Not Sorry

23Apr10

Wait, yellow is also a colour? (via http://oncewewereanarchists.tumblr.com)

Wow. I go away from the blogosphere for a few months and then, coming back, there’s suddenly so much to be caring about.

For a start, there’s the forthcoming British election. A week and a half ago I was finding it very hard indeed to care about this one. If the choice was between grumbly, dying-before-our-very-eyes Brown and the smackably plastic, if-I-told-you-what-I-really-think-I’d-have-to-kill-you Cameron, then there was no choice at all.

After Blair refashioned Labour as the acceptable face of the Tory party, the Conservatives have struggled to prove themselves as offering an alternative. Despite much Obama-aping talk of change, they still don’t. Cameron’s chief tactic seems to be to evoke a memory of how hopeful a place Britain seemed back in 1997. A new golden age awaited. In the wake of the financial crisis, a new golden age seems a distant hope, but Cameron is, superficially at least, still pedalling Blair Part II. Like the last guy, but a little bit worse.

Until last week, this seemed the most sensible option.

The result was a contest between two people you desperately didn’t want to win. The recent scurrying through of the Digital Economy Bill – a piece of legislation largely opposed by the people and demanded by big business – served as a reminder to how closely the interests of both parties are aligned. If this was a wrestling match, I’d have been hoping for a double-KO. The audience cheers as both are left unconscious, then scratches about awkwardly in the stalls and eventually wanders off, wondering what all the fuss was about. Government, who needs it?

Of course, all this apathy pre-dates the appearance of Nick Clegg at the edge of the ring (to over-extend the metaphor). I would say ‘arrival’ but, of course, he’d been there all along and nobody had noticed. For those of us outside the UK, the televisual debate seems old hat, but for the British public it provides a genuinely new directness of access to their political leaders. (An excellent analysis of why this is can be read here. UPDATE: A Former Sun editor comments on the exclusion of the Lib Dems from the public sphere here.) An hour and a half was all it took to remind the viewers the election was actually a three-horse race and that, despite what the bookies had told them, that new horse was something of a looker. (I have no idea where these sporting metaphors are coming from by the way… I apologise and will now stop.)

Widespread support for Clegg...

It remains to be seen whether Clegg can provide the change spruiked by Cameron and sought by a British public sickened by the recent expenses scandal. He may be remembered as a brief, but happy, blip. Let’s hope not. The thought of a political spectrum that no longer wavers between red and blue remains a tantalising one. In the meantime, it’s fun watching the right-wing media tremble.

..until it transpired there was widespread support for Clegg. (pics via http://fuckyeahnickclegg.tumblr.com/)

I’m sure Australia used to have a third political party. I wonder what ever happened to them… Oh, there they are! It’s hard to imagine they can hope to offer the same possibility for change as Clegg’s Lib Dems, but they could do worse than attempt an appeal to Australia’s disenfranchised young voters.

More locally, there has been some equally world-shaking news. Perhaps you’ve noticed. The crucifixion of Christine Nixon? (Interesting article about this here.) The petard-hoisting of a Channel Nine cameraman? (Actually, it was technically Seven’s petard.) The death of Carl Williams? (Honestly, since when did “Violent killer killed violently” become news?) The collapse of (yawn) Melbourne Storm?

No, the big news is that Metro, who recently took over the running of Melbourne’s trains from troubled Connex, are not sorry. To be more specific, they are no longer offering apologies for any late-running services. Gone are the days of acknowledging any inconvenience. Instead, current announcements offer an expected arrival time, but no sense of contrition. The train isn’t late, as such, it’s just arriving at a different time. In other words, late is the new standard.

Your place is to wait. (Pic by bernardoh)

Having spent years smirking at the inherent insincerity of Connex’s apologies, it’s surprising that a lack of insincerity can seem even more insulting. One wonders if this is an attempt by Metro to shift the blame for recent appalling punctuality. Announcements will soon declare: “Your train will probably be here soon. Look, we’re doing the best we can with what we’re given, okay? Do we follow you to work and tell you how to sweep up? Just. Leave. Us. Alone.”

Well, maybe.

ps. The new Daleks are just a bit rubbish, aren’t they?

Filed under: Blogging, media coverage, Politics, UK Politics   |  2 Comments
Tags: and a bit plasticky, carl williams, daleks, i preferred the old ones, nick clegg, seriously rubbish, trains

A bit more denial

27Oct09

Atheist Motivational Poster - from friendlyatheist.com

This follows on quite nicely from last week’s ponderings about the comforts of denial.

Today’s Age features an article on the supposed hypocrisy of atheists. Written by Dr Dvir Abramovich, the director of the Centre for Jewish History and Culture at The University of Melbourne, it seems to quite spectacularly miss the point. Actually, it’s more that it misses several points, and then attempts to draw on new points that seem to belong to a different map altogether.

It’s main – and common – misapprehension is that there is some comparison between “believing in science” and “believing in a divine being.” Without wanting to offend anyone, there really isn’t. Scientists may theorise, but these are theories based on evidence. As much as the devout may wish to identify evidence for a divine being, it largely comes to down to sensory perception.

