Yes, Fahrenhiet 9/11 is ‘patriotic art’ in the same way Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” was patriotic art… and both take a similar relativist view regarding the role of reality in film making
|
|||||
|
Only if you say things that are favoured in Islington, it would seem. Some odious Jamaican singer rejoicing in the name of Beenie Man could be charged under British law with incitement to violence because of the anti-homosexual lyrics of his songs. I am all for the annoying Peter Tatchell trying (with some success) to cause ‘Beenie Man’ and his ilk financial difficulties by getting sponsorship deals cancelled as a result of their hate-mongering: that is civil society in action and an altogether good thing… but unless ‘Bennie Man’ actually starts taking up his bazooka for real, the state has no business suppressing free speech by force. The essential civil liberties called ‘freedom of expression’ are rather more important that the actual substance of some idiotic reggae song. Has the culture of liberty really decayed so far that this sort of overarching state control can be tolerated? Freedom of expression for the politically favoured or the mainstream are the easy bits… it is when some detestable half-wit homophobic prat like ‘Beenie Man’ opens his noisome trap that you discover what the real state of civil liberties in a country is. Pathetic. It is just a song and the state has no business banning songs. August 20th, 2004 | 34 comments - (Comments are closed)
 I have always suspected the notion blogging will lead us into a wonderful future of ‘participatory democracy’ was one of those ideas which withers away to nothing under closer scrutiny. Sure, we can ‘fact check the asses’ (as Ken Layne put it) of the established political/media classes but that only makes us bloggers ‘participants’ in the sense that calling the cops when the party next door is making too much noise makes you a ‘participant’ in the next door’s party. August 19th, 2004 | 3 comments - (Comments are closed)
The dependably readable William Sjostrom takes an article in the Daily Telegraph decrying the fact British students are in debt and turns it on its head:
Why indeed? August 19th, 2004 | 39 comments - (Comments are closed)
Samizdatista Jackie Danicki spotted an interesting fact that well known writer and commentator Theodore Dalrymple is now a contributor to the Social Affairs Unit blog, publishing under his real name, Dr Anthony Daniels. The SAU has scored quite a coup by getting such an excellent contributor signed up. The blogosphere continues its march into the mainstream. August 18th, 2004 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Over on the Adam Smith Institute blog, there is another article on why outsourcing ends up actually creates job in the country doing the outsourcing. The author makes the obvious statement that:
Quite! This seems an emotive subject for those who fear their jobs will end up in India but as the comments on this blog have demonstrated when we have discussed outsourcing in the past, it is hard to make a convincing argument that outsourcing is anything other than a positive thing for an advanced western economy. August 18th, 2004 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
The other day the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper written for the statist right prejudices of ‘Indignant of Tunbridge Well’, called for certain video games to be banned. This resulted is a rather splendid riposte by Benet Simon in The Spectator called Ban this evil rag!’:
Indeed… my comments were amongst those they deleted from the thread on the Daily Mail forum entitled Discuss: Should violent video games be banned?. And now that it has turned into an embarrassing fiasco for them given the overwhelming response to the contrary, they seem to have since deleted the entire thread. It seems that ‘Indignant of Tunbridge Wells’ is a gamer too. * = ‘Gib’ being an expression used by computer gamers for blowing a person into bloody chunks. August 18th, 2004 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
1. verb. Short for presidential blogging (as in the president or CXO of a company) which bypasses the entire PR apparatus, as well as the traditionally blah forms of published speech by CXOs. Think of it as “Do It Yourself PR” for the people best positioned to make hay with it. (Coined by Doc Searls) Usage: “Schwartz and Cuban are playing the plogging game” 2. verb. Project blogging (qv Plog). August 18th, 2004 | Comments are closed
1. noun & verb. A project blog. A blog set up to chronicle a particular (business) project. 2. noun. On-line bookseller Amazon.com has experimented with offering its customers ‘personalised weblogs’ that they call ‘plogs’. Although they have trademarked the name, it is already in use with other meanings and the Amazon usage is unlikely to gain lasting traction. August 18th, 2004 | Comments are closed
It was with something akin to delight that I saw the Times, not a newspaper overly concerned with civil liberties, have on its front page* an article about objections to Britain’s developing surveillance state. 
