An unsurprising event happened the other day which seemed to spark the media's attention for a few hours. The new bishop to the armed forces Stephen Venner came out in support for terrorists. Of course he doesn't agree with their aims (I sincerely hope not) but they "can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other". But is anyone surprised by this? Has not been the case that church and faith have continually stood against liberalism? The tyrannies of minaret and the cathedral, when faced with a challenge to their monopoly on morals and the progressive force for liberal democracy, not mutually supported each other in words and actions.
The Christian churches unanimously backed Franco's fascist coup in the Spanish Republic. The catholic church actually financed his insurgency and encouraged Irish catholics to join Franco's front lines and fight against the International Brigades, Spanish liberals and George Orwell. Three years later the only Nazi to be excommunicated from the church was Goebbels for getting divorced. It seemed antisemitism par-extreme, the invasion of neighbouring states, killing of civilians and eventually genocide did not contradict any Christian dogmatism, until of course t the Nazi's lost the war. Let's fast forward to the last decade skipping over Pinochet, Pott and Kooney. Which groups in society have spoke out against lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, contraception and women's rights. The idea that people have a morality without the guidance of the church is anti-theta to their teachings. The fact a progressive morality encapsulated in the forces liberal democratic states is not in line with the teachings of their holy book(s) A book which is viciously anti-liberal, narcissistic, homo phobic, chauvinistic and brutal. A book compiled by a half barbaric sect in the middle of a harsh and uncivilized world. This world view should be embraced (failing that imposed) on an individuals private life, an area which is of no concern of theirs. The Koran and the Bible have more in common that we are led to believe and it is only the secular force of liberalism which impose a neutral playing field between all ideas and protects individual liberty.
It should not surprise us one instance that those who believe in universal authority given to them by divine revelation see their own reflection in the Taliban's unquestioning allegiance to Allah, faith in metaphysical claims and adherence to arcane laws and practices. The Church of England can only look in envy at the unquestioning authority the Mullahs and the Koran have over the Taliban and indeed the Saudi Kings, the Iranian government, Mujahadeen, and countless other weak states, illiterate populations and indoctrinated combatants. It is not the first time the Churches have rallied together to condemn our morality and support other messianic religions. Head of the Church of England Rowen Williams supports Sharia' law for Muslims in the UK. Individuals no longer equal under law is an affront too 300 years or progressive liberalism. On a overt attack on homosexuality the Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argues floods that devastated many areas of the UK are a punishment from God for our moral degradation. For the Taliban the success of 9/11 and 7/7 are attributed more to the will of God than their meticulous planning.
Stephen Venner was asked if he was sorry for his comments. If you listen even half-attentively you'll notice that he's sorry that the Daily Telegraph misconstrued his interview. It probably was made to look inflammatory. However at no point does he deny admiring the faith of the Taliban, after all that his job is based on that very premise. The Church is fading as we grow accustomed to our democratic systems and our knowledge of the universe increases. No longer are we pitted against a godless socialist enemy but one who glorifies in it's faith. This sits uncomfortably with our acquiescent of religious institutions at home . We should not be surprised when the church, fearful of being ignored, seek mutual support in other co-monotheist religions.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Quote from the Day:
"In my view they have bogged it up in the most imperial, inter-galactic fashion."
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
He was commenting on the Government while appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. Anyone else think Boris might've been watching Star Wars last night?
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
He was commenting on the Government while appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. Anyone else think Boris might've been watching Star Wars last night?
Friday, 11 December 2009
Are we killing liberty?
The modern world creates new realities incomprehensible to previous generations, with profound effects for which we could not have been prepared, to which we have thus responded badly.
The rise of the internet, hundred-channel television, an extensive satellite network and mobile telephones has created a new age of instant global communications, a dissemination of information on an unparalleled scale. This decade saw a widening of popular access to information that makes the invention of the Gutenberg press seem small beer. That access is perhaps the greatest liberator in human history, making redundant authoritarian regimes’ mechanisms for controlling the media and silencing criticism. Yet the same power that guarantees opposition and dissent also poses a huge threat to liberty.
By overcoming distance and a day-by-day focus, the global 24 hour new cycle has abandoned perspective, thorough analysis and reasoned judgment. In their place come instant disclosure of undeveloped stories; a constant drip-feed of both allegations and facts, and irrational assertion of emotive responses.
Informing the masses of horrifying crimes brings to their homes a fear of the gruesome never likely to impact upon their lives. The horror of a child murdered dominates the thoughts of parents at the opposite end of the country. A rise in knife crime in Manchester becomes a concern in Aberdeen. A fearful and angry populace is a dangerous thing, for the greatest threat to liberty has always been the authoritarian impulse of an impassioned majority.
Positive developments can have very negative consequences. Modern medicine preserved life in defiance of disease but created suffering in the unprecedented phenomenon of degenerative illness. Modern communications technology opened access to information and knowledge, but does it risk a progressive decline in human freedom? The loss of liberty is rarely the result of speedy revolution. Freedom tends to die by a thousand cuts.
Taken individually many laws are no doubt justifiable: But the collective effect is a society with restrictions and punishments that previous generations would have, in abhorrence, labeled oppressive.
It is now a crime to regularly give your friend’s kids a lift to football practice without a criminal records check. Two female police officers were threatened with prosecution for babysitting each others children too often. A 60 year old man was jailed for 3 years on a tax offence: Even the judge doubted his guilt, but the Crown froze his assets so he could not pay an accountant to access the records proving his innocence.
