare reform with George Osbourne. Whilst Duncan-Smith continues to advocate Marriage Tax Allowances, and after trawling through old copies of The Economist, they have this warning:
The Economist 16-12-2006 p36
“But real life is messy and real people are complicated. The Tories should tread very warily indeed.”
Wise words - I wish the government would get out of our lives on many issues. Marriage just being one of them.
Hence winning the battle over Welfare reform with George Osbourne. Whilst Duncan-Smith continues to advocate Marriage Tax Allowances, and after trawling through old copies of The Economist, they have this warning:
The Economist 16-12-2006 p36
“But real life is messy and real people are complicated. The Tories should tread very warily indeed.”
Wise words - I wish the government would get out of our lives on many issues. Marriage just being one of them.
Woman's magazine gets the message: Marie Claire
Women will be an important demographic in changing attitudes to our War on Drugs.
Isnt it time to end the failed policy called prohibition?
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/thebigdebate/502923/should-cannabis-be-sold-alongside-alcohol-and-cigarettes.html
Isnt it time to end the failed policy called prohibition?
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/thebigdebate/502923/should-cannabis-be-sold-alongside-alcohol-and-cigarettes.html
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
A Great Tshirt - Cops Say Legalise Drugs
LEAP - a great organisation. They say yes to prop. 19 too.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
"Touching the Void" by Joe Simpson
A long long time ago when LBR was wee, he was given a vintage Eagle book as a Christmas present. For the non initiated The Eagle’s hey day was during the 1950s and was a comic full of derring do. Heroism, war, individual courage, occasional true story but always boys own stuff. And of course, it was full of disillusional post-imperial angst as the British Empire withered away in the wake of the Second World War.
Reading Touching the Void brought back memories of those younger days. Not just the content of the story, but also the illustrations. They really are remarkably similar to that Boys own style.
Still Simpson is a man to be admired. Written in 1988, which is really surprising as I thought the story was much more recent. The book is well written, and it is a cracking film too.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Mens Magazine gets the message.
Notice I refer to Esquire as a 'Men's magazine' rather than a specialist gentleman's publication. Which would mean something completely different.
Anyway - here is a link I found;
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109?click=main_sr
The headline says: "A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize Everything." LBR has a question though: is it me, or is opinion beginning to change in favour of drug policy reform?
Anyway - here is a link I found;
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109?click=main_sr
The headline says: "A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize Everything." LBR has a question though: is it me, or is opinion beginning to change in favour of drug policy reform?
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Wise words from the Judge: Make Pot Boring
LBR asks all Californians to vote YES on prop 19.
Judge James Gray says it all:
http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/2010/10/lets-make-pot-boring-by-judge-jim-gray.html
Judge James Gray says it all:
http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/2010/10/lets-make-pot-boring-by-judge-jim-gray.html
Friday, 8 October 2010
"Fatherland" by Robert Harris
The hardboiled detective meets 1984. This is Harris’ best book – and that is really saying something. Any book that manages a Clausewitzian quote (and not the obvious example as can be seen on the “Telling it like it is” page of this blog) will keep us realists happy.
It would be interesting to know how much this book influenced, if at all, Michael Chabon’s “The Yiddish Policemans Union” and Stephen Fry’s “Making History”. Like 1984, If you read this book, just be thankful it isn’t true.
It would be interesting to know how much this book influenced, if at all, Michael Chabon’s “The Yiddish Policemans Union” and Stephen Fry’s “Making History”. Like 1984, If you read this book, just be thankful it isn’t true.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Holocaust Europe and present day Africa: “When a crocodile eats the sun” by Peter Godwin.
On numerous occasions, the author returns home to Zimbabwe over the course of an eight year period between 1996 and 2004. During this time he sees the ever declining conditions of his homelands economy and civil society. At the beginning of Godwin’s story, Zimbabwe is akin to Switzerland (p32-3). On subsequent visits he tracks the ever perpetuating decline into near anarchy. And during his moving story, Godwin discovers that his familial roots are not as ‘English’ as he was led to believe. In fact, his father leaves Poland and mainland Europe just in time to narrowly avoid being caught up with other Jews in the holocaust.
The modern day villain of the piece is clearly Mugabe. White farmers are evicted from their lands. Both Black and White people are physically threatened and actually assaulted. Living standards for all decline rapidly. Godwin’s story brings to us the effects of Mugabe’s actions, but very little analysis of its causes. The exception being during pages 153 to 158, where he discusses African problems in general rather than Zimbabwe specifically; Africa, large as it has lower population density compared to other continents, hence few large cities; which means African agriculture is subsistence farming for millennia; European imposed borders cut across cultural and linguistic lines dividing natural constituencies and storing up potential conflict for later; and of course, corrupt elites.
This brings us neatly to Mugabe. Godwin is very good at describing the human cost of Mugabe’s regime. The land seizures by the ‘war-vets’ (ostensibly veterans from the 1970s civil war), are more akin to Mugabe’s rent-a-mob of hired thugs than the genuine veterans they claim to be. By replacing efficient and experienced, but white, farmers, with ill-experienced black ‘war-vets’ is a reversal of the industrialised agricultural revolution. Put simply, big farms are more efficient and better at producing food. Subdividing the land is not. Zimbabwe’s food crisis over the last decade was entirely avoidable and politically created.
But what Godwin fails to do is ask why Mugabe would do this? LBR does not have an answer but hypothesises that the ‘war-vets’, foot soldiers of the Zanu-PF party, grew tired and restless and began to demand a reward for their loyalty. Mugabe, in a move that only Stalin could approve of, having nothing else to offer them, willingly turns a blind eye to the abuse meted out to white farmers. Thus he then prepares to profit from the turmoil that engulfs his country by clamping down on the opposition and tightening his grip on political power, scape-goating white farmers and Imperial perfidious Albion to boot. Sneaky eh?
Interesting for students of IR to ask is the role of South Africa. What on earth were the land of Mandela and the rainbow nation doing whilst all this was happening on their doorstep? Thabo Mbeki, South African President at the height of the Zimbabwe crisis, called for diplomacy, which was ineffectual. Of course, SA leaders may feel unable to act. LBR suspects there are plenty of African leaders that never tire of reminding South Africa, regional superpower they maybe, but they were the last African country to rid themselves of imperialism; so what business do they have to teach other Africans on how to organise their internal affairs?
Through all of this Godwin’s account is a reminder that real people are suffering and are oppressed if they even express their frustrations. Black and White have suffered under Mugabe. A real shame as Zimbabwe was an African success story. Despite the opposition leader Tsvangirai now being Prime Minister, will Zimbabwe ever be a democracy with Mugabe still as its president?
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
A new recruit against the drug war: Jane Asher
The picture is from the front page of the Daily Mail (7-7-10). Back in July Jane Asher raised concerns that the war on drugs has failed, after a visit to Glasgow.
But lets make this clear. Glasgow faces the same problems that urban areas all over the UK face. Drugs are readily available and prohibition is unable to do anything to prevent their availability.
Jane Asher was right to draw our attention to this issue.
Links below are from The Telegraph and news.scotsman.com . Interesting to ask why The news.scotsman.com felt the need to give more space to Mothers Against Drugs (MAD) than a serious discussion of the issue.
The Telegraph gives Jane Asher a more balanced report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7875642/Jane-Asher-calls-for-drug-laws-to-be-liberalised.html
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Jane-Asher-attacked-over-drugs.6407526.jp - for 'Mothers against Drugs' quote
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Politicians that support our drug laws: Cowards !
