What we need:
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Royal Weddings And Corner Politics
There are many reasons I love Mrs. Blue as much as I do. One that came up very recently involved our desire to avoid Royal Wedding hysteria as best we could. Few of our friends were quite as apathetic as us, and so I resolved to sleep in as long as I could - maybe I'd have missed the worst of it by the time I dragged my pasty arse out of bed.
Instead I awoke at about 10:30AM and shambled towards the living room to find Mrs. Blue with the DVD remote at her side, a couple of episodes into the first season of The Wire.
As I said - I love that girl something fierce.
You may find through the rambling of this piece that I inadvertantly throw a few "Wire-isms" in there. Logically I know that it's almost entirely scripted - and that what we're hearing is essentially overheard street talk reconstituted by the show's writers. But there's a poetry in the brutalist dialogue that makes up much of the series - whether that's down to the skill of the writers or whether it was already there in the language they overheard as journalists, policemen and teachers I don't know, and frankly don't care.
Cards on the table : I first saw Homicide : Life On The Street as a teenager, and after the first episode it became one of my late night "must-sees". Despite it's occasional requirement of suspension of disbelief in the name of making TV, it had a style and poise about it that was unparallelled at the time. It certainly wiped the floor with the much more popular NYPD Blue in terms of story and technical execution, and to this day it holds a very special place in my estimation. It therefore follows that any work that followed based on the storytelling nous of David Simon would have to be appallingly bad for me to dislike it.
Pages and pages of writing by far more exalted pensmiths than myself have dissected The Wire thoroughly, and so there's no real point in me going there - other than to say that if you have a taste for epic storytelling and a willingness to put effort into understanding and getting to grips with a mirror held up to society revealing unremitting bleakness, then you will not be disappointed.
Where I do want to go has less to do with the story of the show itself than it has to do the way it was a critical marvel, but met a lukewarm reception commercially. Many have said that it had to do with the predominantly black cast - although I've heard this mostly from people on my side of the political divide rather than those who have an axe to grind over ethnicity, and maybe that is part of the deal. Maybe TV audiences made up of predominantly white westerners can't relate to a show that expresses the trials and tribulations of a city in the United States made up of a predominantly black population. Personally I have more hope for human empathy than that, but that's just my opinion. Simon himself puts an intriguing assertion forward, however.
And there it is. Depressing as it is to acknowledge, some people just don't want to hear bad news, no matter how beautifully it is presented. Now - a lot of people would scoff at that statement - "But Blue", they'd say, "Haven't you seen the soaps and dramas with astronomical viewing figures presenting bleak situations? In this country alone you've got Eastenders, Holby City and a lot of Skins. You had until recently The Bill, Waking The Dead, Prime Suspect and many more like them". But to them I'd say that the difference is that all those shows are stylised. The stories and character interaction are different. They are sops to our human inclination for grief athletics. They *feel* like fiction.
Present it plainly and in an uncompromisingly blunt style and people will turn away. They've got enough to worry about, working to keep a roof over their heads or eking out the last pennies from that ever dwindling benefit payment to put up with being told in their own living room that :
And this does not just apply to minority kids working street corners in the US - this applies to many more of us than we ever care to admit. That's an uncomfortable truth right there and it's staring us right in the face.
Here in the UK, our raw material production and mining industry - gone. Our volume manufacturing industry - gone, sacrificed by Thatcher in the '80s for the sake of petty political payback. The people that worked in these industries and their families are either scattered to the winds, or staying put and eking out an existence on benefits as the communities that generations of their forebears put sweat and blood into building collapsed around them. The lucky ones may have found a way out, and made themselves a place in our Brave New Service Economy - but the unlucky are still there, human beings who by and large came from families who taught them that honesty and hard work would see them right. Betrayed by a class of people who considered their lives and communities unworthy of consideration - a class of people for whom they did not exist.
And so we watch the procession of the gilded carriage. We glory in the pageantry and spectacle. And we hope against hope that gilded exterior of the throne can distract us from the creaking of the rotted wood that lies beneath.
Instead I awoke at about 10:30AM and shambled towards the living room to find Mrs. Blue with the DVD remote at her side, a couple of episodes into the first season of The Wire.