Since 1997 over 3,000 new offences have been created: 1,472 can result in imprisonment. The UK now incarcerates more of its people than any developed country other than America. The Labour government is guilty only of responding to public demand, and David Cameron shows little sign of doing things differently. The fault ultimately lies not with our politicians but in ourselves. In a democracy the people get the government they deserve. One day the children we seek to protect may turn and ask what we did with their liberty.
The rise of the internet, hundred-channel television, an extensive satellite network and mobile telephones has created a new age of instant global communications, a dissemination of information on an unparalleled scale. This decade saw a widening of popular access to information that makes the invention of the Gutenberg press seem small beer. That access is perhaps the greatest liberator in human history, making redundant authoritarian regimes’ mechanisms for controlling the media and silencing criticism. Yet the same power that guarantees opposition and dissent also poses a huge threat to liberty.
By overcoming distance and a day-by-day focus, the global 24 hour new cycle has abandoned perspective, thorough analysis and reasoned judgment. In their place come instant disclosure of undeveloped stories; a constant drip-feed of both allegations and facts, and irrational assertion of emotive responses.
Informing the masses of horrifying crimes brings to their homes a fear of the gruesome never likely to impact upon their lives. The horror of a child murdered dominates the thoughts of parents at the opposite end of the country. A rise in knife crime in Manchester becomes a concern in Aberdeen. A fearful and angry populace is a dangerous thing, for the greatest threat to liberty has always been the authoritarian impulse of an impassioned majority.
Positive developments can have very negative consequences. Modern medicine preserved life in defiance of disease but created suffering in the unprecedented phenomenon of degenerative illness. Modern communications technology opened access to information and knowledge, but does it risk a progressive decline in human freedom? The loss of liberty is rarely the result of speedy revolution. Freedom tends to die by a thousand cuts.
Taken individually many laws are no doubt justifiable: But the collective effect is a society with restrictions and punishments that previous generations would have, in abhorrence, labeled oppressive.
It is now a crime to regularly give your friend’s kids a lift to football practice without a criminal records check. Two female police officers were threatened with prosecution for babysitting each others children too often. A 60 year old man was jailed for 3 years on a tax offence: Even the judge doubted his guilt, but the Crown froze his assets so he could not pay an accountant to access the records proving his innocence.
Since 1997 over 3,000 new offences have been created: 1,472 can result in imprisonment. The UK now incarcerates more of its people than any developed country other than America. The Labour government is guilty only of responding to public demand, and David Cameron shows little sign of doing things differently. The fault ultimately lies not with our politicians but in ourselves. In a democracy the people get the government they deserve. One day the children we seek to protect may turn and ask what we did with their liberty.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Junior football clubs in the Cup on merit
The irrational chip-on-the-shoulder mentality of Scottish football fans is displayed in its full glory this week, in John Hillcoat’s column in the Sunday Mail. The sports writer pours scorn on the junior clubs of Scottish football, bemoaning their inclusion in the Scottish Cup and crying foul at their victory over senior league opposition.
Hillcoat sees the junior league clubs’ participation in the national cup as preventing clubs of the senior Scottish Football League from earning lucrative sums. By denying them money-spinning ties against Premier League sides the juniors are “siphoning money” from the game, taking a “cheque that belongs to a struggling side in the SFL”.
His logic is that because the Juniors prefer to play in a regionalised league system, and so do not intend to apply for membership of the nationwide SFL, they are somehow not an equal part of the Scottish game. Resenting their higher incomes and attracting of better players than teams in the SFL, Hillcoat misses the elephant in the room: Junior clubs are only in a better financial position because they offer the fans a more attractive package.
Scotland’s Junior leagues offer real competition, with a high degree of fluidity between the divisions and a parity between their clubs. A shorter league season with more cup competitions means much fewer meaningless fixtures than in the SFL, with different cup formats and a greater number of opponents helping to maintain interest.
The Junior setup caters for the supporter in a way the SFL simply does not: Its regionalised system offers the intensity of local derbies against nearby towns and districts, while travelling to away matches is far easier given the shorter distances between clubs. Clubs are often based in grounds at the heart of their neighbourhood, bringing football to their community rather than expecting the community to come to them. Stadia quality is poor, but little different to that at lower levels of the SFL. In bad weather decisions to abandon matches are made well in advance, whereas the SFL frequently features last minute call offs when supporters have already made the effort and paid the expense to travel the full length of the country. Admission prices also put the Juniors ahead: Entry to West Region Superleague games is fixed at £5 for adults and £2.50 for children, SFL Third Division prices are twice as high.
Hillcoat’s antipathy to the Juniors comes hot on the heels of West Champions Irvine Meadow’s defeat of 2nd Division Arbroath in the Scottish Cup. With all but the top 4 of the 168 junior clubs already excluded from that cup, how much protection does he want for the 30 members of the SFL? The Scottish FA Cup is supposed to be a national tournament for all teams in the country. If the SFL is impoverished perhaps its supporters should consider why it offers a less attractive package than the Junior game, rather than ask the Scottish FA to favour them over others.
Hillcoat sees the junior league clubs’ participation in the national cup as preventing clubs of the senior Scottish Football League from earning lucrative sums. By denying them money-spinning ties against Premier League sides the juniors are “siphoning money” from the game, taking a “cheque that belongs to a struggling side in the SFL”.