This is modern Britain If we cannot get these issues out in the open, we will indeed see Britain ‘sleepwalking’ into what may some time in the future be a panoptic nightmare. Blair or Howard are not going to be having the security services doing ‘midnight knocks’ on the doors of those they disfavour (well, maybe for a few people in the Finsbury Park area) but make no mistake about it, the infrastructure of repression is being put in place at an astonishing rate and someday (hopefully long after I have decamped to New Hampshire) this information is going to be used by statists of both left and right with fewer qualms than Tony Blair to order every single aspect of people’s lives in Britain in ways that places the state at the centre of everything you do in ways earlier totalitarianisms could only dream of… for your own good, of course. We have a serious battle to win and the more these issues are out of the committee rooms and in the more general public arena, the better we can argue the case for resisting the emerging Panopticon State. 
When the state watches you, dare to stare back * = Readers outside the UK may have difficulties accessing this link once it is archived due to the benighted policies of the Times newspaper. August 16th, 2004 | Comments are closed
It was with something akin to delight that I saw the Times, not a newspaper overly concerned with civil liberties, have on its front page 1 an article about objections to Britain’s developing surveillance state.
This is modern Britain If we cannot get these issues out in the open, we will indeed see Britain ‘sleepwalking’ into what may some time in the future be a panoptic nightmare. Blair or Howard are not going to be having the security services doing ‘midnight knocks’ on the doors of those they disfavour (well, maybe for a few people in the Finsbury Park area) but make no mistake about it, the infrastructure of repression is being put in place at an astonishing rate and someday (hopefully long after I have decamped to New Hampshire) this information is going to be used by statists of both left and right with fewer qualms than Tony Blair to order every single aspect of people’s lives in Britain in ways that places the state at the centre of everything you do in ways earlier totalitarianisms could only dream of… for your own good, of course. We have a serious battle to win and the more these issues are out of the committee rooms and in the more general public arena, the better we can argue the case for resisting the emerging Panopticon State.
When the state watches you, dare to stare back 1 = Readers outside the UK may have difficulties accessing this link once it is archived due to the benighted policies of the Times newspaper. (Cross posted from White Rose) August 16th, 2004 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
Judging by the many dreadful reviews I have seen regarding Catwoman, this should be a turkey of epic proportions. Well… bollocks to that. It actually is not that bad. Sure, even a connoisseur of B-movies such as myself can see that it is not a great movie… the special effects were pretty good in places but during some scenes it was painfully obvious that they were computer generated. The dialogue was serviceable rather than inspiring, the story was derivative and predictable with some feminist claptrap tacked on. The acting was of variable quality – Halle Berry’s job was to shake her ‘thang’ and be alternatively sexy, confused, sexy, predatory, sexy, all of which she did to perfection; Ben Bratt’s job was to shake his ‘thang’ and be a ‘tough-but-nice-guy’, which he did engagingly; Sharon Stone’s job was to be sympathetic, unsympathetic, menacing and sexy, all of which she utterly failed to deliver which was rather disappointing. But what strikes me is not the failings of this flick, which are indeed many, but the fact I found it vastly better than the reviews would have lead me to believe. It was by no means a waste of a few quid/bucks/euros and just confirms my suspicions that for most reviewers, sneering at things is a safer and more ‘credible’ option, a default mode in fact. It is not a great movie, or even a particularly good movie… it just does not suck. Bored this weekend? You could do far worse than look at the exquisite Halle Berry strutting her stuff very effectively in Catwoman. 
August 15th, 2004 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
