“The Feeling … is mutual”

So it happened.  And the world is still very much not undergoing an apocalypse.  Yet.

What happened was that the rather irate man from that “political party” appeared on the BBC’s Question Time programme.  In all honesty, I am not a regular viewer; I only go as far as occasionally listening to the counterpart programme “Any Questions?” on BBC Radio 4.  But TweetDeck had been consistently beeping new messages with the hashtag “#bbcqt” all day (it’s a Twitter thing: Google it), so I watched the entire thing.  Here are my initial thoughts.

To begin with, although I know this is beside the point, it was perhaps a little dry.  By that I mean, very focussed, no lightness and without a lot of character.  Granted, it’s not fair to compare it to this clip, for exmple: http://bit.ly/fGVxT, and it’s important to bear in mind the subject matter and the nature of the guests.

The panel: Jack Straw, Justice Minister in the Labour Government; Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion; Chris Huhne, Lib. Dem. Home Affairs Spokesman; Bonnie Greer, playwright and Deputy Chairman of the British Museum and Nick Griffin from that party with the people who have the views on the other thing.  David “My-name-is-David-not-Jonathan-that’s-my-brother” Dimbleby chaired the debate well, pressing the panel members on specifics, whilst managing to maintain some level of BBC-impartiality.

It has to be said, “straight off the bat” as you might say, that in many ways, the focus was very much positioned on the  BNP and their ideas.  By that, I don’t mean that there was too much discussion of BNP policies.  Why not adopt that focus?  In fact, if a member of said party is to appear (the debate over which will not be tackled here – once again, Google it: it’s a big discussion), then it seems to me to be entirely worthwhile to take the opportunity to expose the truth of the representative’s opinions, to ensure everyone watching knows who we are dealing with.  The line the questioning took (if we ignore, for a moment, the contribution of the non-BNP panel members, and just look at the audience) was to attempt to pick apart BNP ideas, challenge their veracity and expose a hidden agenda.

The trouble there, is that it perhaps lacked teeth.  This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/nick-griffin-question-time-debate) points very well to what the panel and audience were trying to do, but partially failed at.  I don’t think (though I may have already forgotten : ) ) that the “facade broke down” under some of the more pedestrian lines of attack.  The classic weaseling out of direct quotes, and attempting to present a moderate face of the party, were both tactics that were heavily deployed.  There were, however, particular moments when the ugly side was visible.  Take, for example, the pressing of Griffin on the definition of indigenous and whether he equates that with “white”.  As well as the obviously absurd view of British history which he presented, there was also a moment (though I don’t have the exact quote) in which he did equate indigenous to white, though in passing and it was not picked up.  I could attempt to fully outline every absurd/incorrect/racist comment to be found in the debate, but, at this point, it’s fairly obvious and the footage pretty much speaks for itself.

I would, on another point, like to look at some of the other panelists.  For a start, Jack Straw (who I always remember as bespectacled, from when I watched the news when I lived in the UK), seemed pretty indignant.  To be fair, all the panelists were to some extent or another, but he managed it with a minimum of facial expression, looking straight forward, and conveying it all with the tone of his voice.  An interesting style.  It’s funny, because I have found myself becoming increasingly annoyed with the New Labour policies and presentational style, over the past ten years, but (perhaps partly due to the looming prospect of a Conservative Government being elected, soonish) I was surprised by how little Jack Straw annoyed me.  In fact, I found myself a little on his side.  This became especially apparent when the discussion moved to immigration.