His logic is that because the Juniors prefer to play in a regionalised league system, and so do not intend to apply for membership of the nationwide SFL, they are somehow not an equal part of the Scottish game. Resenting their higher incomes and attracting of better players than teams in the SFL, Hillcoat misses the elephant in the room: Junior clubs are only in a better financial position because they offer the fans a more attractive package.
Scotland’s Junior leagues offer real competition, with a high degree of fluidity between the divisions and a parity between their clubs. A shorter league season with more cup competitions means much fewer meaningless fixtures than in the SFL, with different cup formats and a greater number of opponents helping to maintain interest.
The Junior setup caters for the supporter in a way the SFL simply does not: Its regionalised system offers the intensity of local derbies against nearby towns and districts, while travelling to away matches is far easier given the shorter distances between clubs. Clubs are often based in grounds at the heart of their neighbourhood, bringing football to their community rather than expecting the community to come to them. Stadia quality is poor, but little different to that at lower levels of the SFL. In bad weather decisions to abandon matches are made well in advance, whereas the SFL frequently features last minute call offs when supporters have already made the effort and paid the expense to travel the full length of the country. Admission prices also put the Juniors ahead: Entry to West Region Superleague games is fixed at £5 for adults and £2.50 for children, SFL Third Division prices are twice as high.
Hillcoat’s antipathy to the Juniors comes hot on the heels of West Champions Irvine Meadow’s defeat of 2nd Division Arbroath in the Scottish Cup. With all but the top 4 of the 168 junior clubs already excluded from that cup, how much protection does he want for the 30 members of the SFL? The Scottish FA Cup is supposed to be a national tournament for all teams in the country. If the SFL is impoverished perhaps its supporters should consider why it offers a less attractive package than the Junior game, rather than ask the Scottish FA to favour them over others.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Cargo Cults and Binaries
When missionaries and traders arrived at islands and coast all over the world they built jetties and airstrips. In due time the ships would arrive and planes would land. Seeing this and the wonderful things they brought they were stunned. Look! This is what they do and look what they receive! They built their own jetties and airstrips thinking this would bring the presence of wonderful goods to them. Disappointed when the planes past over and the ports rotted they began to worship their new idols in order to please them. It was the peoples inability to please the planes and ships which caused them to fly over.
We have to avoid this cargo cult thinking. Whether it be 'we just have to do what they do and we will all rise to the top'. Crass and naive.
Or 'It's our societies fault for not copying the institutions which seem to link directly to the top well enough' which my previous self may be accused of.
My point is that the problem is systemic. Indeed saying copying the elite will get you what you want is fallacious. The interlokers of trade, networks, and values amongst a myriad of factors work against the bottom of society. Indeed I worry that an injection of cold hard cash into our schools, as we have seen in the form of PPP, may not be enough.
Beyond wealth. Fairness and accountability. Let's look for a 21st century to an eternal problem. It's a troubled and difficult road but lets looks beyond wealth and class and recognise we are citizen which have to work together, reflect and hopefully grow.
We have to avoid this cargo cult thinking. Whether it be 'we just have to do what they do and we will all rise to the top'. Crass and naive.
Or 'It's our societies fault for not copying the institutions which seem to link directly to the top well enough' which my previous self may be accused of.
My point is that the problem is systemic. Indeed saying copying the elite will get you what you want is fallacious. The interlokers of trade, networks, and values amongst a myriad of factors work against the bottom of society. Indeed I worry that an injection of cold hard cash into our schools, as we have seen in the form of PPP, may not be enough.
Beyond wealth. Fairness and accountability. Let's look for a 21st century to an eternal problem. It's a troubled and difficult road but lets looks beyond wealth and class and recognise we are citizen which have to work together, reflect and hopefully grow.
Beyond Wealth Barriers.
The prime minister’s attempt to discredit the opposition front bench based on the school they went to was a crass, petty and thoroughly unimaginative resort to the political battlegrounds of an era long since gone. That it had Tory spinsters rushing to their phones only serves to demonstrate the weakness of Mr Brown’s leadership, for no one about to lead their party into a general election could be thought wise to offer such a gift to his opponents.
Pointing out that his rivals are ‘toffs’ no doubt appeals to core Labour supporters, but any party hoping to form government also needs the votes of those in the centre. Mr Blair always recognised the importance of Middle England. Never would he have set himself against aspiration. Never would he have implicitly criticised 57% of British parents in seeking to mock his political rival. Mr Brown would do well to remember that the middle classes determine the result of elections, and that they aspire to escape the traps of modern Britain: Traps such as the decline in social mobility and the devaluing of higher education.
Just what makes Mr Brown think it sensible to insult the very people he needs to stay in office is a mystery, and no doubt senior Labour strategists will want that question answered, but there is a more pertinent point: What makes the current prime minister think the link between socio-economic class and life chances is an issue on which he has the high ground?
Under the present Labour government the gulf between rich and poor has increased dramatically, while social mobility has plummeted. After 13 years of Labour a fifth of Scots kids leave primary school unable to read or write. It is under this government that the working and lower middle classes have been forced to acquire massive debts to get an education; That insisted 50% of the population go to university, meaning a degree no longer offers good employment and a path to prosperity.
When everyone has a degree the only way employers can distinguish between candidates is by experience. The only way to get such experience is through an internship, to work for free. Only the wealthy can afford to work for free.