As I said - I love that girl something fierce.
You may find through the rambling of this piece that I inadvertantly throw a few "Wire-isms" in there. Logically I know that it's almost entirely scripted - and that what we're hearing is essentially overheard street talk reconstituted by the show's writers. But there's a poetry in the brutalist dialogue that makes up much of the series - whether that's down to the skill of the writers or whether it was already there in the language they overheard as journalists, policemen and teachers I don't know, and frankly don't care.
Cards on the table : I first saw Homicide : Life On The Street as a teenager, and after the first episode it became one of my late night "must-sees". Despite it's occasional requirement of suspension of disbelief in the name of making TV, it had a style and poise about it that was unparallelled at the time. It certainly wiped the floor with the much more popular NYPD Blue in terms of story and technical execution, and to this day it holds a very special place in my estimation. It therefore follows that any work that followed based on the storytelling nous of David Simon would have to be appallingly bad for me to dislike it.
Pages and pages of writing by far more exalted pensmiths than myself have dissected The Wire thoroughly, and so there's no real point in me going there - other than to say that if you have a taste for epic storytelling and a willingness to put effort into understanding and getting to grips with a mirror held up to society revealing unremitting bleakness, then you will not be disappointed.
Where I do want to go has less to do with the story of the show itself than it has to do the way it was a critical marvel, but met a lukewarm reception commercially. Many have said that it had to do with the predominantly black cast - although I've heard this mostly from people on my side of the political divide rather than those who have an axe to grind over ethnicity, and maybe that is part of the deal. Maybe TV audiences made up of predominantly white westerners can't relate to a show that expresses the trials and tribulations of a city in the United States made up of a predominantly black population. Personally I have more hope for human empathy than that, but that's just my opinion. Simon himself puts an intriguing assertion forward, however.
...American entertainment does nothing but sell redemption and easy victories 24-7.
I'm not saying that "The Wire's" unique in that respect -- there's a lot of other high-end television that is dark and continues to be dark -- but I agree with Chase in one respect. I read an interview with him where he said what American television gets wrong relentlessly is that life is really tragic. Not a lot of people want to tune their living room box to that channel. It's an escapist form.
And there it is. Depressing as it is to acknowledge, some people just don't want to hear bad news, no matter how beautifully it is presented. Now - a lot of people would scoff at that statement - "But Blue", they'd say, "Haven't you seen the soaps and dramas with astronomical viewing figures presenting bleak situations? In this country alone you've got Eastenders, Holby City and a lot of Skins. You had until recently The Bill, Waking The Dead, Prime Suspect and many more like them". But to them I'd say that the difference is that all those shows are stylised. The stories and character interaction are different. They are sops to our human inclination for grief athletics. They *feel* like fiction.
Present it plainly and in an uncompromisingly blunt style and people will turn away. They've got enough to worry about, working to keep a roof over their heads or eking out the last pennies from that ever dwindling benefit payment to put up with being told in their own living room that :
These really are the excess people in America. Our economy doesn’t need them—we don’t need 10 or 15 percent of our population. And certainly the ones who are undereducated, who have been ill-served by the inner-city school system, who have been unprepared for the technocracy of the modern economy, we pretend to need them. We pretend to educate the kids. We pretend that we’re actually including them in the American ideal, but we’re not. And they’re not foolish. They get it. They understand that the only viable economic base in their neighborhoods is this multibillion-dollar drug trade.
And this does not just apply to minority kids working street corners in the US - this applies to many more of us than we ever care to admit. That's an uncomfortable truth right there and it's staring us right in the face.
Here in the UK, our raw material production and mining industry - gone. Our volume manufacturing industry - gone, sacrificed by Thatcher in the '80s for the sake of petty political payback. The people that worked in these industries and their families are either scattered to the winds, or staying put and eking out an existence on benefits as the communities that generations of their forebears put sweat and blood into building collapsed around them. The lucky ones may have found a way out, and made themselves a place in our Brave New Service Economy - but the unlucky are still there, human beings who by and large came from families who taught them that honesty and hard work would see them right. Betrayed by a class of people who considered their lives and communities unworthy of consideration - a class of people for whom they did not exist.