The faithful will claim to have a “sense of God”, to feel His presence. Our senses are important to us – we are sensual beings, after all. But, when I wake up in the morning with a sense of dread, this isn’t proof that something dreadful is about to happen. I may go about my day doing things more carefully, I might even be nicer to people in the hope that I can reverse this sense of dread. In many ways, this sense of dread is real and alters my behaviour for the better. But, essentially, it remains a delusion.

Similarly, Abramovich argues that religion has improved many people’s lives. I don’t doubt it. I can’t speak for Hitchens (not a great fan), but I doubt Dawkins would dispute this. However, he would argue that these people are living in denial. There is, simply, no evidence for beliefs that can often cripple these same people’s experience of the world around them and – crucially – prevent them exploring its full wonder.

One of the central tenets of Abramovich’s argument is that science does more harm than religion:

Dawkins is mute on the terrors unleashed by science and technology, used by genocidal regimes such as Hitler’s Germany, in a century that proved to be the worst tyranny mankind has ever seen. And what about weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and biological bombs developed by scientists?

That the same technological development that has allowed all kind of life-saving advancements has also facilitated the abhorrent actions of nutters isn’t really an argument against science. And, for what it’s worth, using the fact that atheists can be as crazy as “faith-heads” isn’t really an argument for religion either.

Actually, Dawkins has struggled to justify morality in the face of a godless universe. Given his background as a geneticist and the mechanism of “survival of the fittest”, explaining his own liberal views has presented something of a challenge. His TV series The Genius of Charles Darwin sees him find an evolutionary purpose for ethics. In short, the society that looks after each other survives. It’s as true for modern society as it was for small clan groups. Also, chicks dig nice guys. (Well, they breed with them, in the end.)

Dawkins supported an atheist advertising campaign. Taken from http://unrepentantoldhippie.wordpress.com

There’s no doubt that religion once served a very useful purpose for society. It provided a sense of community and cohesiveness that, arguably, modern society lacks. It also justified – and continues to justify – a lot of ignorance and prejudice that has no place in our modern world. Abramovich refers to kosher dietary practice, which once served a very valid function: health and safety. Pork was full of parasites that could easily kill you, as could shellfish that hadn’t been properly stored.

How could you convince people to do the healthy thing? Easy, you tell them God will punish them if they don’t.

(Perhaps the answer to current obesity epidemic is for the government to suggest God will strike down fat people?)

Finally, Abramovich falls down when he attempts to tangle with the Big Bang. After a brief summary of the event, he asks: “The great mystery is why it (the universe) would want to do that.” In doing so, he exposes himself as limited by an unnecessary search for meaning.

He also appears to misunderstand both Hawking’s and Einstein’s metaphorical use of the word “God”. Like Dawkins, (who considers himself only 6/7 sure there is no God, based on the evidence), Einstein was an agnostic. In a 1950 letter, he wrote:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Einstein was interested in Reason. There is little reason in Abramovich’s piece. Indeed, it serves of an example of the shutters of delusion that the faithful tend to lower in such discussions. The same shutters that, for decades, have frustrated rationalists such as Dawkins in his work.

The great mystery is why it would want to do that.

Filed under: Australian Media, media coverage, Newspapers, Social Issues   |  1 Comment
Tags: atheism, christopher hitchens, criticism, Dvir Abramovich, reason, richard dawkins

The Cold Shoulder

21Oct09

A relieved penguin: more arctic ice! Maybe. Photo by mgsbird.

I sometimes worry that people like me are responsible for Andrew Bolt‘s position as Australia’s top blogger. I don’t want him getting the wrong idea, I’m not a true believer. Or disbeliever, as the case may be.

As a teacher, I was fond of using his pieces to teach persuasive language, due to his transparent use of language techniques. More than that, in terms of entertainment value – as long as you like your entertainment tinged with disbelief and pity – it’s hard to beat. For years, I was convinced his persona was a fiction, if not the man himself: a great experiment in irony. But then, see him speak, with those dull, humourless eyes and you’ll realise this is no performance. This is a man who can’t quite understand why the world is the way it is.

Luckily for him, he’s not alone.

There are, in case you preferred not to know, a lot of people out there who find it endlessly frustrating that their views are not borne out by the world around them. I can understand that. When I was younger, it was a source of serious upset to me that a) I wasn’t Spider-Man and b) I would probably never own a TARDIS. (Note that I had to qualify that last statement with ‘probably’. I mean, it could happen, couldn’t it? If I wished really hard? No? Well, fuck you, universe!)

Everything is OK. Everything is OK. Photo: The Spectator

A certain amount of denial or willing ignorance is, to be honest, essential for one’s sense of well-being. If someone tells us everything’s okay, a lot of us are going to be ready to listen. But, when the world seems less and less the sort of place we want it to be, it’s inevitable  this denial is going to be challenged now and then.

Appearing on right-wing-wingnut Hannity’s show, lecturing leftist Michael Moore attempted to share some facts about the recent credit crunch. It was clear Hannity didn’t want to know. Perhaps he was protecting his viewers, worrying they didn’t want to know either.

