Here's something rather cheerful I came across which I thought would be nice to share ahead of valentine's day, because deep deep down, we all know I am a hopeless romantic. Enjoy.
At least it's parliament session next week, which should hopefully cure this spiralling dumbing-down trend my dear blog seems to be currently on. No promises.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Tunes of Note
So, freshly baked, I mean back, from il piu bello paese nel mondo, and a few short days of pure blissful indulgence. In terms of indulging my diabolical italian, my inner alcoholic (demonic beer and masterpiece cocktails), my sweet tooth (100% cocoa chocolate, I learnt the hard way that the third piece is "the one that's one too many" - traumatic), and my appetite in general (consuming dangerous amounts of dough in various forms - you'd be amazed at the versatility of the stuff).
In light of that I think today calls for something slightly less cerebral, so here's just a mention of a few worthwhile numbers that have graced my ears lately.
Amy Winehouse - Rehab
I know this has been a firm favourite among daytime DJs at Radio 1 and probably all over the UK for a good while now, and she's already brought out a follow-up single from the album, but I'm still going to recommend it to anyone who mightn't have heard it. Winehouse is a real character, and I don't think I'm the only one who found her annoying to begin with, but Rehab seems like a more sincere portrayal of what she's really about. Blunt, excessive, and the anti-thesis of wholesome. There are also at least two live lounge covers, done by Paolo Nutini (you might now him as the soulster who sings with a scottish accent and it's somehow not excruciating, who made a commendable effort) and Girls Aloud (who absolutely massacred it, so steer well clear).
Joss Stone - Tell me 'bout it
Unlike the above, I'm rather ahead of myself on this one, as I don't think it's even out yet. Joss Stone's new (and I think third) album is titled "Introducing Joss Stone" which seems highly appropriate. For me, she's always had such potential, displayed all the right ingredients, gorgeous silky voice, bit of an edge to her, disarming humility, and most importantly an apparent burning desire to bring soul music back into the charts, where it belongs. With an updated twist, of course. But so far - despite all the good intentions, she has just failed to nail it. The debut single was so good, but it's all been downhill since there, as the songs just deteriorated from mediocre to just dire. So I for one am very glad that she finally seems to be delivering. Unlike Winehouse, Stone isn't being told she needs to go to rehab. Anyone who's seen her appearance in PUnk'd could vouch for the fact that - no, apparently it's not an act, she's for real - she really IS that sweet (& the stunt failed completely, as a result). It only verges on the annoying when she's doing the barefoot hippie thing, otherwise she pulls the whole irreproachable character thing off rather well, probably because she exudes a kind of dark edge and quiet fierceness, despite herself.
Freemasons - Rain down love
Some might say there's not much in it between camp dance music and skanky trance. But I for one beleive the wide, rich spectrum of nuances to be worthy of much exploration, and that inter-weaving various elements together can amount to a dazzling, oh never mind.
And on that note... If I have to hear how Sandi Thom was born too late to a world that doesn't care one more time, my radio will sail through the nearest window.
In light of that I think today calls for something slightly less cerebral, so here's just a mention of a few worthwhile numbers that have graced my ears lately.
Amy Winehouse - Rehab
I know this has been a firm favourite among daytime DJs at Radio 1 and probably all over the UK for a good while now, and she's already brought out a follow-up single from the album, but I'm still going to recommend it to anyone who mightn't have heard it. Winehouse is a real character, and I don't think I'm the only one who found her annoying to begin with, but Rehab seems like a more sincere portrayal of what she's really about. Blunt, excessive, and the anti-thesis of wholesome. There are also at least two live lounge covers, done by Paolo Nutini (you might now him as the soulster who sings with a scottish accent and it's somehow not excruciating, who made a commendable effort) and Girls Aloud (who absolutely massacred it, so steer well clear).
Joss Stone - Tell me 'bout it
Unlike the above, I'm rather ahead of myself on this one, as I don't think it's even out yet. Joss Stone's new (and I think third) album is titled "Introducing Joss Stone" which seems highly appropriate. For me, she's always had such potential, displayed all the right ingredients, gorgeous silky voice, bit of an edge to her, disarming humility, and most importantly an apparent burning desire to bring soul music back into the charts, where it belongs. With an updated twist, of course. But so far - despite all the good intentions, she has just failed to nail it. The debut single was so good, but it's all been downhill since there, as the songs just deteriorated from mediocre to just dire. So I for one am very glad that she finally seems to be delivering. Unlike Winehouse, Stone isn't being told she needs to go to rehab. Anyone who's seen her appearance in PUnk'd could vouch for the fact that - no, apparently it's not an act, she's for real - she really IS that sweet (& the stunt failed completely, as a result). It only verges on the annoying when she's doing the barefoot hippie thing, otherwise she pulls the whole irreproachable character thing off rather well, probably because she exudes a kind of dark edge and quiet fierceness, despite herself.
