Filed under: Popular culture | Tags: Blackpool, Gigs, Kid Harpoon, Mystery Jets, The Kooks, Winter Gardens
It was a cold evening in Blackpool but hundreds of music fans were waiting outside in a queue that stretched out as far as the eye could see.
The people joining the growing crowd were arriving unusually early on 8 December for a gig they had clearly been looking forward to for months – The Kooks.
Walking into Winter Gardens, on Church Street, and seeing singer-song writer Kid Harpoon, it felt like there was already a headline act on stage.
“First we’ll take Manhattan”, he shouted before pausing for a second, “and then we’ll take Berlin” and he launched back into the verse. It was a song the crowd soon picked up and were shouting back.
And warm up acts do not come much better than what followed – Mystery Jets.
The almost tribal chanting of “Zoo time! Zoo time!” symbolised a frantic yet amazing set from the London five-piece.
So when The Kooks launched into their first song “Always Where I Need to Be”, fans were already geared up for what was to be a sensational gig.
The four-piece from Brighton played most of their classics from their first album “Inside In Inside Out”. And just as many from their second, “Konk”.
The crowd went berserk during “Matchbox” and sang along to “Ooh La” and “She Moves in Her Own Way”. But they were even more stunned when “Naïve” began and an echo of every lyric could be heard throughout the room.
“Mr Maker” also stood out as the riff captivated a danced-out audience
The Kooks’ mix of catchy tunes and lyrics, which has given them hit after hit, kept the crowd chanting all the way through.
“This is an amazing crowd – and we’ve been all over the world!” exclaimed lead singer Luke Pritchard as he returned on stage to play “Seaside” in an acoustic encore.
The Kooks ended on “Sofa Song” after an hour-and-a-half and over 20 songs – leaving fans tired and sweaty, but incredibly satisfied.
Today is an historic day for world politics. This morning, Britain woke up to the news that the first African-American president will take office in January. This will end eight years of Republican domination over America.
Barack Obama symbolises many thing to many people. Jesse Jackson shed a tear as Obama made his first speech as President Elect last night.
“Now we see many whites choosing reason over race, hope over fear,” said Jackson.
He believes working class whites, Hispanics and blacks can help build a new Democratic coalition in states such as Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
To Britain, however, it means something else – the end of war.
Under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the government has been looking to move troops out of Iraq, when the security situation allows, and to win more international support for the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan to ease the burden on the 7,800 British troops in southern Afghanistan.
Obama’s thinking on foreign policy priorities runs along similar lines, said Robin Shepherd of the Chatham House think-tank.
“He has made it very clear… that he regards Afghanistan as a priority,” the analyst said. “That suggests he would want western allies to stump up more troops … Britain has been arguing for this for a long time now.”
On Iraq, Obama campaigned across America on the promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq over 16 months. And after already drawing down British troop numbers in Iraq, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised MPs a further fundamental change of mission next year.
As well as Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown hopes the new US administration will be more open to coordinated, international action on cutting greenhouse gases, and on Wednesday welcomed Obama’s stance on the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
With this, and the expectation of somehow leading the world out of an economic downturn, Obama has much to do.
Obama’s presidency has potential to be more progressive and co-operative than the Bush Administration ever was. Everyone is expecting so much from him. Perhaps, with expections so high, he can never live up to it – but he will do his best.
Filed under: Politics
A whole book could be written arguing why someone should be left or right wing in modern society. So, instead, I will make a case for one basic leftist principle – one that is at the heart of the differences between it and conservatism.
It is perfectly acceptable for the government to take an active and substantial role in areas such as the provision of health care, the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, and some provision for the poor and disabled.
Now, a great many conservatives would have a problem with this. Such government programmes will tend to benefit some more than others, and are always funded disproportionately by the rich and well-off middle classes (even if everyone paid a flat percentage of income, the rich would still pay much more).
They effectively redistribute economic goods – but I do not intend to justify them on the grounds that they aim towards a particular ‘just’ distribution. In fact, I intend to bypass the issue of justice altogether.
