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.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Musicola
The BBC has announced that it's "Sound of 2011" is a young lady called Jessie J. The fact that J's career is owned by Universal, the largest record company in the world, rings alarm bells. I am not suggesting that the BBC is in Universal's pocket, but they simply would not have noticed J if she had been on a true independent label. Having said that, she sounds mildly interesting in a Ms Dynamite kind of way and I predict her career will follow a similar trajectory - mild critical acclaim, a couple of hits, universally ignored second album, followed by occasional reality TV appearances.
But there is something quite depressing about this award. We are asked to view singers like J (and Dynamite, Lily Allen, Rumer, etc etc etc) as true artists striking a blow for female empowerment. But scratch the surface and you inevitably find some middle-aged male musician billed as a "co-writer"/mentor. This isn't an exclusively female phenomena - the same applied to Robbie Williams/Guy Chambers - but the record industry has clearly seen it is onto a good thing with young female "singer-songwriters".
The real shame is that there must be great female artists out there who ARE in charge of their music in the same way as forerunners such as Bic Runga, Tori Amos, Kate Bush & Carly Simon. It would be wonderful to hear that the BBC's "Sound of 2012" is a young woman otherwise unheralded by the industry, and who is producing her own music from scratch. Sadly the reality is that the next 'next big thing' will be another record company mannequin. So much for 'Girl Power'.
But there is something quite depressing about this award. We are asked to view singers like J (and Dynamite, Lily Allen, Rumer, etc etc etc) as true artists striking a blow for female empowerment. But scratch the surface and you inevitably find some middle-aged male musician billed as a "co-writer"/mentor. This isn't an exclusively female phenomena - the same applied to Robbie Williams/Guy Chambers - but the record industry has clearly seen it is onto a good thing with young female "singer-songwriters".
The real shame is that there must be great female artists out there who ARE in charge of their music in the same way as forerunners such as Bic Runga, Tori Amos, Kate Bush & Carly Simon. It would be wonderful to hear that the BBC's "Sound of 2012" is a young woman otherwise unheralded by the industry, and who is producing her own music from scratch. Sadly the reality is that the next 'next big thing' will be another record company mannequin. So much for 'Girl Power'.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
The Choice Is Yours
A jolly little piece on the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931 proves a great advert for Islam. Of course, like any supernatural belief system, Islam is almost certainly wrong in its fundamental tenets - God, life after death, a timeless and universal moral code and so on. Well, OK, let's not split hairs - it is wrong.
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Here you come again
Professional northerner and ex-Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth is the latest ex-person-in-position-of-responsibility to come out and state the bleeding obvious - all drugs should be de-criminalised. Of course when he was at the Home Office, the drugs laws were a good thing, or at least he believed they were a good thing. Otherwise he would have said so, right? Right?
Anyway, better late than never I suppose. It adds a little weight to the very necessary movement to de-criminalise drugs. Actually, that is a nicety. My thing is for full legalisation, but baby steps, Clarice, baby steps....
Since Ainsworth has brought the question into the public domain once again I note that ex-Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez is also calling for the debate to be re-opened. Gonzalez's specific concern appears to be the violence associated with the illegal drugs trade, particularly in Mexico. He points out that the ultra-violence that prevailed during prohibition-era Amercia ended not with Capone being put behind bars, but when prohibition finally ended. 'Nuff said.
Did I say ten to twenty years? Make that five to fifteen.
Anyway, better late than never I suppose. It adds a little weight to the very necessary movement to de-criminalise drugs. Actually, that is a nicety. My thing is for full legalisation, but baby steps, Clarice, baby steps....
Since Ainsworth has brought the question into the public domain once again I note that ex-Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez is also calling for the debate to be re-opened. Gonzalez's specific concern appears to be the violence associated with the illegal drugs trade, particularly in Mexico. He points out that the ultra-violence that prevailed during prohibition-era Amercia ended not with Capone being put behind bars, but when prohibition finally ended. 'Nuff said.
Did I say ten to twenty years? Make that five to fifteen.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Fahrenheit 451
A teenager has reportedly been arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Quran and posting the video footage on YouTube. This, apparently, is the crime of "inciting religious hatred".
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Plagiarism
People say that you can't criticise something until you have tried it for yourself. Nonsense. I am about to criticise Dan Brown and I have never read one of his novels. So what are my qualifications? Well, a resort to authority, or perhaps pseudo-authority. An over reliance on authority is a terrible thing ("I was just following orders"). However, who would wish to argue with this collection of thoughts on Mr Brown's oeuvre:
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Stephen King: "the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese"
John Humphreys: "the literary equivalent of painting by numbers, by an artist who can’t even stay within the lines"
Salman Rushdie: "so bad that it gives bad novels a bad name"
Stewart Lee: "there is nothing of any value in Dan Brown"
Stephen Fry: "complete loose stool-water"
New York Times: "primer on how not to write an English sentence"
Anthony Lane: "unmitigated junk"
Geoffrey Pullum: "(one of the) worst prose stylists in the history of literature"
So imagine how pleased with myself I was this morning when I saw a fellow passenger reading Brown, and thought to myself "something to do while you wait to die." (The smug commuter mentally criticised the bespectacled fat man.)
Did I steal that from somewhere? It came to me unbidden, which is always a hint that something isn't original thought. But it felt original. And it felt good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)