People do have opinions that differ from ours, which is difficult. Tell me about it. We all like to be right. (Luckily, I always am.) But there is a difference between avoiding an argument and avoiding proving ourselves wrong.

Which brings me to Bolt’s favourite bugbear – climate change.

Now, Bolt prefers the term ‘global warming’, as most sceptics do. Why? Well, probably because it simplifies an incredibly complex climate mechanism and gives us two options: cold and hot. It allows for powerful arguments like this:

“Is it cold today?”

“Why, yes.”

“Aha, so global warming is a lie.”

Possibly I’m misrepresenting the arguments by over-simplification, but Bolt can hardly complain on that score. His favourite argument is that, since the hottest year on record (in terms of global averages) was 1998, global warming is over. Besides, we’ve had, like, some really nasty winters since then. The first point, of course, is misunderstanding the difference between an overall warming trend and a year that was anomalously hot (Australia’s hottest year was 2005, by the way). The second point returns us to the ‘cold’ vs ‘hot’ simplification. What climate change promises, in the short term, is more extreme weather events, hot and cold.

Now, like Bolt, I’m not a climate scientist. But I’m not a doctor either and if, say, 90% of doctors say I will die without taking medication, I’ll take my medication. Even if it makes life a little less comfortable for a little while. If the same number of doctors see me a week later and tell me I don’t need the medication and everything’s fine, I’ll be quite genuinely happy.

Professor Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheism advocate, says in his book The God Delusion that he only considers himself 6/7 sure that there is no God. He’s just going by the evidence but, like a good scientist, he’s willing to change his mind if more compelling evidence comes to light. I feel this way about climate change, having written on connected issues for a few publications. Not too long ago, I compared Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth with Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. Both were far from perfect, but it was Durkin’s that unnerved me. Its claims were startling, sending me back to the books, wondering if Gore and his kind had it wrong. They did, on a few points. Durkin, on the other hand, grossly misrepresented his facts and figures in an attempt to prop up theories that had been long discredited. You can find details here. (Warning: ABC site, so full of lefties. You may feel safer here or here.)

One of the reasons I still enjoy reading Bolt’s blog is to find the various anti-warming theories he has dug up. Some, it must be said, appear genuinely confronting. Until you do a bit of independent research. (Crikey did just this with two bits of ‘evidence’ Bolt recently seized upon. A summary of arguments against most of his favourites can also be found at the Guardian.) But lately, it’s begun to bore me. I’ll read a study talking about the cooling of the oceans and already know how he’ll misinterpret it.

We all like a bit of denial, but it tends to be a bit more effective when it’s a bit less transparent.

Filed under: Australian Media, Blogging   |  1 Comment
Tags: andrew bolt, climate change, head in sand

10th Birthday Post

14Oct09

Blue Shark Cake by Gertie&Gilbert

This blog has been going for an incredible 10 weeks now, which is as good an excuse as any to turn a teary eye back to the highlights.

* cue wibbly-wobbly special effects *

Ah, what a different place the world was 10 weeks ago. That Jackson bloke was still alive, America had no public health option and nobody knew that 81 per cent of Australians had no idea why “blackface” might be considered offensive.* Simpler, happy times.

Out of all the past nine posts, Sweary Kev and Hey Hey, It’s Bigotry have received the most loving – according to Sitemeter, at least. I’m quite happy about that, as they’re probably my favourite too. Biogtry comes in at second place, mainly because I think I could have spent the last week constantly updating that. (Check out The Punch’s running commentary and this piece in The Australian.) And there’s much more to be said. And, really, if you still think it wasn’t offending anyone, then, you  know, read more widely. Even Fox News had a go at us. Fox. News.

(I’m not saying anyone meant the skit to be racist, by the way. You’d have to working hard to suggest there was intent. But you’d have to looking pretty hard in the other direction to think no-one would take it as such.)

But that’s enough about me. Who are you, my loyal readers? Well, clearly you’re people of exquisite taste and slightly less than half or you are based in Australia, which isn’t that surprising.

Let’s look at some figures here:

   Visits

            Total .......................... 217
            Average per Day ................. 13
            Average Visit Length .......... 6:19
            This Week ....................... 91
 Page Views

            Total .......................... 426
            Average per Day ................. 28
            Average per Visit .............. 2.2
            This Week ...................... 198

13 a day might not look that impressive but, considering the blog’s only been running 10 weeks, isn’t full of pretty pictures of ladies (clothed or unclothed) and – crucially – is only being updated once a week, I think it’s a fair start. The average visit length is heartening, as it means people are hanging around to read something. Page views suggest most visitors read more than one page. The actual total doesn’t mean much as I only set the sitemeter up three weeks ago. At the moment I’m looking at 90-100 visits a week.

How do I plan to bump up these numbers? Well, I’ll post more often for one thing. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be looking at shorter posts, more often. That’s the plan, anyway.

And there I go, talking about myself again.