The question (paraphrased) was whether the rise of the BNP can be blamed on the failure of the (Labour) Government’s immigration policy.  Unsurprisingly, Jack Straw (who was first to answer) said no.  I honestly cannot attest to the government having failed in its immigration policy.  The fact that I don’t live in the UK is also of little relevance, given that anecdotal evidence on the effect of immigration on communities is not always useful for looking at the big picture.  What stood out most prominently, was the answer from the Conservative, Sayeeda Warsi.  She accused Straw of dishonesty, yet, herself, used the Conservative tactic of playing on fear of immigration as an issue without actually presenting “solutions”.  The idea is that the “moderate” right wing can raise the spectre of immigration to bring aboard the UKIPs of this world, but avoid moving too far to the right by never being explicit (e.g.) on how  ”caps” would really be implemented.  The approach was based on the concept of community resources (I suppose doctors, schools, transport infrastructure) being unable to cope with a large influx of people from the EU, and from further afield.  As I have already said, I don’t know if this is the case, it could be, but that’s beside the point.  The way Sayaeeda Warsi argued the case, made it appear that, once again, the Tories want to claim immigration as “their issue” in that “they will Keep You Safe”.  Perhaps that’s unfair.  Even bigoted.  But she will apparently demand that Straw engaged in an “honest debate”, until he agrees with her.  Which, by the way, is not what either of them wants, given that the strategy of the Labour and Conservative Parties has been attempting (with varying degrees of success) to cast themselves as the party which is the best tackle the issue, not the one with the best policies to tackle the issue.

Regarding the other two members of the panel, Chris Huhne and Bonnie Greer, I think they generally came across best.  I particularly liked the manner in which Bonnie Greer would ostensibly aim a question at Griffin (sitting next to her) to get confirmation on one of his opinions, and then immediately continue without bothering to wait for one of his insane answers.  It’s the most efficient use of the time available (which, incidentally, the programme quickly ran out of). Anyway, back to the debate.

In my opinion, the time when the discussion came closest to completely demolishing the facade Griffin would have you believe in, was when the programme moved to a more “traditional” Question Time format.  The final question was the only truely topical one, and focussed on an article by Jan Moir in the Daily Mail on the death of Stephen Gately.  Every panelist came across as reasonable and fair (balancing freedom of speech and human decency).  Except Griffin, who very much didn’t.  And the comment from the audience member who is in a civil partnership (the final comment of that segment) did in only a few words best refute the ideals of Griffin’s party.

The debate closed with a “meta” discussion, about the debate itself and whether the BBC was right to proceed with the scheduled panel.  My only point here, is that I think Sayeeda Warsi gave herself and her fellow panel members a little too much credit in having “exposed” the BNP for who they really are.  More needs to be done.  I think James Dray was right, when he said that Griffin will not “politically hang himself if merely given enough rope”.  The reason we’re in this position is because enough people voted.  And given the apathy with which the public usually approaches political involvement, this is not a problem that will be solved with one TV programme.

(Sorry for the rambling nature of this post – I evidently haven’t really ordered my thoughts yet.)

PicApp Makes Me Blog Again (and Some Thoughts on the Nobel Prize)

Wow.  It’s like this blog is up-to-the-minute.  We’ve got legal news images, AND EVERYTHING.

Okay, perhaps the “everything” part is missing, but PicApp (http://www.picapp.com/) looks like (from the mere seconds I have used it for) to be a rather useful resource for, what the site calls,

“millions of premium, relevant, fresh and legal images to choose from”.

Which is nice.  This gives me an excuse to blog again which hopefully will be, after all this time, excessively entertaining.  I set the bar high.

Anyhow, it seems I can artfully weave together my discovery of the PicApp site with an item of current affairs which came onto my proverbial radar.  Notice the man in the picture.  No, not that man.  No, not that man either.  The one on the right.  The President.  It seems that just when you thought the Nobel prize couldn’t get any more liberal, they decided to award one to Barack Obama.  The reason can be found on the Nobel Prize website: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/.

So, a good idea?  As much as it doesn’t matter what I think, and as much as I’m certainly left-leaning, politically, it does seem a little like firing the starting pistol, but then halting the race, to award Obama because he said the right things in the pre-race interview.  One would think that significantly more perspective is needed to judge this sort of thing and it’s not as if there is a shortage of people to whom such an award could be legitimately awarded.