Freemasons - Rain down love
Some might say there's not much in it between camp dance music and skanky trance. But I for one beleive the wide, rich spectrum of nuances to be worthy of much exploration, and that inter-weaving various elements together can amount to a dazzling, oh never mind.
And on that note... If I have to hear how Sandi Thom was born too late to a world that doesn't care one more time, my radio will sail through the nearest window.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Four more days...
The deadline is looming. The final hour of the warm, comfy indoor smoker, as the notion of the woefully ineffective limited "smoking area" in a closed space is finally made extinct. And some disgruntled fumeurs francais are kicking off, one in particular who decided to air her frustration in Liberation this week, arguing that the role of ministers, instead of pushing through such legislation, ought to be (again, dodgy translation): "Weave tightly the tapestry which makes society a place where all people are not the same". I like the image, though the argument makes me irate.
Smoking ban today, she warns, obesity stigma tomorrow, "mandatory euthanasia" of old people next thursday (were such a thing not a contradiction in terms). I hate the "this today, that tomorrow" formula of argument. Smacks of cop-out. If something works today, who cares.
I think the one thing smokers can say that approximates to a legitimate complaint, would be to point out that policy-makers hammer them whilst turn a blind eye to a collective drinking problem (more the case in the UK & Ireland than France, where the practice of drinking to get drunk is less widespread) The element of personal harm & responsibility is no counter-argument, as factors of drunk-driving & violence make it as much if not more of a risk to other people (ok, if you're a happy drunk without a driving licence you're off the hook, but let's stick with the macro vision here, for the sake of argument) Majority rules, cultural factors like smoking falling increasingly out of fashion, and perhaps most ministers also quite like a drink. Then again, they do tax the hell out of alcohol, as with tobacco. Nevertheless, there is not nearly the same social stigma as has built up and exploded in the face of smokers recently.
So yes, Mme De Virieu, we all have our differences, and in principal: all different - all equal, goes the little mantra. However, to paraphrase a man who knew how to make a fierce cup of tea - some differences are more equal than others.
Smoking ban today, she warns, obesity stigma tomorrow, "mandatory euthanasia" of old people next thursday (were such a thing not a contradiction in terms). I hate the "this today, that tomorrow" formula of argument. Smacks of cop-out. If something works today, who cares.
I think the one thing smokers can say that approximates to a legitimate complaint, would be to point out that policy-makers hammer them whilst turn a blind eye to a collective drinking problem (more the case in the UK & Ireland than France, where the practice of drinking to get drunk is less widespread) The element of personal harm & responsibility is no counter-argument, as factors of drunk-driving & violence make it as much if not more of a risk to other people (ok, if you're a happy drunk without a driving licence you're off the hook, but let's stick with the macro vision here, for the sake of argument) Majority rules, cultural factors like smoking falling increasingly out of fashion, and perhaps most ministers also quite like a drink. Then again, they do tax the hell out of alcohol, as with tobacco. Nevertheless, there is not nearly the same social stigma as has built up and exploded in the face of smokers recently.
So yes, Mme De Virieu, we all have our differences, and in principal: all different - all equal, goes the little mantra. However, to paraphrase a man who knew how to make a fierce cup of tea - some differences are more equal than others.
Recognising Genocide is a collective exercise
There is a written declaration floating around the EP at the moment which, in its opening clause, "Deplores the French National Assembly’s decision to adopt a draft law criminalising denial of the ‘Armenian genocide of 1915’"
Of course, qualifying something as Genocide has important implications. It implies a kind of global recognition, an attempt at reconciliation by acknowledgement, an expression of collective regret, but also about making it an historical event, by way of retrospective recognition. It is a step that cannot be taken if it would only be partial.
So if everybody agrees that a crime against humanity has been committed, and everyone is sorry for it, why shouldnt it be written into law?
As Esther Benbassa writes (rough translation): "Diplomatic pressure on Turkey to officially recognise the Armenian genocide is one thing - criminalising denial in a third party country neither the scene nor the instigator of the events in question, is another." Placing a large no-no on the freedom of speech of an entire population might even be regarded as incitement to deny, and a source of acrimony.