Paul Flynn explains how history will view his colleagues for not speaking out on the War on Drugs.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Steig Larsson, Swedish politics and The Economist
The Economist felt compelled to declare; The Economist 18-09-2010 “The strange death of social-democratic Sweden” p14
“Outside Scandinavia, Sweden is generally known for two things: social democracy, and the books of Stieg Larrson.”
This prompted LBR to send the following letter;
Dear Editor,
you say that Sweden is only known for its social democracy and the books of Stieg Larsson. Have you never heard of Abba? Or were outrageous clothes and cheesy pop so de rigeur for The Economist offices in the 1970's, that Abba passed you by?
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Drug Testing: good for parents, then good for the Police
The one objection to ending prohibition that you often hear is the increased use of driving under the influence, with the police being unable to detect drug use by the roadside like they can with drink.
Breathalysers are portable, but drug detection was always a wee bit more problematic. This begs the question as to what the Police having been doing all this time to detect driving under the influence of drugs until now?
Well ask no more -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8017473/Five-minute-drugs-test-can-tell-parents-if-their-children-use-cocaine.html
However, a quick look at the Daily Mail's comment page suggests that these kits could be used as another tool in the fight to control drugs and keep them illegal. (Comments were accurate at the time of publication of this article on LBR)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314041/Vantix-Parents-drug-test-childrens-saliva-cannabis-cocaine-use.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Of course this assumes that these tests work as advertised. Is it possible somebody may be found guilty on one of these machines, and yet they are in fact innocent?
Breathalysers are portable, but drug detection was always a wee bit more problematic. This begs the question as to what the Police having been doing all this time to detect driving under the influence of drugs until now?
Well ask no more -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8017473/Five-minute-drugs-test-can-tell-parents-if-their-children-use-cocaine.html
However, a quick look at the Daily Mail's comment page suggests that these kits could be used as another tool in the fight to control drugs and keep them illegal. (Comments were accurate at the time of publication of this article on LBR)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314041/Vantix-Parents-drug-test-childrens-saliva-cannabis-cocaine-use.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Of course this assumes that these tests work as advertised. Is it possible somebody may be found guilty on one of these machines, and yet they are in fact innocent?
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Change the title Elizabeth Burton-Smith: what my family did on drugs
There is no doubt this is an authentic and heartfelt book. It comes with much high praise, from no less a source than our former PM Gordon Brown and current home secretary, Theresa May. Anyone aware of the inadequacies of the Misuse of Drugs act will begin to hear alarm bells ringing as soon as they have read such endorsements. For how could such members of the establishment ever endorse a book that is then critical of prohibition?
The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t. Not that this should detract from this book. No, the book in many ways condemns itself. This is a story of one family’s tragic loss of one of its members to drug addiction, whilst the surviving twin is a recovering heroin addict.
Time and again the narrative by the family’s mother, Elizabeth Burton-Phillips wastes no opportunity to warn of the dangers of drugs and to tell the reader drugs are evil. In many ways this is conventional fare and herein is the problem. Alternatives to current drug policy are not on the agenda in this book.
Here it is worth taking a further look at the book’s title. Mum Can You Lend Me Twenty Quid: What Drugs Did to My Family. And there you have it. This is a story of what the drugs did. This reviewer is certain that this family has suffered during the period of time its’ sons were addicted to heroin. But what follows in the narrative is that the blame lays at the door of drugs, and what drugs did to my family. Yet it never asks if an alternative future for Burton-Phillips sons could have been had under a regime that regulated and controlled drugs, rather than leaving this to criminal gangs.
It does not take a person with a cold heart to adapt the subtitle and question whether it should read: What my family did on drugs. Not when you consider that parents that have lost their children to drugs, but want to see the back of the Misuse of Drugs Act, face a much harder time in getting their voices heard by an unsympathetic media. Indeed, it would be interesting to see former Prime Ministers and current Home Secretaries address their concerns once in a while.
The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t. Not that this should detract from this book. No, the book in many ways condemns itself. This is a story of one family’s tragic loss of one of its members to drug addiction, whilst the surviving twin is a recovering heroin addict.
Time and again the narrative by the family’s mother, Elizabeth Burton-Phillips wastes no opportunity to warn of the dangers of drugs and to tell the reader drugs are evil. In many ways this is conventional fare and herein is the problem. Alternatives to current drug policy are not on the agenda in this book.
Here it is worth taking a further look at the book’s title. Mum Can You Lend Me Twenty Quid: What Drugs Did to My Family. And there you have it. This is a story of what the drugs did. This reviewer is certain that this family has suffered during the period of time its’ sons were addicted to heroin. But what follows in the narrative is that the blame lays at the door of drugs, and what drugs did to my family. Yet it never asks if an alternative future for Burton-Phillips sons could have been had under a regime that regulated and controlled drugs, rather than leaving this to criminal gangs.
It does not take a person with a cold heart to adapt the subtitle and question whether it should read: What my family did on drugs. Not when you consider that parents that have lost their children to drugs, but want to see the back of the Misuse of Drugs Act, face a much harder time in getting their voices heard by an unsympathetic media. Indeed, it would be interesting to see former Prime Ministers and current Home Secretaries address their concerns once in a while.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Beer !
Recently LBR found himself in the envious position of having either no beer, or resorting to supping American beverages. Now, LBR has always been hesitant to take on American beer. Any country that has experienced prohibition could not possibly provide beer worthy of the name to this Euro-trash ale enthusiast. Indeed Peter Carey wrote about drinking an American beer: "What a jar of cat's piss that turned out to be." (Butcher, in the book Theft, p199)
Never let it be said that LBR clings to an opinion despite all evidence to the contrary. Given the choice between no beer, and American beer, the latter wins. In fact American beer is pretty decent stuff.
Never let it be said that LBR clings to an opinion despite all evidence to the contrary. Given the choice between no beer, and American beer, the latter wins. In fact American beer is pretty decent stuff.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
The Millenium Trilogy: The Girl Who Plays with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest by Stieg Larsson
Quite simply - forget my previous reservations and believe the hype. The whole series has entered into my favorite top five fiction books of all time.
The whole Millenium Trilogy gets 5/5.
Counting the cost: the end of the review
Helen Dunmore’s ‘Counting the Stars’
In the early part of this century, a couple of friends recommended The Siege by Helen Dunmore to me. Not all word of mouth recommendations satisfy, but on this occasion LBR was pleased. Later in the century LBR had cause to encounter Robert Harris’s excellent ancient Roman novels Pompeii and Imperium.
It would therefore be safe to assume that with Dunmore having produced a Roman novel, it too would receive the LBR thumbs up. Alas no. Dunmore’s book Counting the Stars is a staggeringly dull piece of work. It isn’t badly written, but lacks sufficient interest for the reader to care for the characters. Without this the constant the question that came to mind was; what is this book for? Until a moment ago, LBR had struggled to search for an answer.
LBR has clearly suffered for Dunmore’s art, but does not expect its readers too as well. This had led to a radical editorial decision so that some good can come from having read such a turgid piece of dullness. This column will continue to highlight to its readers any strikingly good piece of art that it comes across. Or even a bad piece from which discussion of interest can be had.
However, dull pieces of trash, or just mediocre, should not have to be revisited by the reviewer. Reading it is bad enough. But having to work on a review is even more time that cannot be got back. This book would have got 1/5.