And so we watch the procession of the gilded carriage. We glory in the pageantry and spectacle. And we hope against hope that gilded exterior of the throne can distract us from the creaking of the rotted wood that lies beneath.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
More fun from the Murdoch thread on CiF...
(Responding to a poster who considered that I had no argument, simply "venomous ... ad-hominem" attacks)
That's quite precious. It appears you've skipped the posts where I explained my beliefs regarding the limits of unregulated capitalism (note - "unregulated" - not anti-capitalism in general) and go straight for the part where I have some fun with a post that is blatantly nonsensical to anyone who's bothered to take even a token interest in the political background of the last century or so - a vernacular interpretation of the founding principles of the left was that at the turn of the last century, the workers who provided the labour from which capital was made were getting a very bum deal when it came to benefiting from the capital their labour produced. Socialism was intended as a political movement to redress that balance. Certainly I never read anything in Das Kapital which suggested that money be taken from the working-class and handed to liberal media elites in capital cities.
Say what you like about Lord Reith and his somewhat patrician attitude, but his mantra of "educate, inform, entertain" was intended to improve the lot of all, including the working classes. Whether you love it or loathe it, over the last few decades the BBC has had to put more emphasis on "entertain" in order to continue providing a quality service in terms of education and information - but the quality of that output is largely unquestioned. To give just one example, the base level of knowledge of our planet in the UK would be very different had the "Earth" series never come to fruition (and arguably it could never have been made the way it was if commercial viability was brought into the equation). Murdoch's mantra on the other hand is more along the lines of "entertain as cheaply as possible, misinform where possible, destroy competition, jack up prices, profit".
Now, if you're of the opinion where the principles of business to make profit are absolutely sacrosanct and paramount then you'll have no problem with that, but if you care about the quality and diversity of information reaching the public, you're likely to think differently. Here we have the crux of the problem that's demonstrated so clearly on this board, because if you're of the free-market right you will consider the output of the right-wing press and Murdoch's broadcast media to be expressing a truthful position and, conversely, consider the output of the two left-leaning national papers to be scurrilous lies - believing that the BBC is aiding and abetting. If you're of the left persuasion of any stripe it's probable that position is likely to be reversed, and as such, consensus is difficult if not impossible.
What Murdoch has done Stateside (as have many other right-wing broadcasters in the wake of the Fairness Doctrine repeal) is continue to drive that wedge home as far as possible - classic "divide-and-conquer" tactics. Put more bluntly, if they can get a significant percentage of the rest of us fighting the others by claiming that the others are behind what's screwing them (whether by reinforcing existing beliefs or attracting new converts is immaterial), then not only do they distract us from the notion (I'd say hard fact, but I'm trying for balance ;)) that it is the wealthy business owners happily screwing *all* of the rest of us, but profit handsomely from the advertising dollars that their broadcasts bring in. It's a much more nuanced and insidious version of "The Big Lie".
(Responding to a poster who suggested I read Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom")
I've read "The Road To Serfdom" - it was a long time ago, but thankfully Wikipedia has helped me out with the passage I was racking my brains trying to remember.
This is where I find the notion that "lefties" are, as a bloc, reading only things that support their (our) preconceived positions and avoiding opposing views, creating a vast echo chamber not only laughable, but the biggest example of projection on the part of some on the right that I've ever encountered.
That's quite precious. It appears you've skipped the posts where I explained my beliefs regarding the limits of unregulated capitalism (note - "unregulated" - not anti-capitalism in general) and go straight for the part where I have some fun with a post that is blatantly nonsensical to anyone who's bothered to take even a token interest in the political background of the last century or so - a vernacular interpretation of the founding principles of the left was that at the turn of the last century, the workers who provided the labour from which capital was made were getting a very bum deal when it came to benefiting from the capital their labour produced. Socialism was intended as a political movement to redress that balance. Certainly I never read anything in Das Kapital which suggested that money be taken from the working-class and handed to liberal media elites in capital cities.