Because if we concede the point that the rich people’s money is ‘theirs’, but then go on to ask what they should do with it, conservatives have little to say.
I suppose what they would say is: “Whatever they want”. But while apparently answering the question, this in fact waves it away. People are “entitled” to spend their money as they please – that is their right in a liberal society with a free market.
But, in asking what the rich should do with their money, we are really asking “what would it be best to spend it on?”
This does assume that you have a morality. With that assumption we can also say that some things are morally better than others.
Wouldn’t most people say that charity is right? Even if money is yours, if you are faced with spending £300 on a designer T-shirt or spending the same £300 on providing shelter for someone who is homeless for half a year, the latter is absolutely the right choice.
I’m assuming the existence of absolute morality and absolute right-or-wrong choices. Absolute morality is a fair assumption because most people do acknowledge right and wrong.
But if that’s the case, couldn’t it be the right choice for rich people to pay, along with smaller contributions from less wealthy members of society, for some basic goods? For instance, basic shelter for the homeless, a health-care safety net if people fall seriously ill and can’t afford vital operations, education, or the broadly shared public good of clean air?
This basic left-wing idea is correct, and should be believed in by everyone. So everyone, rich people included, ought to be voting for these government programmes for moral reasons.
The point I’m making is that the welfare state is simply the voluntary socialisation of charity, for purposes of increasing efficiency and evenly sharing the burden of paying for it (so that larger contributions come from those who can comfortably afford them). It would be exactly equivalent to voluntary private giving, if everyone voted for it.
Isn’t charitable giving right? Though I wouldn’t defend the superior efficiency of all forms of state action currently practiced, it clearly brings a huge boost in practicality in some cases. For example, few could doubt that if people wanted the benefits of law-and-order (who doesn’t?), common laws, courts and police are the only real option. Coordinated shelter for the homeless is, at least in theory, more effective because it allows comprehensive coverage and ensures everyone in need gets an equal share.
If everyone agreed on the moral rightness of certain goals, the state would simply be an avenue for agreed cooperation in the service of these goals. So we would spend on defence because it would bring everyone the obvious benefit of security.
Likewise, some sort of safety net would be provided by society simply because of the benefit it would (hopefully) bring to the poor or temporarily unfortunate - not because they have any inborn ‘entitlement’ or ‘claim’ on the rich, or could wave a fictitious social contract in their faces. And people who could more easily afford to do so would voluntarily pay for much of this simply because it is the right thing to do.
So what I’d like conservatives to answer is: if it is good to help people by choice, then isn’t it good to choose to vote for such public charity?
What this means is that public policy debates ought simply to concern what we can do for the best results and the least cost, tempered by any distinct moral concerns we might decide there are.
Standard left-wing answers may not be the best way to help people: for example, there is some evidence to show that overly-generous welfare systems tend to create ruts of poverty and dependence, and people actually do better after reform of these. But if the state, or charity, is the best, most effective way in which to do good, then why shouldn’t we go for it?
At this stage, conservatives tend to point to failed government programmes, as if this counted against the principle that we should engage in collective action when it works, rather than implicitly accepting it. At the very least, this suggests some confusion in their ideas.
What can conservatives who regard themselves as less confused say to defend the idea that the right thing to do in private choices (i.e. good) isn’t it the right decision to do in public choices? If you don’t feel that do-gooding deserves its name that’s a different matter, but most of us do.
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Economics, election, Gordon Brown, oil, recession
Ever since Brown decided not to hold a general election at the end of last year there has been a wave of criticism from all sides of the media. And it’s not just the tabloids.
The Telegraph has been quick to receive the negatives in Cherie Blair’s and John Prescott’s autobiographies.
They reported Prescott saying: “On one occasion, Gordon wouldn’t let Tony see what was in his preparatory budget proposals. He even banned the Treasury from telling him. That was totally against tradition. The Prime Minister is always told in advance.”
This comment, in The Telegraph article Brown will quit as PM before election, Field predicts, was placed above any positives in the article.
In the Metro there has been daily attacks on Brown’s personality and his ability to lead by focusing on Conservative put downs.