In the early part of this century, a couple of friends recommended The Siege by Helen Dunmore to me. Not all word of mouth recommendations satisfy, but on this occasion LBR was pleased. Later in the century LBR had cause to encounter Robert Harris’s excellent ancient Roman novels Pompeii and Imperium.
It would therefore be safe to assume that with Dunmore having produced a Roman novel, it too would receive the LBR thumbs up. Alas no. Dunmore’s book Counting the Stars is a staggeringly dull piece of work. It isn’t badly written, but lacks sufficient interest for the reader to care for the characters. Without this the constant the question that came to mind was; what is this book for? Until a moment ago, LBR had struggled to search for an answer.
LBR has clearly suffered for Dunmore’s art, but does not expect its readers too as well. This had led to a radical editorial decision so that some good can come from having read such a turgid piece of dullness. This column will continue to highlight to its readers any strikingly good piece of art that it comes across. Or even a bad piece from which discussion of interest can be had.
However, dull pieces of trash, or just mediocre, should not have to be revisited by the reviewer. Reading it is bad enough. But having to work on a review is even more time that cannot be got back. This book would have got 1/5.
Friday, 9 July 2010
A day in Preston Station
On a long journey through England, waiting for a train in a waiting room I saw these signs. Just proving to me that History is alive, well and still with us.
"The Gamble" by Thomas E. Ricks
In terms of quality and tone this book picks up where the previous book, 'Fiasco' left off. Ricks still ends on a pessimistic note. For example, Iraq is more likely to closely recognise Lebanon, rather than a Western democracy (p317). As such this review has little to add, and possibly the reviews should have been done at the same time. Except, Ricks add an important element to this book that could not be raised in the first; the possibility of victory. Victory did not look likely during the time of 'Fiasco'. 'The Gamble' quite literally gives victory a chance.
Ricks also convincingly argues that victory will not look and feel like the victory that Western democracies are used to seeing. 'Victory' and 'success' will be highly debateable terms in this conflict. Indeed this maybe as a direct result of the nature of the conflict. Insurgencies do not lend themselves to clear cut victories.
It is worth quoting Ricks at length in terms of his view on the likelihood of victory in Iraq:
P316 “Nor, at the end of many more years of struggle, is the outcome likely to be something Americans will recognise as victory. Instead these additional years of sacrifice promise to be made for markedly limited objectives. A senior intelligence officer in Iraq described the long term American goal as ‘a stable Iraq that is unified, at peace with its neighbours, and is able to police its internal affairs, so it isn’t a sanctuary for al Qaeda. Preferably a friend to us, but it doesn’t have to be.’ He paused then pointed noted that his list doesn’t include democracy or the observation of human rights.
That is a surprisingly common view among officials in Iraq, even if it hasn’t yet sunk in with many Americans. Few foreigners are as steeped in Iraqi issues as Emma Sky, who is now on her third tour in the country. ‘The idea that you bring democracy to Iraq and they all become secular, liberal supporters of Israel – well, there are a lot of scenarios I can imagine before that one,’ she said. ‘It’s not going to end that way.’”
P331 “Among those that still talks of an American ‘victory’ in Iraq should be asked to address this question: For many years to come, the government in Baghdad is not likely to be stable or very democratic, but almost certainly it will be closer to Tehran than Washington. What part of that constitutes success for the US government?”
Monday, 5 July 2010
The War on Drugs: it's worse than we thought
LBR was always under the impression that prohibition cost the UK £14bn a year. This figure comes from the pressure group Transform. But not according to the House of Lords. That bastion of radicalism have said the cost is actually £19bn. Every year.
Whilst Labour have elected a new leader (just announced) and the Con-Dems work on a spending review, the cost of keeping drugs illegal are not the agenda.
If you do not trust this column - then ask the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8735000/8735625.stm
Whilst Labour have elected a new leader (just announced) and the Con-Dems work on a spending review, the cost of keeping drugs illegal are not the agenda.
If you do not trust this column - then ask the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8735000/8735625.stm
Why Cooper Should have run: Women matter
With Ed Miliband just being announced leader of the Labour party I can't help thinking that not having a more credible woman candidate than Diane Abbott was a loss. Churlish some may say to suggest, but there you go.
It is a real shame Yvette Cooper didnt run. Intelligent and bright, she would have been a real asset. Especially if women will be at the forefront of the Con-Dem cuts.
Good luck to Ed Miliband. He will need it. But LBR urges caution. Nobody voted Tory at the last election to see a more left wing Labour party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper
It is a real shame Yvette Cooper didnt run. Intelligent and bright, she would have been a real asset. Especially if women will be at the forefront of the Con-Dem cuts.
Good luck to Ed Miliband. He will need it. But LBR urges caution. Nobody voted Tory at the last election to see a more left wing Labour party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper
Thursday, 1 July 2010
"Coma" by Alex Garland
Like his more successful book, The Beach, Coma has short, punchy chapters. No page numbers though. But that doesn’t matter as it an exceptionally short book and takes less than a day to read. The plot is well written and has some interesting illustrations. (The images clearly signify something, but I have not figured out what that is yet.)
So to the plot; Carl is in a coma after a nasty late night incident on the underground. What drives the plot is not any mystery surrounding his story or any connection to the assault which results him being in a coma. Rather it is the process through which Carl deals with being in a coma and his attempt to wake up.
Reading this novel reminds one of the Spanish film “Open your eyes” and The Jam’s song, “Down in a tube station at midnight.” Not sure Garland does anything with this story to justify the price tag of the book, especially as it is very short, but it is entertaining enough. Furthermore, Garland has the ability to make brilliant insights and write them well: to whit “Waking was the most reliable part of a dream, as built into dreams as death into life.” This book gets a generous 3/5.
"The remains of the day" by Kazou Ishiguro
A serious work about a conscientious butler looking back on his working life would not appear to set the pulse racing. Yet Ishiguro beautifully captures the voice of Mr Stevens, the protagonist, as he describes the suffocating life the butler has imposed on himself as he attempts to do his work with dignity.
In addition some of the great foreign policy events of the 20th Century are integral to the story, which gives the plot depth. Set in 1956, a year in which Britain is also forced to consider her role in the world due to the Suez crisis.
Considered by some to be a contemporary classic, the plot is less than pacy, but this reflects the suffocating atmosphere of 1950s England, and there are moments of real comedy. This book gets 3/5.
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
One day, somebody will die
A fire at a cannabis factory. If there was a fire at a brewery we would be asking questions about how we can improve safety regulations.
An illegal product is beyond our ability to improve the methods used to make its production safe. Prohibition is the cause of the problem. Not the solution.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Cannabis-factory-goes-up-in.6390793.jp
An illegal product is beyond our ability to improve the methods used to make its production safe. Prohibition is the cause of the problem. Not the solution.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Cannabis-factory-goes-up-in.6390793.jp
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" by Stieg Larsson
Sweden conjures up a pleasant image as a nation. Nice people, clean streets, green countryside (outside of winter) and exporters of bank holiday flat packed furniture contentment. The enduring attraction to Larsson’s first part of the Millennium trilogy hints at a much darker place.
Larsson’s Sweden is a more culturally small c conservative place, with more than a suggestion of a socially suffocating a restrictive society. And in Larsson’s world, clearly not all Swedes consent to being part of this part of this country. This is a novel about those outsiders as well as the mystery that grips the reader from the very beginning. The girl of the title, Salander, is clearly the most prominent embodiment of those outsiders, but there are others too.