Say what you like about Lord Reith and his somewhat patrician attitude, but his mantra of "educate, inform, entertain" was intended to improve the lot of all, including the working classes. Whether you love it or loathe it, over the last few decades the BBC has had to put more emphasis on "entertain" in order to continue providing a quality service in terms of education and information - but the quality of that output is largely unquestioned. To give just one example, the base level of knowledge of our planet in the UK would be very different had the "Earth" series never come to fruition (and arguably it could never have been made the way it was if commercial viability was brought into the equation). Murdoch's mantra on the other hand is more along the lines of "entertain as cheaply as possible, misinform where possible, destroy competition, jack up prices, profit".
Now, if you're of the opinion where the principles of business to make profit are absolutely sacrosanct and paramount then you'll have no problem with that, but if you care about the quality and diversity of information reaching the public, you're likely to think differently. Here we have the crux of the problem that's demonstrated so clearly on this board, because if you're of the free-market right you will consider the output of the right-wing press and Murdoch's broadcast media to be expressing a truthful position and, conversely, consider the output of the two left-leaning national papers to be scurrilous lies - believing that the BBC is aiding and abetting. If you're of the left persuasion of any stripe it's probable that position is likely to be reversed, and as such, consensus is difficult if not impossible.
What Murdoch has done Stateside (as have many other right-wing broadcasters in the wake of the Fairness Doctrine repeal) is continue to drive that wedge home as far as possible - classic "divide-and-conquer" tactics. Put more bluntly, if they can get a significant percentage of the rest of us fighting the others by claiming that the others are behind what's screwing them (whether by reinforcing existing beliefs or attracting new converts is immaterial), then not only do they distract us from the notion (I'd say hard fact, but I'm trying for balance ;)) that it is the wealthy business owners happily screwing *all* of the rest of us, but profit handsomely from the advertising dollars that their broadcasts bring in. It's a much more nuanced and insidious version of "The Big Lie".
(Responding to a poster who suggested I read Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom")
I've read "The Road To Serfdom" - it was a long time ago, but thankfully Wikipedia has helped me out with the passage I was racking my brains trying to remember.
"...probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism"
This is where I find the notion that "lefties" are, as a bloc, reading only things that support their (our) preconceived positions and avoiding opposing views, creating a vast echo chamber not only laughable, but the biggest example of projection on the part of some on the right that I've ever encountered.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
The Murdoch Fait Accompli
(Cross-posted and paraphrased from CiF)
Murdoch's MO in the UK has never really changed, tending towards a variation of "Agree to token competition, mercilessly leverage existing monopolies to rubbish said competition, then use the competition's weakened state to buy them out and obtain the monopoly in the new market as intended all along".
As to which political party his empire backed and when, the question is largely academic. The views pushed by News Corp are uniformly right-authoritarian (unless you happen to be rich or a friend of the family - preferably both, in which case there are few unforgivable sins). Backing New Labour in 1997 was a no-brainer, as you'd have had to have been comatose not to notice that there was no possible rescue for the Tories at that time. However, he was able to use his influence to make sure that Blair and his cabinet tacked as far to the right as possible - to the point where Labour was no longer recognisably Labour. I was always certain that he was biding his time until his natural Tory allies managed to decontaminate themselves enough to get within spitting distance of power, and so it has proved. Anyone who gets involved with Murdoch knows full well that they are the pilot fish to his shark and always will be - the only point where the analogy falls down is that it is rare for a shark to attack or eat a pilot fish, whereas Murdoch silently holds the threat of a full-scale career-ending backlash over his fellow travellers, who are certain in the knowledge that he will never be afraid to use it.
Finally, anyone who thinks Murdoch is an advocate of the "free market" - in fact anyone who thinks any oligarch is being honest when claiming advocacy of free market ideology (in the sense of a level playing field where the "best" business will naturally be the most successful) must be huffing some seriously good stuff. In reality "market forces" become a process of attrition whereby the players with the most resources will always tip the playing field in their favour by throwing resources from their existing reserves into the new market while the smaller competitors slowly but surely go to the wall. The most obvious example of Murdoch doing this was the short-lived battle between Sky and BSB in the '80s, but it seems to be accepted business practice in many spheres. Which is why, when it comes down to it, those saying that Murdoch is successful because he has the best product is either what he would consider a useful idiot - or possibly a disingenuous shill.