Let’s talk more about you:

Visitors by location

At least half of the recent 20 visitors are from the US, which I think has been helped by coverage of US political issues, including the recent Hey Hey embarrassment. That’s a trend that’s likely to continue into the future because, well, it’s the sort of thing that interests me. I was going to write about the seemingly inevitable election of David Cameron this week, so it would have been interesting to see if more UK visitors had stopped by.

Last week, I did have a sudden surge of interest from Egypt, but I’m not sure I can explain why that might have been the case.

I was big in Cairo, briefly

But where are you all coming from? Well, it’s hard to tell as Sitemeter refuses to cough up referrals. What I can say is that this week, for the first time, more of you are arriving on the front page than at a specific post. There’s a couple of reasons why this might be the case. The first is that the blog has a new domain:

www.wickedtocare.com

Bookmark it now! You’ll need to remember this as the blog will soon be moving to a new home. I originally set the blog up as part of my journalism course, using hosting based at university. Now the course is at an end, I’ll be moving on. (And also looking for work, by the way…)

Talk of bookmarks brings me on to my second point. More of you may be arriving at the front page because you’ve started to drop by via a saved link. In which case, thanks! Take a gold star.

That’s about all I can tell you about yourselves, for now. If I’ve missed anything, or we haven’t been introduced, say hello in the comments below. You’ll be in good company.

I’ll continue to push the blog over the coming weeks, using Facebook and Twitter, which have both provided something of a boost to the ratings over the last couple of weeks. But, most importantly, I can guarantee you the usual, slightly sarcastic analysis in weeks to come. I hope you’ll continue to drop by!

I now return you to the present. Mind how you go.

* more wibbly-wobbly special effects *

* One of these things hasn’t happened.

Filed under: Self-aggrandisement   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Self-aggrandisement

Hey Hey, it's Bigotry!

08Oct09

Years ago,  I saw a wonderfully obscene stand up performance by Sean Hughes who, having been exposed to Daryl Somers, wondered if the plaudit “All-round-entertainer” was Australian slang for “c*nt”.

Certainly, in the actually-rather-lovely light of Thursday morning, Somers and his entourage were all looking like a bunch of complete all-round-entertainers.

If ever we need a warning of the perils of nostalgia, then the creaky resurrection of 80s variety show Hey Hey, it’s Saturday will be there as a steaming beacon. It’s appropriate that our lust for simpler times should bring with it a clear reminder of the sort of bigotry that we prefer to forget. Both Hey Hey and its casual racism belong in the past. Hopefully, after last night, they will stay there.

The controversy around last night’s “Jackson Jive” performance did achieve something significant, however. It actually managed to interest me in Hey Hey, It’s Saturday. I vaguely remember the show as being the impossibly long and boring thing that stopped Channel 9 showing a film on Saturday evenings. And, as Marieke Hardy said in today’s Green Guide, it’s comforting to see it’s just as shit as I remember.

The reaction from the media overseas has been suitably damning. The reaction from the media here has, frankly, been slightly embarrassing. News.com.au led the way by asking the public whether they felt the incident was racist.

Aside from the blacked-up morons, additional highlights for me included:

• the Kamahl cartoon
• the “allriiight” from whoever the fuck it is who laughs in that sinister way in the background
• Somers summing up by saying “there’s a lot of colour on this show.” No, really.

As of this evening, 69 per cent of 30,000 Australians didn’t think any of that was racist. To me, this is more damning than the act itself. Sure, there’s a certain amount of the cultural cringe in my embarrassment but, on this occasion, we don’t need to worry that people from “more sophisticated” parts of the world might look down on us. They are looking down on us.

The general online reaction from defiant Australians can be neatly summed up by the following comment from an article on the Telegraph:

Just because Australia isn’t as brow beaten by the poltically correct brigades of the world. Doesn’t mean we’re racist.

In other words, youse guys need to lighten up and learn how to take a joke.

"Hey Hey it’s Racism Outrage" by contactink

Now, I like a joke, as you may have noticed. My sense of humour also leans slightly to the black side (no pun intended). You may have noticed that too. Here are some reasons I didn’t get this one:

1. The lack of irony.

Actually, that’s pretty much reason enough. Had the joke been about a group of unreconstructed whiteys who didn’t realise it wasn’t appropriate to dress up in blackface, I might have laughed.

A friend asked today if it would have been offensive to women had these men dressed up as women. I would argue in some cases it might have been, but this is to say nothing of the aped imagery particular to the Black and White minstrels. Chris Lilley has recently shown it’s possible to skate the thin ice of racial parody – doubtless John Safran’s forthcoming show will do the same – but to unironically reference a clumsy racial parody that, in the UK, was seen as racist as early as 1967 shows a terrifying lack of self-awareness. And, whether we like it or not, reflects badly on the culture that allowed it to go to air.

In this, Somer’s half-hearted apology at the end of the show missed the point. Apologising for offending Connick Jr is like saying to your partner “I’m sorry you feel upset whenever I have sex with your friends, poor you”. Neither is it sufficient to say “I guess in your part of the world that might have been inappropriate”. Come off it, Australia might be backward, but we’re not that backward.