This novel has echoes of Iain Bank’s Complicity and The Crow Road, and is just as entertaining. At times the writing is a wee bit clunky, but this could be down to the translation. The plot is incredibly addictive.
Possibly this review should have waited until LBR has read parts two and three of the trilogy, but wanted to pose these two rhetorical questions:
• Will Vanger and Wennerstrom continue, and provide further sub-plots?
• Or, is the only connection throughout the trilogy Salander and Blomkvist?
This book gets 3/5.
Why England really lost at Sock-aa
LBR is unable to better the analysis of both Chris Waddle and Paul Mason.
Turn on Radio 5 and you will hear Waddle bemoan the structure and coaching of English Football from junior level to the higher echelons of the Premier League and the FA. He cites that having only one ex-pro in the FA, Trevor Brooking, as being symptomatic and a cause of the current national team’s malaise.
Mason’s view is on the BBC website and makes an interesting analogy with greedy bankers: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/06/england_the_lehman_brothers_of.html). Here is a snippet:
“But if you look at what's wrong with English football it starts with the junior game, where there's a horrendously physical and low-skill philosophy preached; then, for some reason, all the clever people get weeded out by the club system so that the words "intelligent, inventive England player" are impossible to write; finally the money pouring into the English premiership in the form of leveraged club buyouts allows club managers to buy their way out of having to train and develop English talent and we only find out once every four years what is wrong.
England's outstanding badness in World Cup 2010 must be a symptom of something bigger: the fact that we've got the most expensive, highest leveraged club system - and that none of our players play outside it - must have contributed to the weakening of commitment to the national colours, the evisceration of upcoming talent, the creation of an unmanageable team of frightened individuals, each of whom will now be dictating a valedictory ghost-written column to their chosen tabloid newspaper before getting on with life as a millionaire.
Like failed bankers they will pay no penalty for failure other than public opprobrium and, as everybody in high finance knows, you can live with that as long as you own a Lamborghini.
Basically, we've just seen the Lehman Brothers of football and it was not pretty.”
LBR agrees with both Waddle and Mason. Blame the manager, the ref or lack of technology if you want. But children playing football on full size pitches turn into pros that cannot dribble past international-class defenders. Lampard’s goal should have stood. If he and some of his colleagues were able to dribble and beat a man, then it may not have mattered.
Turn on Radio 5 and you will hear Waddle bemoan the structure and coaching of English Football from junior level to the higher echelons of the Premier League and the FA. He cites that having only one ex-pro in the FA, Trevor Brooking, as being symptomatic and a cause of the current national team’s malaise.
Mason’s view is on the BBC website and makes an interesting analogy with greedy bankers: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/06/england_the_lehman_brothers_of.html). Here is a snippet:
“But if you look at what's wrong with English football it starts with the junior game, where there's a horrendously physical and low-skill philosophy preached; then, for some reason, all the clever people get weeded out by the club system so that the words "intelligent, inventive England player" are impossible to write; finally the money pouring into the English premiership in the form of leveraged club buyouts allows club managers to buy their way out of having to train and develop English talent and we only find out once every four years what is wrong.
England's outstanding badness in World Cup 2010 must be a symptom of something bigger: the fact that we've got the most expensive, highest leveraged club system - and that none of our players play outside it - must have contributed to the weakening of commitment to the national colours, the evisceration of upcoming talent, the creation of an unmanageable team of frightened individuals, each of whom will now be dictating a valedictory ghost-written column to their chosen tabloid newspaper before getting on with life as a millionaire.
Like failed bankers they will pay no penalty for failure other than public opprobrium and, as everybody in high finance knows, you can live with that as long as you own a Lamborghini.
Basically, we've just seen the Lehman Brothers of football and it was not pretty.”
LBR agrees with both Waddle and Mason. Blame the manager, the ref or lack of technology if you want. But children playing football on full size pitches turn into pros that cannot dribble past international-class defenders. Lampard’s goal should have stood. If he and some of his colleagues were able to dribble and beat a man, then it may not have mattered.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
The Labour leadership and medical cannabis: the Milibands
In the last couple of weeks both the Milibands visited Yorkshire in an attempt to convince Labour members to elect them to the leader of the party.
Both performed well, although one impressed your correspondent more than the other. But more of that later.
One question that the both candidates were asked was as follows;
"In the USA 14 states have legislated to improve the quality of life for patients suffering from: Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma, Cancer, Aids, Parkinson's Disease and Arthritis. A 15th state, Arizona, will legislate on this issue in November. 72 per cent of Arizonans support implementing the new law.
The issue is legalising medical cannabis.
Do you support legalising medical cannabis in the UK? Or do you believe patents should be arrested for taking cannabis?"
Now, it would be nice to report that either of the candidates supported measures to help protect patients. Neither did, and would not have been realistic to expect otherwise. It was interesting to see how they handled the question, which of itself was important in the context of becoming leader of the Labour party. Both admitted they had never been asked the question before, which again is important to see how they handled themselves with a question that is unexpected.
David Miliband said he did not want to make any comments about Cannabis in case the comment was taken out of context. But he did not want to see patients arrested either.
Ed Miliband said he didn't want to give me a glib answer and would talk to me about the issue afterwards, as he did not know much about it. After the meeting we then had a wee chat about the issue.
Now their replies were very similar. But my judgement is that Ed was warmer of the two and gave a slightly more impressive answer. Still David Miliband still looks very prime ministerial and very good on TV. My vote is still up for grabs.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
"The Killing Jar" by Nicola Monaghan
This highly recommended novel is about the coming of age of a girl, Kerrie-Ann, that is surrounded by drugs. The first comment to make is that is very well written. The author captures the tone of voice of the protagonist by subtly changing that tone as she grows older.
It is a short book, just shy of 300 pages, and a gripping page turner with a wonderful turn of phrase. “He was good looking, Phil, and he knew it. Had the kind of eyes what hit you in the clit” being this reviewer's favorite.
A fascinating discussion would be whether this piece of fiction suggests the criminalisation of drug use does more harm than good. Thankfully Monaghan allows the reader to ponder this issue for themselves. This is Monaghan's first novel, and she deserves a lot of credit. This book gets 4/5.
Jamaica on drugs: was it worth it?
Finally the Jamaican police have arrested Christopher "Dudus" Coke. In May, the police mounted an operation in the Tivoli Gardens area of Kingston, to arrest Christopher Coke. 70 people died in the operation.
One arrest for 70 killed. Coke now faces extradition to the USA. No serious thinker on the drug market is going to suggest that with Christopher Coke out of the way the streets of Kingston will now be drug free. More likely the authorities have now created a job opening for one of his rivals.
So was arresting one man worth the lives of 70 people?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/10386028.stm "Jamaican 'drug lord' Christopher 'Dudus' Coke arrested"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/10173302.stm "Jamaica violence 'linked to US drug market'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386316.stm "Christopher "Dudus" Coke arrested"
One arrest for 70 killed. Coke now faces extradition to the USA. No serious thinker on the drug market is going to suggest that with Christopher Coke out of the way the streets of Kingston will now be drug free. More likely the authorities have now created a job opening for one of his rivals.