My personal view is that individual holocaust denial is merely a provocation, where freedom of speech is used to justify what is merely an attempt to get attention, a protest statement, a means out lashing out at the establishment, and winding a lot of people up.
It seems to me, the essential point of recognising "genocide" is to do with writing it into the collective memory. This is something a particular state can acheive on various levels, by commemorating it, making official statements, issuing apologies or admissals of responsibility, investigating & locking up the right people, publishing it in the history books, teaching about it in schools, etc. These are the logical & necessary reactions to coming to terms with atrocities and making sure they aren't lost, repressed or forgotten about. But must the additional step of ideological constraint, and consequently ideological persecution, necessarily form a part of that? I'm not sticking up for the nutcases, I'm saying freedom of speech is too important and valuable to be left to them, for them to associate themselves with it, to become martyrs when they really don't matter.
Of course, qualifying something as Genocide has important implications. It implies a kind of global recognition, an attempt at reconciliation by acknowledgement, an expression of collective regret, but also about making it an historical event, by way of retrospective recognition. It is a step that cannot be taken if it would only be partial.
So if everybody agrees that a crime against humanity has been committed, and everyone is sorry for it, why shouldnt it be written into law?
As Esther Benbassa writes (rough translation): "Diplomatic pressure on Turkey to officially recognise the Armenian genocide is one thing - criminalising denial in a third party country neither the scene nor the instigator of the events in question, is another." Placing a large no-no on the freedom of speech of an entire population might even be regarded as incitement to deny, and a source of acrimony.
My personal view is that individual holocaust denial is merely a provocation, where freedom of speech is used to justify what is merely an attempt to get attention, a protest statement, a means out lashing out at the establishment, and winding a lot of people up.
It seems to me, the essential point of recognising "genocide" is to do with writing it into the collective memory. This is something a particular state can acheive on various levels, by commemorating it, making official statements, issuing apologies or admissals of responsibility, investigating & locking up the right people, publishing it in the history books, teaching about it in schools, etc. These are the logical & necessary reactions to coming to terms with atrocities and making sure they aren't lost, repressed or forgotten about. But must the additional step of ideological constraint, and consequently ideological persecution, necessarily form a part of that? I'm not sticking up for the nutcases, I'm saying freedom of speech is too important and valuable to be left to them, for them to associate themselves with it, to become martyrs when they really don't matter.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
What, already?
So if the Independent is to be beleived, turns out ITS is "in disarray after one of its MEPs disowned a colleague for attacking the “Jewish establishment” and for accusing Roma parents of selling their daughters into prostitution..."
And so it begins. One wonders how close this bunch really are. And furthermore one might also wonder how Mr Mote manages to reconcile his professed outrage at 23 year old Bulgarian MEP Dimitar Stoyanov, with the fact that Bruno Gollnisch, the group's leader, is still awaiting trial for denying the holocaust, forget blasting the new kid.
And so it begins. One wonders how close this bunch really are. And furthermore one might also wonder how Mr Mote manages to reconcile his professed outrage at 23 year old Bulgarian MEP Dimitar Stoyanov, with the fact that Bruno Gollnisch, the group's leader, is still awaiting trial for denying the holocaust, forget blasting the new kid.
Time to update the sociology manuals
The corporatists are spawning again.
There was a lot of back-slapping going on in Libération this week, as France congratulates itself on a dramatic increase in population growth, now one of the highest in Europe, if it does say so itself.
But did they swallow their pride and make like the Swedes? It appears to be rather a mixed bag of strategies with tax incentives, material enticements, mingled with generous leave time and allowance, "family friendly policies" is rather ambivalent term, as of course, to say that the family has a single interest would set feminism back about a century.
"Yet at the same time, France can still boast one of Europe's highest rates of female employment.
Some 81% of women aged between 25 and 49 are in work, including three-quarters of those with two children. " (source lost and can't be bothered to dig it out, have faith)
Sounds too good to be true. The catch, if one is to be found, clearly doesnt lie here. Trying to figure out exactly how they did it will be a puzzle for another day. For now, we'll just have to just put good old machiavelllian faith in the results, and hope the new baby boom doesnt fizzle out too soon.
There was a lot of back-slapping going on in Libération this week, as France congratulates itself on a dramatic increase in population growth, now one of the highest in Europe, if it does say so itself.
But did they swallow their pride and make like the Swedes? It appears to be rather a mixed bag of strategies with tax incentives, material enticements, mingled with generous leave time and allowance, "family friendly policies" is rather ambivalent term, as of course, to say that the family has a single interest would set feminism back about a century.