That David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson are of privileged backgrounds is undeniable. What is not yet known is if their privileged position has engendered in them a desire to help those not so fortunate. As chancellor and premier, Mr Brown has been a key player in the creation of a modern Britain where merit too rarely provides opportunities to advance yourself and your family. Previous governments (Liberal, Labour and Conservative) abolished the link between background and rights. The measure of a Cameron Government will be whether it gives the masses the ability to work hard and define their own worth.
Thatcher enabled the working class to get on the property ladder. Will Cameron see education as this generation’s path to wealth?
By Mark McGeever
Pointing out that his rivals are ‘toffs’ no doubt appeals to core Labour supporters, but any party hoping to form government also needs the votes of those in the centre. Mr Blair always recognised the importance of Middle England. Never would he have set himself against aspiration. Never would he have implicitly criticised 57% of British parents in seeking to mock his political rival. Mr Brown would do well to remember that the middle classes determine the result of elections, and that they aspire to escape the traps of modern Britain: Traps such as the decline in social mobility and the devaluing of higher education.
Just what makes Mr Brown think it sensible to insult the very people he needs to stay in office is a mystery, and no doubt senior Labour strategists will want that question answered, but there is a more pertinent point: What makes the current prime minister think the link between socio-economic class and life chances is an issue on which he has the high ground?
Under the present Labour government the gulf between rich and poor has increased dramatically, while social mobility has plummeted. After 13 years of Labour a fifth of Scots kids leave primary school unable to read or write. It is under this government that the working and lower middle classes have been forced to acquire massive debts to get an education; That insisted 50% of the population go to university, meaning a degree no longer offers good employment and a path to prosperity.
When everyone has a degree the only way employers can distinguish between candidates is by experience. The only way to get such experience is through an internship, to work for free. Only the wealthy can afford to work for free.
That David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson are of privileged backgrounds is undeniable. What is not yet known is if their privileged position has engendered in them a desire to help those not so fortunate. As chancellor and premier, Mr Brown has been a key player in the creation of a modern Britain where merit too rarely provides opportunities to advance yourself and your family. Previous governments (Liberal, Labour and Conservative) abolished the link between background and rights. The measure of a Cameron Government will be whether it gives the masses the ability to work hard and define their own worth.
Thatcher enabled the working class to get on the property ladder. Will Cameron see education as this generation’s path to wealth?
By Mark McGeever
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Beyond Class Conflict.
As soon as our Prime Minister mentioned the 'E' word in parliament last week the Tory spinsters rushed to their phones, media contacts and minister debriefing rooms to slate the 'horrific return to class war and politics of envy'.
The shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley argued this was the mantra of a dying party. 'Britain isn't about schools, class, or social networks but about individuals and what they can achieve'. I agree but Britain is ridden with inequality and these inequalities are growing. This time however it's not the proletariat versus the bourgeois but the citizen versus the market. Is it any wonder people are falling out of love with a system which seems immune to criticism but is wrecking the lives of many; while privileging and protecting those at the top. The average salary in the UK is £20,000 a year. A person working full time will earn around £12,000. Yet we learn that 5000 bankers in the City are receiving bonuses of £1 million or more. Every person in the UK is covering these banks to the tune of £14,000, yet unproportional bank charges, which disproportionally affect the poor, are held up by the courts. The argument can be made that governments shouldn't set prices but the lack of remorse and continual monopoly of the banks will hinder any movement to reform. Unaccountable to the public even when they own up to 65% of the shares.
When the PM mentioned Eton to the gasps of Conservatives and the cheers of Labour back benchers, was not the re-instigation of class conflict but a conflict about opportunity. Cameron, Johnson, Osborne, the triple whammy of a conservative victory would see the 3 most powerful position in Britain in the hands of a group who all went to Eton and were members of the Bollingdon club. The sense of entitlement , ties to the aristocracy, backing of the rich and too powerful to fail are all symbols of traditional class conflict. However what resonates with the public is how these features are epitomized in today's economic crisis. What grates the man in the street today is not what your social class or values are but how the opportunity to better ones self has been unfulfilled by the market economy. How, after 12 years of Labour, still where you are from and what school you went to defines your life prospects. From the likely hood to ascertain a degree to receive IVF treatment. People have a right to be angry an out this and to direct that anger into politics. At least this time the working and middle class are fairly united. They are tired of Labour but they don't like the conservative front bench. They don't care much about the left or right anymore but about fairness, opportunity and accountability.
Andrew Lansley is right in valuing the individuals worth not their background. Unfortunately it is often the access to education, where your born and who you know that will not only determine your standard of living but you opportunities for advancement for yourself and your family. Your background no longer defines your rights but it still overwhelming determines your worth.
The shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley argued this was the mantra of a dying party. 'Britain isn't about schools, class, or social networks but about individuals and what they can achieve'. I agree but Britain is ridden with inequality and these inequalities are growing. This time however it's not the proletariat versus the bourgeois but the citizen versus the market. Is it any wonder people are falling out of love with a system which seems immune to criticism but is wrecking the lives of many; while privileging and protecting those at the top. The average salary in the UK is £20,000 a year. A person working full time will earn around £12,000. Yet we learn that 5000 bankers in the City are receiving bonuses of £1 million or more. Every person in the UK is covering these banks to the tune of £14,000, yet unproportional bank charges, which disproportionally affect the poor, are held up by the courts. The argument can be made that governments shouldn't set prices but the lack of remorse and continual monopoly of the banks will hinder any movement to reform. Unaccountable to the public even when they own up to 65% of the shares.