So was arresting one man worth the lives of 70 people?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/10386028.stm "Jamaican 'drug lord' Christopher 'Dudus' Coke arrested"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/10173302.stm "Jamaica violence 'linked to US drug market'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386316.stm "Christopher "Dudus" Coke arrested"
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
VAT rise and the drugs continue to flow
From 17.5% to 20%, the price of all the goods and services we buy and consume has got just that bit more expensive.
According to Robert Peston of the BBC, this will raise £13bn. This is an interesting figure. According to Transform, ending the prohibition of drugs could save the economy £14bn a year. Every year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report)
Yet a failed drug war continues and the drugs continue to flow around the UK. Shame we dont have a politics that is ready to realistically assess a failed policy and change it.
According to Robert Peston of the BBC, this will raise £13bn. This is an interesting figure. According to Transform, ending the prohibition of drugs could save the economy £14bn a year. Every year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report)
Yet a failed drug war continues and the drugs continue to flow around the UK. Shame we dont have a politics that is ready to realistically assess a failed policy and change it.
Monday, 21 June 2010
More thoughts on intoxication and disco biscuits
There an underlining problem with drug-based stories. The authors, in general, are aware of the injustice and hypocrisies of the drug laws and in turn many of their characters reflect this view. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the generation that went through the 1980s and 1990s drug scene are now in favour of drug policy reform now that their habit is well behind them and have families of their own.
This should not be surprising to us. Baby boomers of the 1960s and 1970s, from Clinton onwards displayed the same inertia, whether they inhaled or not.
One argument you commonly hear against ending the war on drugs is the binge drinking we have in our towns and cities on a weekly basis. Over the last twenty years the culture of drinking has changed. mainly from drinking at a local pub, to concentrated drinking in town centres.
Concentration of drinking in one area: hmmm, bad – because it concentrates people chasing the same taxis and increases the potential for violence. But it also gives law enforcement the opportunity to concentrate resources.
If you don’t think that is a good enough reason – then go speak to your local authority and tell them to refuse the money on rent and licenses that late night bars bring in. Your Council Tax bills may rise. But the really good news in is that alcohol is legal. Being so means we can control it with prices, age restrictions, quality control, location of sale, and the time of day alcohol is sold at.
That is not something we can say about drugs.
This should not be surprising to us. Baby boomers of the 1960s and 1970s, from Clinton onwards displayed the same inertia, whether they inhaled or not.
One argument you commonly hear against ending the war on drugs is the binge drinking we have in our towns and cities on a weekly basis. Over the last twenty years the culture of drinking has changed. mainly from drinking at a local pub, to concentrated drinking in town centres.
Concentration of drinking in one area: hmmm, bad – because it concentrates people chasing the same taxis and increases the potential for violence. But it also gives law enforcement the opportunity to concentrate resources.
If you don’t think that is a good enough reason – then go speak to your local authority and tell them to refuse the money on rent and licenses that late night bars bring in. Your Council Tax bills may rise. But the really good news in is that alcohol is legal. Being so means we can control it with prices, age restrictions, quality control, location of sale, and the time of day alcohol is sold at.
That is not something we can say about drugs.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Bouncers, disco biscuits and bevvy: - Intoxication since the 1990s
On a night out to a UK town centre over the last twenty years, not much has changed, or at least the changes are subtle or superficial. One apparent change appears to be the behaviour of bouncers. Once upon a time bouncers had the ability to prevent entry on the smallest of pretexts (usually trainer-shoe related.) This is still true of course, but trainers are more likely to be tolerated in nightclubs now than before.
Has fashion changed? Or has our societies’ standards slipped and we now accept that casual wearing poor trainer wearing scum will want to get a drunk in the early hours of the morning? Of course nightclubs always had a myth of exclusivity surrounding them which never met the reality. No dress code keeps scum out of a drinking establishment. It just allows scum that can afford to wear a suit and a pair of shoes through the door.
But something has happened recently which has forced bouncers to become a little less discerning on who they let into their bar or club. In a word, it is called competition. During the 1990s local authorities cottoned on to the value of encouraging a night-time economy on their doorstep. They granted late night licenses to premises in close proximity to each other. Bouncers could now see for themselves exclusivity meant that an unhappy punter would simply move to the next bar and spend their money there. In short, exclusivity had to go if a club was to be full of paying customers. Trainers were allowed in. Maybe not everywhere, but they are no longer automatically banned.
Reading Disco Biscuits the other week (review is below) was a reminder that every generation likes to get wasted. “Binge Drink” Britain is hardly a new phenomenon. Nor is it peculiarly British. Plenty of bevvy is thrown to the back of European and Antipodean throats too.
What is new, is it is easier for media companies and disapproving documentary filmmakers to locate the area of town the Local Authority has granted a slew of late night licenses. All the drinking is now in one part of town, rather than dispersed to separate parts of a town centre or the suburbs. Pitch up a camera there and edit the clips in order to max up the outrage of Middle Britain.
It is very easy for certain middle aged parents to forget their own past. The Disco Biscuits collection reminds us that we were all young once.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
"Disco Biscuits" edited by Sarah Champion
A desire for some 1990s nostalgia drew me to this collection of short stories. The most striking thing is how little has actually changed. Of course there are superficial changes, but the essentials are still with us. People continue to want to get as intoxicated now as then, for example.
This is a fairly decent collection of short stories that have aged well. Highlights include:
• Sangria, where the arrival of a hypnotist to a Mediterranean island disrupts the night-clubbing status quo.
• Heart of the Bass, as four ravers from Edinburgh arrive at a party in Loch Fyne.
• Mile High Meltdown, be thankful the story is fiction the next time you travel by plane.
• The Sparrow, a poem on gang land.
A further discussion on the themes from Disco Biscuits is to follow. In the meantime, this book gets 3/5.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Guns and Butter
Some of you may have noticed that there is a new government in town. This leaves LBR in a quandary. Naturally a Labour leaning blog, one cannot claim to be realistic and partisan at the same time.
Therefore this blog will applaud good behaviour by the current administration, whilst con-deming (gettit?) partisan, ideologically driven and unrealistic policy. For example, your correspondent expects that drug policy will continue to stumble along its current harm-enhancing trajectory. Yet there has been a surprising example where not just the government but the leader can be praised.
In the last week, a quiet corner of the UK has experienced a terrible series of shootings that Europeans like to think are exclusively an American problem. Dreadful though the murders in Cumbria were, and tempting though it may have been, ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron has refused to issue knee jerk legislation to impose greater controls on the ownership of firearms. This being even more tempting as it could so easily have slipped into Cameron’s narrative of ‘broken Britain.’
Maybe it is the point in the election cycle where the Con-Dems don’t feel the need to pander to populist knee jerk sentiment, or that he feels he will have enough on his plate with budget cuts and the like. He may not want to concern himself with guns when he has to decide how much butter to withhold from the public. And although he has not ruled out any legislation in the medium to long term, it would be wrong to tinker with the current legislation for two reasons.
Firstly, legislation on the fly is a bad idea. The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) is the classic case where an unenforceable law, easily avoided, brought in to protect the public, was rushed through under a storm of media and public outrage to ‘do something.’ Since 1991, attacks by dangerous dogs have occurred sporadically leaving the public no safer and stakeholders such as the RSPCA unsatisfied with the act. In fact, it is pretty hard to find many that will defend the act.