The one small comfort available to those of us who do not subscribe to the notion that wealthy oligarchs are superior beings who should be given carte blanche to do as they please while encouraging the rest of us to fight each other over the scraps that fall from their table - is that for all their much-vaunted clout (though being realistic it's still considerable), Murdoch and his ilk were not able to engineer an outright Tory majority last year. The hope is that the power of the press is waning in that regard, as more people turn to other sources of information. However this is not a given, and this is no time to be sitting back and letting things take their course.
Murdoch's MO in the UK has never really changed, tending towards a variation of "Agree to token competition, mercilessly leverage existing monopolies to rubbish said competition, then use the competition's weakened state to buy them out and obtain the monopoly in the new market as intended all along".
As to which political party his empire backed and when, the question is largely academic. The views pushed by News Corp are uniformly right-authoritarian (unless you happen to be rich or a friend of the family - preferably both, in which case there are few unforgivable sins). Backing New Labour in 1997 was a no-brainer, as you'd have had to have been comatose not to notice that there was no possible rescue for the Tories at that time. However, he was able to use his influence to make sure that Blair and his cabinet tacked as far to the right as possible - to the point where Labour was no longer recognisably Labour. I was always certain that he was biding his time until his natural Tory allies managed to decontaminate themselves enough to get within spitting distance of power, and so it has proved. Anyone who gets involved with Murdoch knows full well that they are the pilot fish to his shark and always will be - the only point where the analogy falls down is that it is rare for a shark to attack or eat a pilot fish, whereas Murdoch silently holds the threat of a full-scale career-ending backlash over his fellow travellers, who are certain in the knowledge that he will never be afraid to use it.
Finally, anyone who thinks Murdoch is an advocate of the "free market" - in fact anyone who thinks any oligarch is being honest when claiming advocacy of free market ideology (in the sense of a level playing field where the "best" business will naturally be the most successful) must be huffing some seriously good stuff. In reality "market forces" become a process of attrition whereby the players with the most resources will always tip the playing field in their favour by throwing resources from their existing reserves into the new market while the smaller competitors slowly but surely go to the wall. The most obvious example of Murdoch doing this was the short-lived battle between Sky and BSB in the '80s, but it seems to be accepted business practice in many spheres. Which is why, when it comes down to it, those saying that Murdoch is successful because he has the best product is either what he would consider a useful idiot - or possibly a disingenuous shill.
The one small comfort available to those of us who do not subscribe to the notion that wealthy oligarchs are superior beings who should be given carte blanche to do as they please while encouraging the rest of us to fight each other over the scraps that fall from their table - is that for all their much-vaunted clout (though being realistic it's still considerable), Murdoch and his ilk were not able to engineer an outright Tory majority last year. The hope is that the power of the press is waning in that regard, as more people turn to other sources of information. However this is not a given, and this is no time to be sitting back and letting things take their course.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Belated feather-spitting...
Oh Tony...
You sanctimonious prick.
"these guys [the left] never ‘get’ aspiration"But we do - more than you could ever know. The difference is we aspire to a better life for all, not just those who achieve one through accident of luck, or more usually privilege of birth.
You sanctimonious prick.
The hardest "I told you so" I've ever had to keep to myself
So, much time has passed and it is said that a lot has happened. Number 10 is occupied by a man who has had an extraordinarily privileged upbringing - so no change there. Number 11 is occupied by a man who wilfully ignores the elephant in the room that is our economy's thrall to the financial sector - no change there either. Government policy on welfare seems to be dictated by the editorial page of The Sun - same as it ever was. So why the bouts of gut-wrenching despair?
Tangent time folks. Various people I love and respect have, over the years, been very receptive to the message of the party that these days goes by the moniker of the Liberal Democrats - all the way back to my youth and the SDP/Liberal Alliance days. While never able to fully concur, it was an understandable position - during my lifetime the Tories have always been too proud of being nasty (or have been far too accepting of nastiness in their midst), Labour have had myriad problems ranging from the noble but unworkable (support for CND during the fag-end of the Cold War) to the ignoble and frankly baffling (the assault on civil liberties in the wake of 9/11) - and this, coupled with apparent crowd-pleasing policies, particularly on education and civil liberties, made the LibDems an attractive proposition.