When the PM mentioned Eton to the gasps of Conservatives and the cheers of Labour back benchers, was not the re-instigation of class conflict but a conflict about opportunity. Cameron, Johnson, Osborne, the triple whammy of a conservative victory would see the 3 most powerful position in Britain in the hands of a group who all went to Eton and were members of the Bollingdon club. The sense of entitlement , ties to the aristocracy, backing of the rich and too powerful to fail are all symbols of traditional class conflict. However what resonates with the public is how these features are epitomized in today's economic crisis. What grates the man in the street today is not what your social class or values are but how the opportunity to better ones self has been unfulfilled by the market economy. How, after 12 years of Labour, still where you are from and what school you went to defines your life prospects. From the likely hood to ascertain a degree to receive IVF treatment. People have a right to be angry an out this and to direct that anger into politics. At least this time the working and middle class are fairly united. They are tired of Labour but they don't like the conservative front bench. They don't care much about the left or right anymore but about fairness, opportunity and accountability.
Andrew Lansley is right in valuing the individuals worth not their background. Unfortunately it is often the access to education, where your born and who you know that will not only determine your standard of living but you opportunities for advancement for yourself and your family. Your background no longer defines your rights but it still overwhelming determines your worth.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Murdoch's Grand Hypocrisy
I can't think of any business model that would recommend taking your sites off Google. It would reduce your site traffic by a devastating degree.
By doing exactly that, Rupert and James Murdoch have finally dropped all pretence and are nakedly out for world domination. Its either their worldview, that "there's no such thing as a free news story", or the way we currently digest our news in the 21st century.
The Murdoch business model hates aggregation, and accuses aggregators of 'theft'. Yet how many news stories today come directly from free to access websites such as Twitter? With all external media banned from Iran during this years controversial election, I doubt Fox's news coverage would have been as effective without this crucial user generated content.
What the Murdoch empire fundamentally cannot comprehend is what the internet really is, and that is essentially a worldwide conversation. The advertising model has failed to monetise the web, and unfortunately for Murdoch, speech has and always will be free. He's trying to simplify the web and introduce a 20th century business model that simply won't succeed. I agree that something will have to replace the current advertising model, but I doubt it'll be his ideas. It will be one born out of the contemporary media sphere that we inhabit today, not of the last decade.
The Murdoch empire has a lot of weight, and they're sitting on their enemies with all their might. Its no coincidence that James Murdoch's sustained attack on Ofcom is during the regulators investigation of pay-TV. What is even more worrying is David Cameron's recent assertion that "with a conservative government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist." Murdoch senior's original target, the BBC, is still in his sights, and I fear for that establishment if Cameron's malleability to his desires continues. After Google, the BBC is the next giant the tycoon will be after, for they are his biggest enemy in offering free to access news.
This article has been aggregated from several different, free to use, website sources.
By doing exactly that, Rupert and James Murdoch have finally dropped all pretence and are nakedly out for world domination. Its either their worldview, that "there's no such thing as a free news story", or the way we currently digest our news in the 21st century.
The Murdoch business model hates aggregation, and accuses aggregators of 'theft'. Yet how many news stories today come directly from free to access websites such as Twitter? With all external media banned from Iran during this years controversial election, I doubt Fox's news coverage would have been as effective without this crucial user generated content.
What the Murdoch empire fundamentally cannot comprehend is what the internet really is, and that is essentially a worldwide conversation. The advertising model has failed to monetise the web, and unfortunately for Murdoch, speech has and always will be free. He's trying to simplify the web and introduce a 20th century business model that simply won't succeed. I agree that something will have to replace the current advertising model, but I doubt it'll be his ideas. It will be one born out of the contemporary media sphere that we inhabit today, not of the last decade.
The Murdoch empire has a lot of weight, and they're sitting on their enemies with all their might. Its no coincidence that James Murdoch's sustained attack on Ofcom is during the regulators investigation of pay-TV. What is even more worrying is David Cameron's recent assertion that "with a conservative government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist." Murdoch senior's original target, the BBC, is still in his sights, and I fear for that establishment if Cameron's malleability to his desires continues. After Google, the BBC is the next giant the tycoon will be after, for they are his biggest enemy in offering free to access news.
This article has been aggregated from several different, free to use, website sources.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
New Fanboy Cinema
Ever watched Lord of the Rings and thought, I could have done with more, and left the cinema unsatisfied? If so, then you're bum must have a high pain threshold, and you vowed to continue the series by yourself. A group of people did just that last year, and the sequel (to their own fanboy movie), 'Born of Hope' is released tonight (http://www.bornofhope.com). The production values are remarkable considering the budget, and its a real testament to what can be achieved with a dedicated group of people working at the weekend for nothing.
With the cheapness of camera equipment today, fanboy films are sprouting up faster on youtube than even the cinnamon teaspoon challenge. The films typically take place in the 'universe' that the film has created. 'The Rage', a fanboy mini-series on youtube was made for a thousand pounds, shot on DV, and exists in the universe of '28 Days Later'. Despite its meagre budget, it still manages to have a helicopter flying in troops at the beginning.