Secondly, although gun control is useful, prohibition is generally a bad idea. And let’s be frank, anyone talking about the need for legislation post the Cumbria shootings will generally want to discuss banning all firearms full stop. After the Dunblane massacre in 1996, the Labour Government in 1997 introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, effectively prohibiting and banning handguns, although it curiously does not cover Northern Ireland. No matter, murders and shootings involving hand guns are still as rare as they were before the act. Crucially though criminals with illegal intent can still obtain a handgun if they so require. Innocent use of a handgun (and there are innocent uses) has been prohibited, but their availability on the streets of the UK has not.
So far so good for ‘call me Dave’ on this one.
Therefore this blog will applaud good behaviour by the current administration, whilst con-deming (gettit?) partisan, ideologically driven and unrealistic policy. For example, your correspondent expects that drug policy will continue to stumble along its current harm-enhancing trajectory. Yet there has been a surprising example where not just the government but the leader can be praised.
In the last week, a quiet corner of the UK has experienced a terrible series of shootings that Europeans like to think are exclusively an American problem. Dreadful though the murders in Cumbria were, and tempting though it may have been, ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron has refused to issue knee jerk legislation to impose greater controls on the ownership of firearms. This being even more tempting as it could so easily have slipped into Cameron’s narrative of ‘broken Britain.’
Maybe it is the point in the election cycle where the Con-Dems don’t feel the need to pander to populist knee jerk sentiment, or that he feels he will have enough on his plate with budget cuts and the like. He may not want to concern himself with guns when he has to decide how much butter to withhold from the public. And although he has not ruled out any legislation in the medium to long term, it would be wrong to tinker with the current legislation for two reasons.
Firstly, legislation on the fly is a bad idea. The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) is the classic case where an unenforceable law, easily avoided, brought in to protect the public, was rushed through under a storm of media and public outrage to ‘do something.’ Since 1991, attacks by dangerous dogs have occurred sporadically leaving the public no safer and stakeholders such as the RSPCA unsatisfied with the act. In fact, it is pretty hard to find many that will defend the act.
Secondly, although gun control is useful, prohibition is generally a bad idea. And let’s be frank, anyone talking about the need for legislation post the Cumbria shootings will generally want to discuss banning all firearms full stop. After the Dunblane massacre in 1996, the Labour Government in 1997 introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, effectively prohibiting and banning handguns, although it curiously does not cover Northern Ireland. No matter, murders and shootings involving hand guns are still as rare as they were before the act. Crucially though criminals with illegal intent can still obtain a handgun if they so require. Innocent use of a handgun (and there are innocent uses) has been prohibited, but their availability on the streets of the UK has not.
So far so good for ‘call me Dave’ on this one.
"Blind Eye" by Stuart MacBride
If you take MacBride’s work seriously Aberdeen has a major crime problem. And not just ordinary crime either. In MacBride’s world Aberdeen is in the constant grip of the most macabre and gruesome crime wave the human mind can imagine.
Thankfully, MacBride is not meant to be taken seriously. Aberdeen isn’t as bad as he portrays, and there is a humour to his novels that other crime fiction avoids, which indicates the author knows his work isn’t meant to be taken literally.
In his novels, MacBride follows well trodden enough crime conventions, although “Blind Eye” is noticeable for being more ambitious than his earliest novels, a process that started with “Flesh House.” Such is the ambition that the protagonist, Logan McRae, even gets a wee trip abroad.
The convention MacBride follows is thus: Gruesome Crime – Investigation by over worked police – plot leads to a suspect – somebody else is subsequently guilty, and they get caught eventually. All the while the reader follows Logan McRae navigate the investigation, police politics and a complicated social life, with varying degrees of success and failure.
A welcome relief from Rankin’s Rebus novels, MacBride’s work is entertaining enough, though it is not convention busting, whilst being steady and consistent. Just be thankful it isn’t real life. Even the weather in Aberdeen is better than MacBride makes out. This book gets 3/5.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
"Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks
Any review of a book on the Iraq war, invasion 2003 that is, will be sorely tempted to revisit the arguments on support or opposition to that war. So let’s get this out of the way first: In 2003 this reviewer was against the war. That said, it is not inconsistent to take the view that both the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan need to be concluded successfully to serve Western interests best.
Now to the book; Ricks has admitted that this book is nothing more than a “narrative history” of the events (p441). He picks up the story in 2002 and finishes 2005, and writes a postscript to the paper-back edition in mid-2006. Observant readers will notice this is incomplete, but Ricks continues the story with “The Gamble” (published in 2009 and to be reviewed later this year.)
Other than the time line, the story is not complete. There are very few voices other than American ones. As the intervention was mainly an American adventure it is not surprising that very few voices from the rest of the coalition of the willing (or unwilling, p347-8). The real omission is the lack of voices from Iraqis, especially insurgent Iraqis. Ricks does explain that the level and nature of the insurgency was such that it was too dangerous for any journalist to explore beyond Green Zone Baghdad to find them. Al-Qaeda can have no complaints. If they wanted their voice heard, kidnapping and decapitating western hostages sent its own message of discouragement to any intrepid journalist willing to listen to insurgents.
So Ricks has clearly interviewed and researched from the people he can, the insurgent Iraqi voice will need to wait till a later date. But boy does Ricks do a mighty fine job with the material he has. This is a valuable book that highlights the pit falls of invasion without a coherent and pragmatic occupation strategy needed post-conflict, post regime change. The insurgency grew after a successful invasion, and the Americans were without a coherent strategy to combat it.
Ricks concludes pessimistic about the chances of success in Iraq. Petraeus’s ‘surge’ since 2006 have given cause for cautious optimism. It is this reviewer’s judgement that some form of intervention will be needed at least half way through this decade. I also do expect to see US military bases in Iraq for some considerable time beyond then, and indeed the life of the insurgency. President Bush, criticised his predecessor Clinton for being a ‘nation-builder,’ and yet has committed his country to do just that for the foreseeable future, in not just Iraq but Afghanistan too.
Beevor’s review on the front cover is most telling; the story is “Almost beyond belief.” Almost.
Not for the faint hearted. Valuable and thought-provoking, this book gets 3/5.
"Maya" by Alastair Campbell
Steve Watkins, the protagonist has a fatal flaw. Whilst we wait for this to finally prove his downfall, Campbell has managed to produce a work that is a satire of 24 hour rolling news as well as the cult of celebrity. This is a page-turning and gripping thriller.
One point of contention however, is that Campbell has an opportunity to do something interesting with the issue of drugs when one of the characters enters rehab. Yet, he contents himself with a tedious and conventional anti-drug narrative. To the extent where even the protagonist, no friend of the rehab-ee, blandly says he hopes he gets the help he needs in rehab.
An even more minor point. The bio notes on this novel refer to Campbell as a strategist. For any student of Strategic Studies, Campbell definition of strategy is unhelpful. He certainly understands the difference between tactics and strategy (p178 of the novel demonstrates Campbell understands the distinction.) However, no matter how angry Campbell got working for Tony Blair, he never once rolled the tanks into the offending media.
Still, the plot races along nicely and is very entertaining. This book gets 3/5.
The damning silence over North Korea
Two boats. Two different continents.
Both have received loss of life and calls for action through the UN have been heard. Yet it is curious one receives more attention than the other. Even more so when you consider that the loudest calls are heard over the boat with the least amount of dead.
But of course, one involves Israel and the other the frozen conflict on the Korean peninsula.