Possibly the strangest defence comes from the skit’s frontman. He said it was “ironic” people should accuse him of racism, since he’s of Indian descent. Quite honestly, I’m not sure what he means. Does he mean that only white people can be racist? Or does he mean it’s ironic that an Indian man could be accused of being racist when everyone knows Australians hate Indians?

I worry it might be the latter.

*   *   *

ps. My esteemed, rival blogger Hari Raj has also blogged on the issue. Since he agrees with most of my points, I highly recommend it. Also, it’s beautifully written.

Filed under: Australian Media, media coverage   |  6 Comments
Tags: bigotry, c*nts, darryl somers, racism

It used to be about the music: designs for life

30Sep09

Some geezer.

“His curdled incredulity was consistent with [a] tone toward all culture tainted by mass popularity, with the old indie habit of retreating behind concentrically embedded moats of sarcasm.”

It’s possible I have certain snobbery issues. (Honestly, you’re nodding like it’s a bad thing…)

In the towers of my snobbery, the worst department has always been the musical floor. Working ten years in various record stores didn’t help, but even before then I tended to abort conversations when someone admitted to liking the M People. Even now it hurts to type that name. In truth, I’m still very rarely close friends with anyone who doesn’t have commendable (if not identical) tastes.

For me, bands and even genres used to be exclusive gangs, identifiable by a certain t-shirt or haircut. You loved those gangs for your comrades as much as you did for the outcasts. There were two people in my high school who weren’t obsessed by Metallica but, to us, the other 78 kids in my year were the outcasts. No, seriously, they were the losers. (That’s what I tell my pillow when waking at 3am in a cold sweat.)

Not for us the delights of commercial radio. Even Triple J quickly palled. No, we happy few (actually, we were striving to be melancholic loners) were importing NME, Q Magazine, Uncut and Rolling Stone to check our hair was facing in the right direction.

A decade on, I wish I could say everything had changed. Or anything, come to that.

So it was when I came to think about the news sites I pay the most attention to, I ignored The Age, ABC News, The Guardian, even BBC News.

Instead, I came here:

NME front page (some of it, at least)

Now, really, I’m too old to be reading British indie pop/rock site NME.com – but that doesn’t stop me. I remember when it used to leave you with smudged fingers and a faint nausea from ink fumes. I also remember the outrage when the newspaper went tabloid and swapped newsprint for gloss.

The current site is very much following this glossy trend, having abandoned newspaper-esque columns for colourful boxes that tend to make its front page a little disorientating. I know teenagers love to fill their MySpace pages with as many flashing graphics and scrolling things as possible (I don’t lurk, honestly), so perhaps they feel more at home here.

The main issue is the finger strain from scrolling down to the bottom of the page. While the most recent news is located neatly above the fold, a cornucopia of additional features is bubbling beneath. Features, reviews, concert tickets, charts, more features, more reviews, more charts. There’s so much to see that I can’t be bothered reading everything to decide where I want to go.

While the range of material available is impressive, I feel these could be located more tidily. The right hand column, in which the main news items and features are again spruiked, largely feels a waste of space. I understand it’s intended to follow you through – as well as being a defacto front page for those googling their favourite artists – but I’d rather something simpler and few breadcrumbs up top, letting me know where I am on the site.

These criticisms can partly be explained as I probably fall more easily into the demographic of Pitchfork.com – the American equivalent for fans of chin-stroking indie.

Pitchfork front page

(You may notice that the top news stories are largely identical. Instead of a tangential slide into the uniformity of critical opinion, let me direct you to a post elsewhere that touches on the subject. Failing that, you could look at an article I wrote on this very topic for Overland journal.)

Despite similar content, Pitchfork‘s front page is far cleaner and, therefore, more enticing. Sections are confined in neat little boxes, almost entirely above the fold, allowing the visitor to flick through features, galleries and headlines without scrolling anywhere. The eye can quickly hop from section to section before making a decision in which direction to chase content. Drop down boxes from the menu bar atop the page offer further guidance.

Pitchfork: the columns change but the feel stays the same

Moving further into the site, breadcrumbs appear beneath the top menu, reminding you exactly where you are. The columns left and right change, offering relevant lists and content, and the logo offers a quick escape to the front page should the self-congratulatory nature of some of their reviews distress you. (And distress you they ultimately will.)

The site is a pleasure to navigate and its suggestions of related content, rather than being cluttered or overwhelming, are genuinely appreciated. It feels far more consistent in its construction, even though the NME sticks rigidly to a set number of columns. All of this helps create a comfortable space in which you actually want to spend time.

Comforts of design aside, the reason I enjoy Pitchfork so much is that it makes me feel better as a human being. As snobbish as I may be, I can never match the site’s levels of determination to detest the thing they love as soon as other people discover it. I understand the impulse to sink a flag and swear you were into the next big thing before they had even formed, but no longer find mass love reason to switch off. I like it when my friends and loves become successful.

The quote atop this post isn’t actually about me after all – it comes instead from a critique of Pitchfork founder Ryan Shreiber. You can find it here, in another article questioning Pitchfork‘s approach to their beloved bands.  I also toyed with “a comic villain hybrid of hipster and severely autistic child” taken from here.