But there was always a second side there - it tended to manifest in people I knew who came from staunch Tory backgrounds and had some Tory sympathies, but either could not bring themselves to fully embrace the divisiveness of the Thatcher credo or did not want to be associated with the trainwreck the party became after the defeat of 1997. Aligned with the "classical" Liberals in the party, this led to the prominence of the Orange Book faction and the waning of the social democratic cornerstone that attracted left-leaning supporters. Not that a big deal was made out of this apparently subtle shift at the time, but it has to be said that what was apparently subtle has made a massive impact on events.
I mentioned this to my friends and family some time ago, and in many cases was disabused - in no uncertain terms - of the notion that the LibDems would be willing partners with the Tories in government. Frankly, I hoped against hope they were right. When it happened, the eternal teenager in residence wanted to shout "I told you so" from the rooftops. But it's not a victory, and there's nothing to celebrate.
While it's a fair opinion to state that not much has changed in many quite substantive ways, the yawning pit of misery is fed by the things that have. Gordon Brown may have been an occasionally woeful communicator - a career death sentence for a PM in today's media-driven age - but he at least retained a sliver of belief in social democracy and understood the crushing unfairness of expecting low and middle income citizens to foot the bill for the finance industry's largesse. Cameron and Osborne can emote all they like, but you can see in their eyes that at least part of them thinks the proles have had it too good for too long and deserve the medicine they're forcing down our throats.
Tangent time folks. Various people I love and respect have, over the years, been very receptive to the message of the party that these days goes by the moniker of the Liberal Democrats - all the way back to my youth and the SDP/Liberal Alliance days. While never able to fully concur, it was an understandable position - during my lifetime the Tories have always been too proud of being nasty (or have been far too accepting of nastiness in their midst), Labour have had myriad problems ranging from the noble but unworkable (support for CND during the fag-end of the Cold War) to the ignoble and frankly baffling (the assault on civil liberties in the wake of 9/11) - and this, coupled with apparent crowd-pleasing policies, particularly on education and civil liberties, made the LibDems an attractive proposition.
But there was always a second side there - it tended to manifest in people I knew who came from staunch Tory backgrounds and had some Tory sympathies, but either could not bring themselves to fully embrace the divisiveness of the Thatcher credo or did not want to be associated with the trainwreck the party became after the defeat of 1997. Aligned with the "classical" Liberals in the party, this led to the prominence of the Orange Book faction and the waning of the social democratic cornerstone that attracted left-leaning supporters. Not that a big deal was made out of this apparently subtle shift at the time, but it has to be said that what was apparently subtle has made a massive impact on events.
I mentioned this to my friends and family some time ago, and in many cases was disabused - in no uncertain terms - of the notion that the LibDems would be willing partners with the Tories in government. Frankly, I hoped against hope they were right. When it happened, the eternal teenager in residence wanted to shout "I told you so" from the rooftops. But it's not a victory, and there's nothing to celebrate.
While it's a fair opinion to state that not much has changed in many quite substantive ways, the yawning pit of misery is fed by the things that have. Gordon Brown may have been an occasionally woeful communicator - a career death sentence for a PM in today's media-driven age - but he at least retained a sliver of belief in social democracy and understood the crushing unfairness of expecting low and middle income citizens to foot the bill for the finance industry's largesse. Cameron and Osborne can emote all they like, but you can see in their eyes that at least part of them thinks the proles have had it too good for too long and deserve the medicine they're forcing down our throats.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
I've been away for a while...
...for various reasons. However, now Cameron and his party of "austerity for thee, not for me" have come over all "Change"-y, it's important to remember just which party it was that started the rot that put the bankers in charge of everything.
Clearly, Spitting Image had the whole shebang nailed back in 1987!
Clearly, Spitting Image had the whole shebang nailed back in 1987!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)