Beyonce (with an acute accent) to headline at Glastonbury in 2011? Well, that seals it - I'll never attend again.
There was a bit of fuss a couple of years ago when B's hubby Jay-Z headlined, but I was fine with that. Glasto is (largely) about good and/or interesting music and Hova (as I believe he sometimes styles himself) ticks those boxes. The old reactionary Noel Gallagher whined about the lack of guitars, but he missed the point as usual.
But Beyonce is a different proposition. Karaoke. Cabaret, at best.
Actually, as I write this I realise that I am a little late to the party. Kylie headlined last year and what is different about her? Well, not a lot except that she appears to be a nice person whereas Beyonce is just, well... icy corporate product. But I guess there is (for the purposes of this argument) essentially no difference. Kylie... Beyonce... Glastonbury? No.
Glastonbury, by all accounts, used to be a beautiful thing, and it was still a pretty unique experience when I first went in the late 90's. But now? You might as well save yourself for Liz's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The journey home will be a lot easier, you won't be surrounded by wannabe hipsters or pissed undergraduates with nouveau riche daddies pretending to be poor, and you might get to see some genuine talent like Brian Wilson or Paul McCartney. Of course, you won't have the opportunity to see some of the really exciting new bands on the fringe stages, but admit it: you wouldn't have bothered anyway.
Friday 11 February 2011
Wednesday 2 February 2011
BNP
Tricky things names. I bet the founders of Banque National de Paris never contemplated that their company acronym might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. And I bet the founders of Electricite de France never contemplated that their company might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. C'est la vie.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)