And if that wasn’t enough, here’s a review generally acknowledged as the worst Pitchfork ever published. (It’s since been deleted from their site.) Their best review? Probably their take on Jet‘s second album. Be warned, it’s not for those who don’t like their monkey porn. Seriously.

Enjoy!

Filed under: Blogging, media coverage, Music   |  3 Comments
Tags: Hari Raj, Music, news, NME, Pitchfork, site design, snobbery

Sweary Kev

23Sep09

Kevin Rude? courtesy of abc.net.au

After eleven years of potato-headed rule, it’s comforting to know that Australia finally has a good Aussie bloke as PM. At least, that’s the message being put out – however subliminally – by the Rudd party. Kev might look like a church-going accountant, but he’s as red-blooded an Aussie as Peter Russell-Clarke. (More of him later.)

How do we know our Kev’s a good ‘un? Because he’s more than happy to tell those Labor party f**kers to f**k off if they’re not f**king doing what he f**king wants them to. How do we know this? Well, Labor told us. Glenn Milne of News Ltd broke the story, revealing “hardened” party staffers were left “shocked” by the outburst. Rudd might “cultivate” an image of cool-headedness, Milne reminded us, but sometimes he does like a bit of a strop.

According to sources present, Mr Rudd said: “I don’t care what you f—ers think!”

He then went on, singling out Senator David Feeney declaring, “You can get f—ed”, before asking, “Don’t you f—ing understand?”

- Sunday Herald Sun, 20 September 2009.

If Milne is expecting the Australian populace to share his shock at this outrage, he may be disappointed. Rudd himself was unapologetic, using the outburst as an example of his “robust” commitment to tackling important issues. A shame then the issue in question was how much the government was spending on printing. Still, a few f-bombs are unlikely to hurt the PM’s standing any more than a quick visit to a strip club or describing the financial crisis as a “shitstorm.”

Milne was quick to jump on the strip club incident as damaging to Rudd’s electoral chances but, again, had misread the national character. Rudd may have seemed red-faced, but a bit of nocturnal naughtiness gave his bland character some appealing coarse edges. Here was a fun-loving bloke who liked the occasional drink and occasionally woke up with one or two things to regret. Who couldn’t identify with that?

Of course, there remains a whiff of antiseptic to these sweary shenanigans. Listen to Rudd say “shitstorm” and you wonder if that hesitation isn’t him checking his foul tongue but instead checking he remembered to swear. Similarly, this week’s f**king leaks seem more deliberate than accidental. Next week we’ll probably hear that Rudd scribbles “Anarchy” symbols across the top of Parliament House notepaper. And, once, he left a dirty coffee cup in the sink, instead of putting it in the dishwasher. The Rebel.

Still, Rude Rudd can go too far. Not six months ago, the reported tongue-lashing of an air stewardess did deliver a slight wobble to his standing and spark accusations that our blokey PM was “Un-Australian”. On the face of it, here was a man using a position of authority to dominate his inferiors – not very egalitarian, really. So why don’t we care that he branded a whole swathe of his staff f**kers?

Susie O’Brien, in a rather tedious opinion piece, might have (somewhat) inadvertently put her finger on the problem. Imagine if Kev had been talking to Therese like that, she suggested, would we still be so unmoved? And there we have it: it’s just not Aussie to swear at a sheila. They’re delicate flowers, those chicks.

As it is, Rudd soon might not need to make an effort at playing the rude boy. A new Greenpeace campaign seeks to make his own name a dirty word with its new Dirty Kev campaign, warning the PM to clean up his act when it comes to coal.

 

Picture from dirtykev.org/blog

Once again though, Rudd probably has a good read on the Australian populace. He knows that the majority of Australians want action on climate change, we just don’t care what the action is. In fact, a newspoll this week suggested most Australians would rather Rudd made whatever changes are necessary to get his Emissions Trading Scheme through the senate, than for us to have to go to the polls again. And fair enough, elections do put a hole in your Saturday. Besides, didn’t we used to like it when it didn’t rain? Harden the f**k up, greenies.

For a masterclass in Australian swearing, let me leave you in the crude but capable hands of Peter (G’day) Russell (G’day) Claaarke. (Warning: might seriously offend sheilas.)

Peter Russell-Clarke swears. A lot.

Filed under: Australian Media, Blogging, media coverage, Newspapers, Social Issues   |  5 Comments
Tags: ETS, greenpeace, kevin rudd, peter russell-clarke, swearing

Obama the Racist

17Sep09

Sean Hannity asserts Barack Obama is a racist

Real Americans™ – as Palin would have it – are fighting for their lives. Soon these working class white folks, who proudly eschew the biased liberal media in favour of Fox pundits like Hannity, will be sent off to face government death boards who will prescribe mandatory euthanasia. Or something. Even if they’re not, it’s socialism gone mad, just like with them Nazis. Or, worse, like Europe today.

The venom with which factions of the American public have resisted Obama’s promise of “free universal health care” (legal notice: not actually on offer) and its attendant death camps (ditto), may seem surprising to those of us who live in countries where governments still subsidise medical treatment. But are anti-Obamacare protests masking prejudices that have been bubbling under since Obama’s election last November?