But, in The Times this week, a comment piece entitled King Oil Will Turf Out Gordon Brown, gave a much more logical explanation as to why Brown has lost popularity. William Rees-Mogg attempted to explain popularity cycles in terms of economics.
Oil traders, he says, have predicted that oil price will eventually reach $200 a barrel. Food prices are also escalating worldwide.
These factors are having a direct effect on British politics in that British consumers are already paying higher prices for gas and petrol due to the market crash.
None of this is Gordon Brown’s fault. It is very unlucky that he became prime minister at a time where global recession was about to begin.
“We shall pay more for petrol and bread but our houses will be worth less”, says Rees-Mogg. “The average person is likely to express his protest with a vote.”
The recession has not done Brown any favours. Perhaps the attack is not reflective of his actions. Maybe it is due to a natural turn in world economics.
Filed under: Popular culture | Tags: comedy, e4, family guy, flight of the conchords, futurama, garth marenghi's darkplace, mighty boosh, the it crowd, tv
There is a growing trend of jokes on TV these days, aimed at teenagers and young adults, that seem to have no relevance to anything – they are just crazy.
Yet everyone seems to find them utterly remarkable.
Many people, myself included, find themselves laughing out loud at these immature ramblings without quite knowing why.
The classic example is the BBC 3 series The Mighty Boosh which seems to have brought it to a new level.
Many others have followed or have been running for longer.
In Britain there is the Channel 4 series The IT Crowd and Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace.
The ‘voice of E4′ is utterly ridiculous, but we just cannot stop ourselves laughing at such lines as ‘big shiny films in your dinky little home’.
Abroad, there is Flight of the Conchords, which I must admit, I am getting very addicted to.
There is also the American string of ‘adult cartoons’ such as Family Guy and Futurama which have so much influence worldwide.
This morning I was listening to the Mighty Boosh Radio Show on my iPod. I drew everyone’s attention on the train by laughing out loud.
The line which caused the outburst was “I’m a chinese dancing horse, look at my hooves of cress”.
Why do we find these jokes so amusing, when, in actual fact, they have no meaning or link to anything? They are the sort of things we used to say in the playground as children.
My colleague suggested today that these programmes ’dare to lack wit’.
The reason they are so appealing, he says, is because they are satirical of modern comedy.
Maybe the fact that it makes no sense is, in itself, funny.
But the more logical explanation is that we see in these comedys something in ourselves that we miss – something we were when we were younger.
This kind of comedy is what I wanted when I was 12. Apparently, nothing has changed.
Filed under: Politics
If you ask a British citizen above the age of 80 about what makes them most nostalgic they will almost always talk about the sense of unity during or after World War II. This is interesting since in reality the war was horrific on many levels, and the aftermath of war was financially disasterous for Britain.
So why is this period seen in a positive light? It is more straightforward than it sounds. It is because of the British attitude at the time. The desire to help each other for the good of the country which in turn made everyone feel like a community.
In the modern world, most people seem to have disregarded the idea of working together to make the country a better place for everyone. From doctors, to lawyers, to truck drivers to police men, everybody seems to be pursuing money and possessions.
To a degree, this is a product of our surroundings. The fact that America have been hammering home the idea that ‘pure capitalism’ is the only way a society can work throughout the Cold War has made the world sceptical of the value of the ‘common good’.
When you look at the growing shift from public to private ownership and the ever growing wage gaps in society it is easy to see how this might have had a negative effect. Yet, even the people in the lower wage bracket seem to be obessed with wanting flat screen Tvs, iPods and clothes.
Most of my closest and most intelligent friends conform to the rules of our society, accepting there is no other way. I have had at least five arguments now about doctors salaries. “Anyone who can save someone’s life deserves every penny they earn” they say. This is usually followed by “have a go at footballers, they are on ridiculous wages.”