An independent investigation has concluded that North Korea deliberately sank a South Korean vessel. 45 sailors died. Yet a near silence descended from all the major capitals of the world. With the exception of, South Korea, obviously, and their ally the USA. But the most interesting statement came from Beijing. They incredulously, and with a straight face, called for an 'independent' investigation, as if that is not what had already happened.
Compare this to the Israeli attack on the convoy headed for the Gaza strip. The usual suspects have all been lining up to condemn Israel. It is this columns solemn view that North Korea's crime has been far worse than the allegations against Israel. Especially considering that all the facts about the Gaza convoy incident have not come in.
Shame on those that wish to condemn Israel, but are not at least equally angry with the greater loss of life at the hand of the North Koreans.
Both have received loss of life and calls for action through the UN have been heard. Yet it is curious one receives more attention than the other. Even more so when you consider that the loudest calls are heard over the boat with the least amount of dead.
But of course, one involves Israel and the other the frozen conflict on the Korean peninsula.
An independent investigation has concluded that North Korea deliberately sank a South Korean vessel. 45 sailors died. Yet a near silence descended from all the major capitals of the world. With the exception of, South Korea, obviously, and their ally the USA. But the most interesting statement came from Beijing. They incredulously, and with a straight face, called for an 'independent' investigation, as if that is not what had already happened.
Compare this to the Israeli attack on the convoy headed for the Gaza strip. The usual suspects have all been lining up to condemn Israel. It is this columns solemn view that North Korea's crime has been far worse than the allegations against Israel. Especially considering that all the facts about the Gaza convoy incident have not come in.
Shame on those that wish to condemn Israel, but are not at least equally angry with the greater loss of life at the hand of the North Koreans.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Irvine Welsh; Trainspotting continues with "Skagboys"
Unbeknownst to this column at the time of the review of "Reheated Cabbage" but Irvine Welsh is about to publish another novel later this year. Called "Skagboys" it is a prequel to Trainspotting.
Irvine Welsh’s work may not have hit the same heights as his first novel, (which this column would give 5/5) but the second in the series, Porno, would come close (receiving 4/5.) Rebel Inc. suggested that Trainspotting was “The best book ever written by man or woman...deserves to sell more copies than the Bible." No pressure then, but Skagboys is to be looked forward to.
Irvine Welsh’s work may not have hit the same heights as his first novel, (which this column would give 5/5) but the second in the series, Porno, would come close (receiving 4/5.) Rebel Inc. suggested that Trainspotting was “The best book ever written by man or woman...deserves to sell more copies than the Bible." No pressure then, but Skagboys is to be looked forward to.
"Zahra's Paradise" by anon.
I am not an Iranian. I am lucky.
Democracy is a well established process in my country. I am lucky.
The below is a link to an online cartoon created by Iranians living in the USA. They are anonomous to save their relatives left in Iran from the retribution of the authorities.
Read it.
http://www.zahrasparadise.com
Democracy is a well established process in my country. I am lucky.
The below is a link to an online cartoon created by Iranians living in the USA. They are anonomous to save their relatives left in Iran from the retribution of the authorities.
Read it.
http://www.zahrasparadise.com
"Reheated Cabbage" by Irvine Welsh
There is a hint of self-deprecation in the title of this book, which is a collection of stories that have been in various publications previously, most notably The Face magazine. Most of the stories were written in the 1990s and serve as a useful reminder that Welsh’s work has been entertaining over a long period of time. One story is new and previously unseen; “I am Miami.”
This book does not reach the heights of Trainspotting, which is possibly an unfair comparison. Not much ever could. Welsh’s writing still has the power to move and is able to make even an ardent atheist side with a staunch Presbyterian. This book gets 3/5.
This book does not reach the heights of Trainspotting, which is possibly an unfair comparison. Not much ever could. Welsh’s writing still has the power to move and is able to make even an ardent atheist side with a staunch Presbyterian. This book gets 3/5.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
"Crime" by Irvine Welsh
In his last couple of novels Welsh has managed to introduce a neat piece of self-referencing. If you don’t want to see the reference, then do not look at the first comment to this article. You have been warned.
Let’s get the criticism of the novel out of the way first. The title; it would seem to suggest something grander than the plot delivers. But this is a minor quibble.
Irvine Welsh does not do light hearted yarns, and with the primary theme of predatory paedophilia, this novel is no different. Throughout the novel, the terror is hinted and sporadically referred to until the latter chapters. So far, so conventionally structured. The main action is in Florida, but it appears that the best bits are set in Edinburgh.
But do not despair, if drugs and booze are what you are after, there is plenty here. Staple Irvine Welsh stuff. Also, Welsh still retains the ability to shock. This isn’t his best book but is still an enjoyable read. This book gets 3/5.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
The luck of the Dave Clegg and Nick Cameron
It has not failed to come to the attention to this column that Clegg and Cameron are extremely lucky. No, I do not refer to their privileged educational upbringing. And this column has very little to say about classed based criticisms of Cameron's Eton education. George Orwell, after all, was an Etonian. Private education is no barrier to becoming an enlightened progressive individual.
No Clegg and Cameron's luck will probably be Europe. Both of them see the EU differently. Their luck is situated ion the corridors of power of every EU capital and Brussels. The exasperation at getting the Lisbon Treaty or EU Constitution means no big EU projects are on the horizon. This means that the one area the Con-Dem coalition disagrees with itself to its very core will unlikley be on the agenda.
Given that Europe did for Thatcher, and proved so difficult for Major, the Clegg-Cameron love in, is very lucky indeed.
Book Reviews - the first 100 page conundrum
Time is short. Life is just simply too short for some things. Nick Hornby once said that if a book has not interested him after the first 100 pages he could not be bothered to finish reading it.
This maybe sound advice, and so tempting when I recall my review of Carey's 'Tristan Smith.' However, to review a book after its first 100 pages is clearly unfair. The next 100 pages could be a classic, separate from the drudge of the first 100.
This column will not review a book unless it has been read in its entirety. The danger being that the only books to be reviewed would be the ones your correspondent falls in love with, which would be a complete nonsense. But in the spirit of realism, it is not possible to read everything.
If a book is bad, and we adhere to Hornby's 100 page rule (because life is short), then this column will come clean and say so. Readers of this column are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. But your correspondent will promise to make every effort to complete every book that comes their way. Though I can't promise to read beyond 100 pages of anything by Nick Hornby.
This maybe sound advice, and so tempting when I recall my review of Carey's 'Tristan Smith.' However, to review a book after its first 100 pages is clearly unfair. The next 100 pages could be a classic, separate from the drudge of the first 100.
This column will not review a book unless it has been read in its entirety. The danger being that the only books to be reviewed would be the ones your correspondent falls in love with, which would be a complete nonsense. But in the spirit of realism, it is not possible to read everything.
If a book is bad, and we adhere to Hornby's 100 page rule (because life is short), then this column will come clean and say so. Readers of this column are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. But your correspondent will promise to make every effort to complete every book that comes their way. Though I can't promise to read beyond 100 pages of anything by Nick Hornby.
Coalition politics
Three initial thoughts about Cameron and Cleggs deal:
1 - Cameron talks about the need for Strong government. Nobody has yet seen fit to point out to him the inconsistency of this with his call for smaller government and a ‘Big Society.’ I suspect the ‘Big Society’ will be quietly forgotten sooner or later. His call for smaller government however is a different matter; surely smaller government needs a weaker executive, not a strong one?