"Yet at the same time, France can still boast one of Europe's highest rates of female employment.
Some 81% of women aged between 25 and 49 are in work, including three-quarters of those with two children. " (source lost and can't be bothered to dig it out, have faith)
Sounds too good to be true. The catch, if one is to be found, clearly doesnt lie here. Trying to figure out exactly how they did it will be a puzzle for another day. For now, we'll just have to just put good old machiavelllian faith in the results, and hope the new baby boom doesnt fizzle out too soon.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thank you Mr Aylward,
It's all true then. Wasn't far into the session before I became aware of hearing irish spoken, and then promtly rushing to find out if - yes indeed, interpreted into each and every language, even bulgarian. You can tell theyve been theyve been waiting.... biding their time till january 1st when they can whip it out and launch into a full on rant as gaeilge, much to the bemusement of everyone else, and the amusement of some. Especially the Brits, such as Edward Mcmillan-Scott, whose smirk as he thanked the interpreters and congratulated Prontius de Rossa on an impressive "irish accent", just said it all. Hopefully the novelty will wear off soon, I imagine when they stop trusting these interpreters to speak for them while about 6 or 7 people get the original, (and having it translated & filtered twice over if done by relay) they'll switch back sharpish. At least as far as the socialists are concerned. As for Fianna Fáil, hopefully the national pride gets the better of them, the fewer ears they reach the better.
Andrew M, my source & the authority on all things remotely related to Ireland and/or politics cited the figure as €648,000, which sounds pricey to me, but in the context of EU bureacratic stupidity is apparently smallfry.
But it's not just the price tag that makes me uneasy. 350,000 speak irish everyday, of those the number for whom it is a mother tongue is estimated at around 70,000-83,000. This is clearly not about communication.
One complaint might be that nations are treated differently depending on influence and size. But is that really meant to be news? In the EP, meetings will generally have interpretation only into english, french, german, & spanish, if that. This isn't political, it's practical.
Surely we have enough trouble battling the differences that exist already, without attempting to introduce supplementary ones where they aren't strictly necessary. And it raises questions about whether the primary function of the EP is to create coherent policy or to be a showground for countries to flaunt their diversities, just for the sake of it. For me the answer is clear, it is a parliament, not an international festival. MEPs can best accomplish their duty to citiziens by swallowing their national pride and just getting the job done.
Andrew M, my source & the authority on all things remotely related to Ireland and/or politics cited the figure as €648,000, which sounds pricey to me, but in the context of EU bureacratic stupidity is apparently smallfry.
But it's not just the price tag that makes me uneasy. 350,000 speak irish everyday, of those the number for whom it is a mother tongue is estimated at around 70,000-83,000. This is clearly not about communication.
One complaint might be that nations are treated differently depending on influence and size. But is that really meant to be news? In the EP, meetings will generally have interpretation only into english, french, german, & spanish, if that. This isn't political, it's practical.
Surely we have enough trouble battling the differences that exist already, without attempting to introduce supplementary ones where they aren't strictly necessary. And it raises questions about whether the primary function of the EP is to create coherent policy or to be a showground for countries to flaunt their diversities, just for the sake of it. For me the answer is clear, it is a parliament, not an international festival. MEPs can best accomplish their duty to citiziens by swallowing their national pride and just getting the job done.
Look out, it's ITS!
British MEP Ashley Mote's statement on the formation of the Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty (ITS) group in the European Parliament, January 2007
The formation of a genuine centre-right multinational group in the European Parliament is long overdue. So is the need for the clear expression of the views held by millions of European Union citizens who profoundly disagree with the federalists and their vocal left-wing. Our political opponents should also be aware that their activities in the European Parliament in recent months has been the trigger in setting up the ITS group.[...] Furthermore, the other groups will no longer be able to ignore us.
The formation of a genuine centre-right multinational group in the European Parliament is long overdue. So is the need for the clear expression of the views held by millions of European Union citizens who profoundly disagree with the federalists and their vocal left-wing. Our political opponents should also be aware that their activities in the European Parliament in recent months has been the trigger in setting up the ITS group.[...] Furthermore, the other groups will no longer be able to ignore us.
The ITS group is founded on the following principles:
- Recognition of national interests, sovereignties, identities and differences.
- Commitment to Christian values, heritage, culture and the traditions of European civilisation.
- Commitment to the traditional family as the natural unit within society.
- Commitment to the freedoms and rights inherited by all.
- Commitment to the rule of law. Opposition to a unitary, bureaucratic, European superstate.