What they cannot seem to comprehend is that this is not the point at all. Apart from the fact that doctors are government funded and therefore their wages come from ours, why should a doctor be worth more than anyone else. Some people cannot afford to get medical training, and others have never had the intelligence or encouragement. I am not claiming that they should not get more than some, only that they should not be entitled such a copious amount - no-one needs £100,000 a year. “Are you telling me you wouldn’t take £100,000 if it was offered to you?” they say. When I say no, the response is always “b*****ks”. This is just an example. It’s not specifically doctors.
The pursuit of personal happiness is important. It is natural for individuals to want a comfortable lifestyle. Perhaps people should just take a second to think, there could have been another way.
A mixture of capitalism and socialism is no bad thing. Since the Thatcher Government however, Britain seems to be gearing much more towards pure capitalism than ever before, and we are getting more in line with American society than we should be.
Filed under: Life
In times of emotional uncertainty, human beings tend to think too much. When something is bothering us we roll it over in our minds over and over again until it becomes much worse. My method of coping with life’s trials and tribulations is to listen to music. Music is supposed to soothe the soul. There are some things however that won’t go away no matter how hard you try. Death, for example, is an obvious tragedy that, on various levels, provokes unavoidable sadness.
But another matter that triggers feelings of loss and depair is something that, to me at least, seems ridiculous - intense feelings of affection. When this is not quite reciprocal where do we end up? When we want something so badly that it hurts. So badly that it’s all you can think about and it affects you to the greatest extent. Until finally, it gets to the point where all you want is for the feelings to go away.
But why does this happen? Why do we torture ourselves in this way? It struck me that that one way to conquer these feelings is to understand what we are experiencing. A few years ago, in my limited experience, I thought that the concept was connected to an inbalance of power. To an extent it probably is. But in reading, and further life lessons, however, there seems to be another reason. I believe it is much more simple than our minds make it: it is about passion.
Without having this term properly described, this seems like a very abstract concept. The word ‘passion’ comes from the Latin patior, meaning to suffer or to endure. It is an emotion of feeling very strongly about a subject. Passion is an intense emotion compelling feeling, enthusiasm, or desire for anything and often requiring action. It often applies to lively or eager interest in or admiration for a proposal, cause, or activity. These feelings can be expressed as a feeling of unusual excitement or enthusiasm about a subject, idea, person, or object.
According to author and journalist Thomas Friedman, passion and curiosity are key components for education in a world where information is readily available to everyone and where global markets reward those who have learned how to learn and are self-motivated to learn.
Friedman states, “Give me the kid with a passion to learn and a curiosity to discover and I will take him or her over the less passionate kid with a huge IQ every day of the week.”
In the same way passion is related to education in an academic context, it too is related to emotional learning. If you go through life without feeling and experiencing, the whole rocky ride would not be worth while. Passion will motivate us to one day get the things we want the most. Until then, the pain that come out of these situations will make us stronger.
We all have feelings, we are human. But the more we experience and the more we learn from them, the better we will be for it.
The Independent last month commented on the government’s decision to appoint an historical advisor. At an event entitled “Why Policy Needs History” at the Cabinet War Rooms in London, Professor David Cannadine and two other leading historians told an audience of politicians and civil servants that policy making would benefit from the involvement of expert historians at the top levels.
This would surely provide politicians and the public with a contextual, long-distance lens through which to view current events. What better way to reduce the prevalence of short-term “spin” politics, and better still, to dispel forever the idea of history as a dead subject?
Last August, Ms Tattersall Chartered of the Institute of Educational Assessors told the Independent: “History is disappearing because it is no longer a requirement of the national curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds. It is just one of the subjects that is at risk.
“History is also disappearing into the new citizenship, which is being promoted by the government.”
She also said that subjects like photography and media studies had become growth areas in the past few years because they were the kind of subjects needed for a job.
A recent study has attempted to discover why so few people are interested in History. Until degree level, the subject is treated as random pockets of information. For example, everyone is taught about the tudors but not why they were around, how they ceased to be, or how they have affected modern society. A colleague of mine, when I asked her about it, said “I like Henry VII”.