Of course, when he wants a strong government he means he will not need to worry about votes in the Commons. But the point still stands. If he wants smaller government, like in America, the Executive (central government if you prefer) will need to give more power away, and then become, dare I say it, weaker.
2 – At first I was prepared to greet the Con-Dem deal with cynicism. Would the Tories take it seriously, or deliberately ruin a coalition to prove one-party rule is best. The initial signs, to Cameron’s credit, suggest otherwise. He does indeed seem to be taking it seriously.
3 – The elections big scandal (apart from a lack of debate on drug policy) was the disenfranchised voters, unable to vote, despite arriving at their polling stations on time, to find either a queue or insufficient numbers of ballot papers. During the hype of the coalition building, it is disgraceful that this story has not received more attention.
'Vernon God Little' by DBC Pierre
There are some books so good, that before you complete them you know it so good, that you want to tell other people about them. This is one of those books.
Vernon is in trouble; the biggest kind. The reader follows him through his deep-south American poor late adolescence. Published in 2003 when the economy was riding high, this book is even more relevant now. Not only do its themes echo ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ but also ‘To kill a mocking bird.’ It is also written post-phonetically which is also a plus.
The mystery at the heart of the novel drives the plot forward, but contains enough drama to continue being a page turner when the events are revealed to the reader. This is a credit to DBC Pierre’s ability.
His work has now been added to my already over burgeoning list of books to read before I die. I cannot find any higher compliment that that. Read it; this book gets a 5/5.
Our consumer society...
It struck me whilst reading DBC Pierre's book 'Vernon God Little' (review to follow) how our consumer tastes have changed over the last couple of decades. No doubt inspired by grunge in the early and mid-1990s, friends of your correspondent would buy new trainers (or sneakers it you prefer) and 'scuff' them up so as to appear more worn in.
Now in the early 21st century, this would seem to be complete madness. ‘New’ is in, and any sign of distressed wear, whether on trainers or any other clothing is frowned upon. People would rather buy ‘new’ on a regular basis than appear to treasure anything old.
No doubt fashion will change before the words of this article have even been typed on to the screen. With the recession raging will we always be able to afford to regularly buy new clothes. Don’t look to me for fashion advice. If the picture insert does not convince then it only fair to inform readers I once kept a pair of jeans 18 years!
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Advantage Cameron
For what it is worth, the odds are still on for 'Call Me Dave' Cameron, to be PM. Whether it is in minority or in coalition with the Lib Dems is less clear at the time of writing.
Why? In the background, there is something stopping Labour from making a deal with the Lib Dems. And that is this; memories of the electoral wilderness between 1979-1997 have coloured the Lib-Lab pact of the late 1970s.
Just one small grain of sand - in politics, you would rather be in Governemt with the ability to decide things, than outside looking on.
Minority Parties - Election 2010
There is a lot of talk about minority parties wielding undue influence on Government under an electoral system of Proportional Representation.
Both Thatcher and Blair governments never got more than 40% of the vote, but ran the government without partners. It is worth asking: isn't this wielding undue influence on Government?
Furthermore, why is that conservatives (small 'c' intended) always oppose any progressive policy before accommodating to it?
Both Thatcher and Blair governments never got more than 40% of the vote, but ran the government without partners. It is worth asking: isn't this wielding undue influence on Government?
Furthermore, why is that conservatives (small 'c' intended) always oppose any progressive policy before accommodating to it?
Snooker, and Strictly come Coaltion Building
The prediction game is a dangerous one. Indeed, it is probably best to only make predictions you are prepared to put your money on them. This column prefers to reserve its money only for gambling on sporting events, rather than political. Indeed, given the problems with Snooker's world number 1, wise punters tend not to bet on anything that talks.
Still, for what it is worth, I have found some advice for Nick Clegg, cue John Kenneth Galbraith; Politics, he said, is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
For Labour's part, this column salutes Gordon Brown's statesmanship yesterday in his resignation, and his political career. Galbraith's advice is still relevant to Labour. The potential for disaster is to go into government in this fashion. Opposition is clearly unpalatable, but may cost Labour, the centre-left and our progressive majority less in the long run.
Still, for what it is worth, I have found some advice for Nick Clegg, cue John Kenneth Galbraith; Politics, he said, is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
For Labour's part, this column salutes Gordon Brown's statesmanship yesterday in his resignation, and his political career. Galbraith's advice is still relevant to Labour. The potential for disaster is to go into government in this fashion. Opposition is clearly unpalatable, but may cost Labour, the centre-left and our progressive majority less in the long run.
Monday, 10 May 2010
The Hypocrisy of Douglas Hurd
Have just heard the former Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd claim on the BBC, that a new Labour leader becoming Prime Minister was undemocratic. Maybe.
Let us remind ourselves that Douglas Hurd ran for the Conservative leadership in 1990, after the coup of Thatcher. John Major beat him to it. And Hurd was more than happy to serve in John Major's government. It was then a further two years before Major faced the British public at election time.
Douglas Hurd clearly has a short memory, as have the BBC which did not point this out to him. This column has not.
Let us remind ourselves that Douglas Hurd ran for the Conservative leadership in 1990, after the coup of Thatcher. John Major beat him to it. And Hurd was more than happy to serve in John Major's government. It was then a further two years before Major faced the British public at election time.
Douglas Hurd clearly has a short memory, as have the BBC which did not point this out to him. This column has not.
The Liberal Democrats - the SDP dividend
More on the election result to follow, but one quick thought on the debates between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.
Back in the early 1980s, the Labour party split, with a faction forming a new party, the Social Democrat Party (SDP), which eventually joined in alliance, then merged with the Liberals.
At the time, the SDP split was a disaster for the Labour party. One they never really recovered from electorally until 1992, if not 1997.
Yet, the current Lib Dems have two wings. Its traditional Liberal faction on one side, and its democratic, more Labour leaning wing. This second wing is very uncomfortable with entering any agreement with the Conservatives. Disaster though it was, but old time SDP-ers could well help Labour, if not now then maybe some time in the future.
Back in the early 1980s, the Labour party split, with a faction forming a new party, the Social Democrat Party (SDP), which eventually joined in alliance, then merged with the Liberals.
At the time, the SDP split was a disaster for the Labour party. One they never really recovered from electorally until 1992, if not 1997.
Yet, the current Lib Dems have two wings. Its traditional Liberal faction on one side, and its democratic, more Labour leaning wing. This second wing is very uncomfortable with entering any agreement with the Conservatives. Disaster though it was, but old time SDP-ers could well help Labour, if not now then maybe some time in the future.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
"The English" by Jeremy Paxman
If you take any notice of Tom Bowyer he will tell you that Gordon Brown doesn’t understand the English working class. You may be forgiven for agreeing with his biographer, but barnstorming speeches the week after Duffy-gate suggest Tom has got it wrong, no matter what the result of the 2010 election.
It is an English report of the English, with an insider’s knowledge of the subject. All too often British people are can turn whingeing about the state of the nation into a national pastime. Thankfully this book ends on a positive note; England is a tremendously post-modern place and a good thing too.
This is a breezy report without being too heavy on detail, although it is clearly well researched. The English have much to learn about themselves, and this book gives a taster. For instance did you know England has produced more celebrated artists of the written word, than the painted variety? Paxo does, and explains why.
It probably wouldn’t have helped Gordon Brown avoid Duffy-gate. We are all human after all, and the British media does love a scandal. This book gets 3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