The makers of these films must have an agenda other than homage, and this is surely to fulfill their dream of making these genre films on a big, hollywood, stage. The most notable example of this happening is from another trend: fanboy films of video games. Two brothers made a film called 'Escape from City 17', based on the 'Half-Life 2' game. The makers, UbiSoft, flew the brothers to their studios prior to its release. One of the creators has said "(he) would have trusted the brothers to make a 'Half-Life' movie way before I would have trusted somebody down in LA to do it." Praise indeed.
Despite their success, I can't help but feel fanboys energy and money could be better spent making an original film. I would cite the examples of Christopher Nolan, who spent £17,000 on his feature 'Following', which catapulted him into the Hollywood machine. His latest film was 'The Dark Night'. Darren Aronofsky spent even less on 'Pi', and has just knocked back directing a 'Robocop' remake. Sam Raimi made the 'Evil Dead' for very little, and he directed the Spiderman trilogy. Fanboys forget that their favourite genre pictures were, at the time, wholly original. Aronofsky and Nolan are given hundred million budgets because their capable of summoning something out of nothing.
The closest i've got to a fanboy film was in primary 6, when I wrote a story heavily influenced by my favourite films 'Aliens' and 'The Terminator'. It was relatively successful. The teacher read it out in class to rave reviews from classmates, apart from one prick who shouted out 'that's aliens!' That's something I remember when I see yet another fanboy homage to films and video games that have gave them so much joy.
With the cheapness of camera equipment today, fanboy films are sprouting up faster on youtube than even the cinnamon teaspoon challenge. The films typically take place in the 'universe' that the film has created. 'The Rage', a fanboy mini-series on youtube was made for a thousand pounds, shot on DV, and exists in the universe of '28 Days Later'. Despite its meagre budget, it still manages to have a helicopter flying in troops at the beginning.
The makers of these films must have an agenda other than homage, and this is surely to fulfill their dream of making these genre films on a big, hollywood, stage. The most notable example of this happening is from another trend: fanboy films of video games. Two brothers made a film called 'Escape from City 17', based on the 'Half-Life 2' game. The makers, UbiSoft, flew the brothers to their studios prior to its release. One of the creators has said "(he) would have trusted the brothers to make a 'Half-Life' movie way before I would have trusted somebody down in LA to do it." Praise indeed.
Despite their success, I can't help but feel fanboys energy and money could be better spent making an original film. I would cite the examples of Christopher Nolan, who spent £17,000 on his feature 'Following', which catapulted him into the Hollywood machine. His latest film was 'The Dark Night'. Darren Aronofsky spent even less on 'Pi', and has just knocked back directing a 'Robocop' remake. Sam Raimi made the 'Evil Dead' for very little, and he directed the Spiderman trilogy. Fanboys forget that their favourite genre pictures were, at the time, wholly original. Aronofsky and Nolan are given hundred million budgets because their capable of summoning something out of nothing.
The closest i've got to a fanboy film was in primary 6, when I wrote a story heavily influenced by my favourite films 'Aliens' and 'The Terminator'. It was relatively successful. The teacher read it out in class to rave reviews from classmates, apart from one prick who shouted out 'that's aliens!' That's something I remember when I see yet another fanboy homage to films and video games that have gave them so much joy.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Old Firm Not Firm Enough To Save Scottish Football
For a century Glasgow’s two football giants have maintained near complete domination of Scotland’s game. Of 111 national championships, Rangers or Celtic were crowned a staggering 94 times. Of the mere 17 titles won by other clubs the most recent was 24 years ago. The level of hegemony has made ridiculous any notion of Scottish football as a competitive pursuit. With the rest merely making up the numbers, the two clubs with mass support are sustained purely by the intensity of their relationship to each other; a rivalry based on endless competition for sporting supremacy and steeped in religious, nationalistic and ethnic tribalism of a society divided into two communities.
Celtic was established as a charitable vehicle for one such community, the pre-existing Rangers would become standard-bearers for the other.
Whatever the consequence for the city and country, the enmity that grew between the clubs was soon seen to be mutually beneficial. So intertwined were their fortunes that they quickly became seen as a gestalt entity, and in becoming the ‘Old Firm’ Celtic and Rangers propelled themselves far beyond the limit of their individual potential.
They killed the competition but took Scottish football to a level it could otherwise never have reached: World record attendances as the 20th century began, world class stadiums as it drew to a close. They supplied players for the Scotland team and represented the country admirably in European competitions. But those days may be gone forever.
Europe’s most prestigious national leagues now generate revenues from global television and sponsorship hundreds of times that achievable by smaller leagues such as Scotland’s. Their bottom feeders, historically insignificant and poorly supported, receive income vastly superior to that available to top sides in smaller nations. By accident of geography Glasgow’s super-clubs, each with a size of support comparable to any in the world, find themselves locked out.
Glasgow’s location is an obstacle they constantly try to overcome, but England does not seem to want to allow the Old Firm to adopt the St.Geroge’s Cross as a flag of convenience. If they cannot engineer an escape from the confines of Scottish football, then these big fish must urgently consider how to make life in the small pond worth living.
It is no longer sufficient for the Glasgow giants to offer a dismal product. The absence of competition may have been tolerated when Scottish football was the only show in town, but in the age of global communications the punter can get a far better product for a much lower price. The dearth of quality needs to be addressed. What they cannot buy they must develop; somehow the clubs must start to offer proper entertainment value.