According to Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter, it’s all about race. Plenty of folks (Real Americans™ prefer to be called folks, not “people”) from the south still have reservations about the ability of a black man to run their country. Of course, the liberal scum media have been jumping up and down with excitement over the claim. The demented socialists at the BBC have been using it as their lead item for twenty-four hours straight. After months in which America seemed to have resigned itself to having a black president, those deeply-held prejudices have bubbled to the surface.

This might just be the self-satisfied carping of European liberals, however, as there has been comparatively little coverage of Carter’s comments in the US. As of today, neither CNN or the New York Times feature the story on their front pages. Fox News does, but at least their coverage is balanced and unbiased – bagging Carter for playing the ‘risky race card’.

Carter’s comments follow last week’s interjection by Republican Joe Wilson during Obama’s health care speech. As Obama was promising illegal immigrants wouldn’t benefit from health care changes, Wilson yelled out “You Lie”, which was seen as a serious breach of decorum. A New *spit* York *spit* Times *spit* opinion piece by Maureen Dowd, reprinted locally by Fairfax, claimed what Wilson really meant was “You lie, boy!” and that his inability to control his outburst reflected a disbelief that “one of them” could really be President. Bush never had to deal this sort of thing. Well, not in Congress, at least.

George Bush shoe attack

Dowd’s comments have been embraced by the liberal media, just as Wilson’s outburst has been plastered on placards and bumper stickers all across the States by Real Americans™. “Obama liar!” has become a popular chant for anti-Obamacare protestors, even as the Right express outrage at Democrats playing the race card.

Certainly, the Right would never do such a thing. Well, except for Glen Beck and Sean Hannity (see above), obviously. But then Obama did go out of his way to appoint a “Latino” Judge, when there were plenty of decent, sensibly-aged white men who could have done the job without running the risk of fiery, Hispanic outbursts. And he did suggest white police were acting stupidly by arresting a black professor. I mean, it’s getting so you can’t arrest a black man anymore, just to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, he did weigh in with some “off the record” comments in which he branded Kanye West a “jackass” for stage-crashing poor Taylor Swift in her moment of glory. But there’s no saying he didn’t stick up for the white girl just to throw us all off the scent.

So, is Obama a black supremacist, waiting to revenge his people on their former slave masters? Well, no-one’s asked him, but the White House was quick to deny that Joe Wilson was being a racist. If it takes one to spot one, then Obama’s failure to finger Wilson can only count in his favour.

Still, a recent photoshoot might bring us closer to the true state of affairs.

Image courtesy of Gawker.com

Yes. Obama is a Jedi Supremacist. And we know all about their racist struggles against “the Dark Side” – finally exposed to be run by two sensibly-aged white men. One of whom, when he took his helmet off, did look a bit like John McCain. Coincidence? I think not.

You can tell this is true because the liberal media has been supressing the story. It took courageous conservative blog Conservative Brawler to bring the issue to our attention some months ago. Video evidence follows.

Obama Jedi Mind Trick (Not actually as funny as it wants to be)

• Was Wilson’s outburst racist?
• Is Obama a racist or, indeed, a Jedi?
• Why do only Fox News tell it like it is?

Filed under: Blogging, media coverage, Social Issues   |  3 Comments
Tags: heavy irony, jedi, jimmy carter, joe wilson, obama

When you just can't care enough

10Sep09

Image taken from steveschafer

I don’t have any children.

As a result, I have no interest in children. In fact, their appeal is largely lost on me. To be honest, most of them look the same, until they start to dress themselves, at least. And they smell. Honestly. Try going to a midday cinema session during the school holidays if you don’t believe me.

Generally, I prefer to forget that children exist. I do have friends with children, which is unfortunate, but they’re generally good enough not to bring them to the pub. It’s hardly an original observation that parents tend to narrow their world view until their offspring obscure all (there’s probably a good evolutionary reason for it), but it makes for poor conversation. I mean, I don’t follow the football, so if that’s all someone wants to talk about, I’ll go sit somewhere else.

Sadly, we are expected to care.

Even more sadly, social networking allows parents to expect us to care all the time. About everything from the filling of a nappy to how little sleep they managed the previous night. I’m wary about accepting friend requests from old school friends, as there is the very good possibility that they hope to use Facebook to tell as many people as possible about their incontinent offspring. There are some things you don’t want to be reading over your cornflakes.

I’ve discussed this matter with my childless friends and we’ve all come to the same conclusion – some parents need to be trimmed from your newsfeed. There are countless groups on the wonder of children, yet, curiously, there are no groups (that I could easily find) about how sick people are of hearing about other people’s babies.

Here then is a genuine social taboo: it’s not acceptable to tell your friends that babies bore you. Why? It can’t simply be out of fear of causing offence. If that was the case, a lot of slow walking people wouldn’t be worrying so many people out there are wanting to punch them in the back of the head.