The problem with this method of teaching is that it means no-one really understands what History is. People see History as fiction as not as fact to learn from. Some people know this about themselves, but more often it is subconcious and therefore people do not want to learn.
What people rarely realise is that History is not merely a stream of dates and facts. The point of History, at an academic level, is to come to a greater understanding of how the world works. This is difficult for someone who has never taken an interest to come to terms with.
When I was an undergrad I was introduced to a new world, a rich historical scope of information, not only of the accepted views of History but different interpretations that were never made clear to me before. It is a gradual awakening.
Perhaps some people think that there is no value in knowing how the idea of the devil has evolved and grown into part of our society, or how the Second World War and Cold War have impacted so vastly on the world that it cannot be described succinctly.
It is a subject which give people a wealth of knowledge that is more important than just getting a job. It helps people to understand the world.
Filed under: Journalism
Recently, I ran into an old friend in a supermarket. After exchanging pleasantries I discovered that he had just finished his law degree and was currently training to be a solicitor. He asked me what I was doing with my life and I answered that I had undergone a postgrad diploma designed to help me become a Journalist. The response was not what I expected. “A Journalist!?” he said, “Do you know how little they earn, how hard they work and how much they are hated?”
Although I noticed the obvious irony in this statement, since he is someone who clearly is going into a profession that is hated by all, it did make me pause for thought. Why am I going into Journalism? Will it make me happy? The whole reason I decided that I wanted to be a Journalist is because I wanted to keep abreast of current information and that I love to write. But is that enough in a society that is obsessed with material possessions and where living costs rise constantly? I have always considered myself to be a man of moral courage, but Journalism could drain it from me.
Outwardly, the number of deterrents seem to outweigh any benefits that my chosen path will lead me into. But then I think, what better jobs are there out there? There may be times in which the job seems dreadful, such as the ’death knock’ that is so often mentioned in Journalistic circles.
But most of my friends, though slowly getting more money, do not seem content with their jobs. Many modern jobs are boring and repetative. “Another day another dollar,” said my friend the other week when I asked him how work was treating him. Journalism, though hard work, does not seem like it will be dull. In my eyes, money is less important than job satisfacton. A senior lecturer who teaches me said when I first started this course that, “this job is not well payed, but there certainly is no other profession that is so rewarding, but there you go I would say that.”
Overall, I think I am satisfied that when I am a Journalist, it will be worth the time I have dedicated to becoming one. Whether I am right or just fooling myself is yet to be seen.
The best thing about news writing is that it is simple. It not only helps the writer to fire out stories quicker, but it helps the reader to digest the information more easily.
The same is true of the design.
In order keep people interested there has to be simple layout with easy navigation. In this ‘digital’ era it is important for news websites to adhere to this rule.
Perhaps there is a reason why the BBC news website is so universal. It’s Sans Serif font at a reasonable large size makes it easy to read.
The whole site, excluding pictures, is made up of only three colours which are used to show the difference between links, headings and copy. It is very easy to navigate around, being split up regionally and different types of news.
In addition to written news and features which are easy to find, there are recent news videos available to view. This compact easy to use website is a gift to news hungry web users.
A close rival to the BBC, but by no means as user friendly, is the media guardian website. Again, a simple layout, but the site, in comparison the BBC, seems too ‘busy’.
In addition, it is not quite as easy to navigate. Perhaps it is the fact that the site does not seem as compact that gives this impression.
As our Senior Journalism lecturer, Delwyn Swingwood, always says ‘keep it simple’. But, these are small points, and to compare it just to the BBC seems quite unfair.
The reason it is important to make this point is because it’s identity is actually quite distinctive.
The colour code is consistent and fixed. The content is also quite extensive with a mass of features, but lacking in video and interactive qualities.
Regular readers will be pleased with the content of this site, but people who do not know the site very well could turn to other sources of news.
Simplicity is the key to good news sites. This is evident in perusing them. Perhaps our simple minds cannot deal with an abundance of colour and choice.
Restaurants that offer a lot of meals with complicated names, for example, confuses me. Give me some pub food any day - simple meals, that you know taste great. The same is true of news sources.