- Commitment to direct accountability of governments to the people and the transparent management of public funds.
I think John Lichfield's reponse in the Independent, hits the nail on the head: "Because they are xenophobes, because they hate one another, the various far-right movements in Europe can never truly form a common cause. The creation of a far-right group in the European Parliament is a contradiction in terms – but also a profoundly disquieting sign of the times..."
I suppose it would be a bit double standards-y of me to say giving them attention only encourages them.
A lof of dejected socialist faces in the hemicycle this week. Cheer up Schultz, they'll eat themselves eventually. And wouldnt that be far more satisfying to watch than stamping on them with all the might of the PSE/EPP alliance straight away.
Nollaig Éireann
So that was the xmas hiatus. It's not that my mind is entirely switched off during the holidays, just thats its always in either one of two places; indulging in mind-rotting sky tv marathons, or feverous purely academic endeavour, in the order of french sociological theory this season. So just in case you've always wondered what an irish christmas looks like, here's a selection:
So that was the xmas hiatus. It's not that my mind is entirely switched off during the holidays, just thats its always in either one of two places; indulging in mind-rotting sky tv marathons, or feverous purely academic endeavour, in the order of french sociological theory this season. So just in case you've always wondered what an irish christmas looks like, here's a selection:
Rest are on my Bebo page
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Ooh I know Charlie. I am a very lovely recorderer player.
I don't know if I personally would want my own offspring exposed to a showcasing of deliberate bad grammar and the general language freestyling/massacre that Lola Sunna, one half of the Cbeebies' double act "Charlie & Lola" programme, constantly engages in. But then, I don't buy Charlie and Lola DVDs with a view to keeping any potential future sprogs entertained. I buy them for me because quite frankly, Charlie & Lola is toddler-viewing for adults, and should be on at 8 or 9 pm at night, rather than 3 in the afternoon, if you ask me. I have a lot of time for children's television, if a good one comes along, which happens less and less frequently. I think it was a kind of morbid fascination which had me entranced by each episode of teletubbies, many years ago now, and Angelmouse I appreciated essentially for the screaming hilarity value, Spider for its musical compositions genius. I find some of the stuff the BBC imports these days to be nothing short of profoundly alarming, the kind of moralising, patronising nonsense generally out of America or Iceland - in the case of the extremely sinister Lazytown.
Paradoxically, I think the core appeal of Charlie & Lola lies in something that can only really be appreciated by those who've outgrown it. Because what the programme conveys so well is the way its heroine exists within her own control-sphere, which operates according to her own defined world order, and revolves entirely around her. Nobody corrects her, they humour her. Not only does she get away with butchering the english language, she's full of dogmatic pronouncements, assertions of absolute nonsense. Habits that a severe reality check and perhaps also a good shake will no doubt go a long way to curing.
"Charlie & Lola" celebrates that miraculous aspect of childhood that thinks it is, and by the same token simply is, infallible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/charlieandlola/
I don't know if I personally would want my own offspring exposed to a showcasing of deliberate bad grammar and the general language freestyling/massacre that Lola Sunna, one half of the Cbeebies' double act "Charlie & Lola" programme, constantly engages in. But then, I don't buy Charlie and Lola DVDs with a view to keeping any potential future sprogs entertained. I buy them for me because quite frankly, Charlie & Lola is toddler-viewing for adults, and should be on at 8 or 9 pm at night, rather than 3 in the afternoon, if you ask me. I have a lot of time for children's television, if a good one comes along, which happens less and less frequently. I think it was a kind of morbid fascination which had me entranced by each episode of teletubbies, many years ago now, and Angelmouse I appreciated essentially for the screaming hilarity value, Spider for its musical compositions genius. I find some of the stuff the BBC imports these days to be nothing short of profoundly alarming, the kind of moralising, patronising nonsense generally out of America or Iceland - in the case of the extremely sinister Lazytown.
Paradoxically, I think the core appeal of Charlie & Lola lies in something that can only really be appreciated by those who've outgrown it. Because what the programme conveys so well is the way its heroine exists within her own control-sphere, which operates according to her own defined world order, and revolves entirely around her. Nobody corrects her, they humour her. Not only does she get away with butchering the english language, she's full of dogmatic pronouncements, assertions of absolute nonsense. Habits that a severe reality check and perhaps also a good shake will no doubt go a long way to curing.
"Charlie & Lola" celebrates that miraculous aspect of childhood that thinks it is, and by the same token simply is, infallible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/charlieandlola/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