Instead, the discomfort in badmouthing children highlights the liminal space between public and private that social networking occupies. The more we engage with sites like Facebook, the more difficult it is to function with integrity. The more public we become, the less private we can – or should – be. The most interesting interactions and conversations are forced offline, where no-one is listening. On the flipside, sites like Facebook might be a more pleasurable environment if people understood its public nature. Not everyone will want to see graphic photos of the birth of your child. (What next, a video of the conception?) Seriously, half-chewed cornflakes can be really hard to fish out from your keyboard.

I enjoy hearing people reflect on the minutiae of their days. I like reading people reflecting on issues, however trivial. I find most things interesting. Even those quizzes that tell your friends which animal you would be if, you know, you were an animal.

But I deserve the right to complain when someone keeps banging on and on in my virtual ear. Like if someone’s going on and on about how much they hate kids.

Of course, I also reserve the right to non-hypocritically reverse my position in a few years time when I have kids of my own. But you’ll love them. And find them endlessly amusing. Oh look, vomit. How sweet.

For what it’s worth, I also hate happy people.

And people who post updates about Jesus.

Currently, I have three friends on Facebook. (One of them is my mum.)

Filed under: Blogging, Social Issues   |  5 Comments
Tags: babies, facebook, social networking

You Know It, I'm Bad

30Aug09

A clip from Martin Bashir’s controversial documentary “Living with Michael Jackson”

I’ve never liked Michael Jackson.

There, I’ve said it.

Now, I’ve worked as a music writer (still do, when I have time), spent 10 years working in record stores and have generally been the sort of sad music obsessive who thinks the book/film “High Fidelity” is a portrait of a sensible, well-adjusted young man, if not actually an instructional text.

But I remember my childhood disappointment whenever I realised the clip Rage were playing was “Bad”, rather than Weird Al Yankovic’s far more entertaining “Fat”. My preferences in this matter remain mostly unchanged. I think I was briefly interested in the spectacle of the “Thriller” clip but the actual song left no traces. In that way, it worked as a preview of the last 20 years of so of Jackson’s life, when the spectacle came to far exceed the content.

Of course, I’m not saying that I was untouched by his death. There was the usual compassion at the death of a fellow human being, but I was quickly alienated by the incessant blanket coverage. Sadly, with the announcement of a homicide ruling, the saga’s legs are looking all too strong.

Media coverage of grief, in the wake of a public icon’s demise, seems an increasingly blind and brutal beast. The news attempts to reflect public opinion and then magnifies it exponentially until there is only one opinion to be had. Perhaps understandably, it’s not terribly fashionable right now to raise the topic of Jackson’s alleged paedophilia, his bizarre family arrangements or his slow, plasticised transformation into a skinny Elizabeth Taylor (via Diana Ross).

Death, particularly when the media is watching, makes saints of us all. Witness Jade Goody’s transformation from chav-scum pariah to working class martyr. It took an Australian princess to bump Princess Diana off the cover of every single copy of Woman’s Weekly and New Idea, but that won’t stop her eventual canonisation when we discover her offspring were conceived immaculately. (One of them, certainly, seems not to have required her to sleep with Charles.)

Di’s death transformed news coverage of the death of an icon. At the time, the news seemed surprised at the strength of feeling from the public, but lessons were learned. The readiness for mass grief is now permanently in the wings, with coverage tending to focus on how we all feel about the loss, to the point that it becomes hard to believe that any of us are carrying on with our tiny lives.

But what if our own grief isn’t up to scratch?

It can be hard, in these times, to be a cold-hearted bastard. To remain unmoved by the endless tributes and emotional outpourings. Suddenly, we non-be-grievers are aliens to our fellow men and highlighted as such by each new bulletin.

Of course, being cold-hearted bastards, we may not care. But maybe we should. Because, really, what’s all this grief and tribute-making doing on the news? Was Jackson’s death really the most important news items for that many days running?

The BBC reportedly received a vast number of complaints for its incessant coverage, but defended its decison on the grounds that it rated well and “undoubtedly a great many of you were extremely interested.”

The story was popular, certainly, but can an entertainment story really warrant such coverage to the exclusion of other ongoing stories?

When you’re chasing the interests of the public, rather than protecting their interests, the answer is probably yes. The charts on the BBC News site (and many like it) are sorted by “Most Read”, “Most Emailed” and “Most Watched” but, curiously, not “Most Important.” Judging importance might be a subjective decision, but it’s still one that might be better made by an informed professional. Here’s the current top 5 “Most Shared” stories at the Beeb.

1. Apple denies ‘exploding’ iPhones
2. Fujitsu warned of pension strikes
3. Witchcraft in West Africa
4. ‘Robot girls’ clue to Dugard case
5. Curbs on nuclear scientist lifted

It’s hard not to think that chasing news in order to satisfy the clickings of the great unwashed makes a tendency to sensationalism and spectacle somewhat inevitable.

On the other hand, maybe I’m being elitist and contrary. Probably. Maybe Jackson’s cultural status earned him a couple of weeks at the front of every bulletin.

But, still, wouldn’t it be more helpful to see a chart of “Least Read” stories, instead of an endless feedback loop reminding us what we’re supposed to be interested in?

Filed under: media coverage   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: celebrity death, media coverage, michael jackson