The time has come for urgent and widespread change. Scotland has failed to qualify for seven straight international tournaments. The Old Firm increasingly appear old and infirm: Tens of thousands of empty seats at Ibrox and Parkhead an alarming sign that the game is withering. If the causes go unaddressed, Scottish football may never recover.
Celtic was established as a charitable vehicle for one such community, the pre-existing Rangers would become standard-bearers for the other.
Whatever the consequence for the city and country, the enmity that grew between the clubs was soon seen to be mutually beneficial. So intertwined were their fortunes that they quickly became seen as a gestalt entity, and in becoming the ‘Old Firm’ Celtic and Rangers propelled themselves far beyond the limit of their individual potential.
They killed the competition but took Scottish football to a level it could otherwise never have reached: World record attendances as the 20th century began, world class stadiums as it drew to a close. They supplied players for the Scotland team and represented the country admirably in European competitions. But those days may be gone forever.
Europe’s most prestigious national leagues now generate revenues from global television and sponsorship hundreds of times that achievable by smaller leagues such as Scotland’s. Their bottom feeders, historically insignificant and poorly supported, receive income vastly superior to that available to top sides in smaller nations. By accident of geography Glasgow’s super-clubs, each with a size of support comparable to any in the world, find themselves locked out.
Glasgow’s location is an obstacle they constantly try to overcome, but England does not seem to want to allow the Old Firm to adopt the St.Geroge’s Cross as a flag of convenience. If they cannot engineer an escape from the confines of Scottish football, then these big fish must urgently consider how to make life in the small pond worth living.
It is no longer sufficient for the Glasgow giants to offer a dismal product. The absence of competition may have been tolerated when Scottish football was the only show in town, but in the age of global communications the punter can get a far better product for a much lower price. The dearth of quality needs to be addressed. What they cannot buy they must develop; somehow the clubs must start to offer proper entertainment value.
The time has come for urgent and widespread change. Scotland has failed to qualify for seven straight international tournaments. The Old Firm increasingly appear old and infirm: Tens of thousands of empty seats at Ibrox and Parkhead an alarming sign that the game is withering. If the causes go unaddressed, Scottish football may never recover.
Friday, 27 November 2009
A Literary Populace
Nothing strikes me more the the British addiction to the press. It is indubitably a fantastic aspect of British society. Everyday when I squeeze onto the rush hour tube and it amazes me how many people are either reading a newspaper or flipping through a book. What's more is the amount of information which is entirely free! You can pick up the Evening Standard, a former broadsheet offered for sale, at any time during the day for completely free. You can even pick up the informative Metro, or the tabloids London Lite or London Echo for nothing.
At the bus stop or even in a pub you find papers from all over the commonwealth readily available and free to take home for anyone who cares. The Australian Times, New Zealand Herald, and even the South African Mirror all updated weekly with news from the other side of the world. Newspaper stands sit outside almost every station where amongst the the limited supply of Lucazade and Walker's crisps there is an endless supply of left, right, weekly, daily fortnightly, papers, magazines and satire. Put this all together and you have a populace never short on the information they need to become fully engaged in the policy of the day.
During the Cuban Revolution Che Guevara installed a trend of teaching soldiers to read and building schools before military bases. The belief of literacy to liberate. Our own J.S. Mills put forth that education changes the gin drinking subject to the informed citizen.
The ability to read is fundamental to British liberty!
Kevin Conroy, London
At the bus stop or even in a pub you find papers from all over the commonwealth readily available and free to take home for anyone who cares. The Australian Times, New Zealand Herald, and even the South African Mirror all updated weekly with news from the other side of the world. Newspaper stands sit outside almost every station where amongst the the limited supply of Lucazade and Walker's crisps there is an endless supply of left, right, weekly, daily fortnightly, papers, magazines and satire. Put this all together and you have a populace never short on the information they need to become fully engaged in the policy of the day.
During the Cuban Revolution Che Guevara installed a trend of teaching soldiers to read and building schools before military bases. The belief of literacy to liberate. Our own J.S. Mills put forth that education changes the gin drinking subject to the informed citizen.
The ability to read is fundamental to British liberty!
Kevin Conroy, London
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Scottish Nationalists Invade London
Last Monday I attended the Constitution Unit seminar on the affect of Scotland on the British Constitution. To be fair the Constitution unit based at UCL's School of public policy is politically independent and has done plenty of research into an effective referendum on the Scottish question. However to my surprise it wasn't a room filled with SNP supporters and their Scottish counterparts but an international crowd of Irish, Dutch, Russians, Quebecans ( I know that isn't the right term), English, Scots and probably a few others. All of them with their own constitutional problems at hand and seemed fairly interested in what the Scottish National Party could add to the debate on curtailing or legitimizing succession.
The guest speaker was Michael Russell MSP and External Affairs minister in the current Scottish Parliament. Presumably he sees this role transforming into the first foreign minister of a sovereign Scotland.
One thing is clear. The SNP have redefined the question of Scottish independence not as a question of occupation and unfair treatment at the hands of our southern cousins but as a tool to deepen democracy. Russel started of a ramification of the last 800 years of Scottish history in a 10 minute spiel that only the most rehearsed of zealots could deliver under the watchful eye of dissenters. Conveniently skipping over the traditional swapping of allegiances between Scottish nobles and the English bail out of Scotland after our failed attempts at colonialism in Panama and South Carolina. Akin to the bail out that Westminster gave to the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland last year, again conveniently ignored.
Next up was how devolution was a step forward for democracy in Scotland, taking over the reigns of largely undemocratic unaccountable Scottish office hidden away in the back offices somewhere in Edinburgh. Replacing it with a proportional elected parliament with sovereignty in all areas except those reserved by Westminster. A nonetheless eloquent talk about how we have deepened democracy. If this is not enough to prove the merits of independence then at least a question should be put forward for the Scottish people to decide. In the height of democratic ideals and a commitment to accept a peaceful rejection or a promise of civil succession.
The Constitution unit is no SNP conference however, nor a 'National Conversation' for that matter. In the heart of London, full of world ranking authorities on matters of constitution and democracy, what questions could he expect to answer articulately enough to please the listeners.
Well one thing's for sure. The SNP have a surprisingly a big London branch. I never even guessed that one existed. After the obvious planted questions by 'SNP London Branch member A, B, and C..' Such as; what can Scotland learn form the peaceful breakup of Czechoslovakia? Lots. Will Scotland remain part of the EU? Yes. The audience loosened up and thrust forward like the bayonets at Cullodan. The suits at the front prodded about what question would be on the
WORD LIMIT EXCEEDED.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Why Spend Money in Space
Last month NASA smashed a probe into the lunar surface, hoping to find water hidden beneath. Scientists have been analysing that crash and yesterday the world was told of the results. There is water on the moon.
Many people argue that spending vast sums of money on space exploration is to waste public funds, that with so many problems here on Earth the money could be much better spent. There can be no doubt that issues such as famine, disease and extreme poverty are and ought to be extremely high on the agenda of any politician in the developed world.
Those who say we are wasting money in space fail to see not only the benefits of space exploration, but also the nature of scientific discovery: We do not know in advance where experimentation leads. The tangible gains cannot be weighed up front, they are revealed only because something new was done.
On 28th September 1928 a guy named Alec awoke to find his work had spoiled overnight. For some reason the bacteria he was studying had not spread across their little dish. By complete fluke he had discovered Penicillin, the world’s first antibiotic. All that followed came from this discovery. How many millions of lives have and continue to be saved as a direct result of this accident? The technological results of space exploration may be less well-known, but they have been dramatic and of real benefit to everyday life.
Cancers are found and treated earlier. Brittle bones are found and treated earlier. Arterial blockages are found and treated earlier. Problems with kids’ vision are found and treated earlier. Were these a waste of money? They’re all due to technologies designed for space missions.
Firemen are protected by suits of flame-retardant fabrics, families by smoke detectors, and stranded sailors by self-righting life rafts. How many would be dead if not for these NASA-born inventions?
Spending money on space is good. It has raised patient prospects and lowered mortality. It creates new protections and eliminates old dangers. It builds up lifestyle quality, it knocks down barriers.
Perhaps more than anything else, it follows the natural urge of humanity to go where we have never gone. To know what we do not yet know. Our ancestors left the cave, they went over the hill, and took to the seas in the belief that what was beyond would be worth exploring. Those who came before explored the full extent of this world and made it home, we would not be here had they not. We are a species of explorers. We think therefore we are, and so increasing our knowledge adds to who we are. Space is next.
And for anyone who says that is not enough to justify billions of pounds, dollars, euros and roubles: What we do up there benefits us down here. President Bush outlined a vision for space exploration, taking men back to the moon and onto Mars. The waste would be to not do it.
Mark McGeever
Many people argue that spending vast sums of money on space exploration is to waste public funds, that with so many problems here on Earth the money could be much better spent. There can be no doubt that issues such as famine, disease and extreme poverty are and ought to be extremely high on the agenda of any politician in the developed world.
Those who say we are wasting money in space fail to see not only the benefits of space exploration, but also the nature of scientific discovery: We do not know in advance where experimentation leads. The tangible gains cannot be weighed up front, they are revealed only because something new was done.
On 28th September 1928 a guy named Alec awoke to find his work had spoiled overnight. For some reason the bacteria he was studying had not spread across their little dish. By complete fluke he had discovered Penicillin, the world’s first antibiotic. All that followed came from this discovery. How many millions of lives have and continue to be saved as a direct result of this accident? The technological results of space exploration may be less well-known, but they have been dramatic and of real benefit to everyday life.
Cancers are found and treated earlier. Brittle bones are found and treated earlier. Arterial blockages are found and treated earlier. Problems with kids’ vision are found and treated earlier. Were these a waste of money? They’re all due to technologies designed for space missions.
Firemen are protected by suits of flame-retardant fabrics, families by smoke detectors, and stranded sailors by self-righting life rafts. How many would be dead if not for these NASA-born inventions?
Spending money on space is good. It has raised patient prospects and lowered mortality. It creates new protections and eliminates old dangers. It builds up lifestyle quality, it knocks down barriers.
Perhaps more than anything else, it follows the natural urge of humanity to go where we have never gone. To know what we do not yet know. Our ancestors left the cave, they went over the hill, and took to the seas in the belief that what was beyond would be worth exploring. Those who came before explored the full extent of this world and made it home, we would not be here had they not. We are a species of explorers. We think therefore we are, and so increasing our knowledge adds to who we are. Space is next.
And for anyone who says that is not enough to justify billions of pounds, dollars, euros and roubles: What we do up there benefits us down here. President Bush outlined a vision for space exploration, taking men back to the moon and onto Mars. The waste would be to not do it.
Mark McGeever
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)