There are a couple of counter arguments to that, however.  For a start, it is explicit in the words of the award givers that the award is not for things he hasn’t done yet.  You can argue about whether inspiring hope and strengthening “international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” are actions worthy of an award, but it’s not as if they pretend he has done  a huge number of things (or something earth-shatteringly important) that he has not.  It’s meant to send a message, that perhaps has nothing to do with Obama (though that is perhaps an abuse of the award).  Secondly, whilst the Prize is certainly incredibly prestigious, it is by no means a given that it is somehow a ‘best person in the world’ award that implicitly states that there have been NO GOOD DEEDS OTHER THAN THOSE UNDERTAKEN BY THE WINNER.  (Please feel free to print out those capital letters and put them on a sign for use in impromptu protests.)  There are a whole bunch of eligible people who will continue to be brilliant without the rubber stamp of awesomeness (a phrase soon to be trademarked by the Nobel Foundation) that the Nobel Peace Prize provides.

Having said that though, it does feel strange.  I think @pumpkinshirt, on twitter, put’s it best:

“The committee seems to be awarding the Nobel Prize For Not Being George W. Bush. Obama should respectfully decline.“

and

“Obama and the prize would be much better served if the cmte. had waited until Obama could DO more. Too soon. Counterproductive.“

It’s a good point.  In any event, the fact that an MSNBC online poll (http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/10/09/3364945-is-president-obama-deserving-of-the-nobel-peace-prize) had, at time of posting, 62.3% of people disapproving of the award, is somewhat telling.

Meanwhile, I’ve just seen an advert for Michael Moore on “Hannity”.  Even Moore is not enough to make me watch Fox News.

News 2.0: Because yesterday’s newscasts didn’t jump out of the TV and demand your undivided attention

I read an absurd story (here) today about how CNN will use advanced holographic technology to present election night coverage, allowing Obama and McCain strategists to appear to be in a room with Wolf Blitzer, when they are really in two separate cities.  This will either be remarkably cool, or bafflingly pointless.  We will find out.  One thing I do certainly find cool, though, is MSNBC peddling of what it calls ‘Newsware’.  This is not new (it started earlier this year), but today I very briefly tried out the ‘Spectra’ web browser-based news visualiser, and the ‘NewsSkimmer’ news screensaver.  They are both rather impressive, with nifty 3D animations, and, thankfully, a very minimalist and generally well-designed look.  Unfortunately, my 1.67 GHz G4 PowerBook, with 512 MB memory, isn’t fast enough to play the animations smoothly, but its still rather nice.  More info, and free downloads, at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23781733/

Decision ‘08 Presidential Results

Hmm…

A Technology-related Post Cleverly Disguised as a Photo Gallery

More photos.  Meanwhile, in other news…

This is perhaps a little too tech-related, but the new software for the Apple iPod touch has been released, meaning that, for about €8.00, I have what is essentially a new device.  The software update provides a number a new features which are worth noting.

The App Store

The App Store is a new service provided by Apple, which basically allows the user of an iPhone or iPod touch to download and install small applications written by third-parties, either through iTunes on a Mac or PC, or directly on the iPod touch or iPhone using wifi (or the 3G network, if you are that way inclined).  This means in practice that there is a theoretically unlimited variety of programs to increase the functionality of the touch/iPhone, some of which at no extra cost (while some require a small fee).

The Apps Themselves

For a while now, it has been possible to use specially designed websites, which fit the size of the touch/iPhone screen.  These are called ‘Webapps‘ and are good, but are just websites (admittedly clever websites, but websites nonetheless).  These new apps which are now available from the App Store ‘feel’ much more robust and more persistent.  What’s more, Apple has complete control over which apps, from which providers, may be installed on the touch/iPhone.  Whilst this appears a rather closed system, it has a number of advantages in my view.  Firstly, it makes the touch/iPhone much more secure, by allowing Apple to screen any app which is proposed for deployment on the touch/iPhone to ensure it is not a virus and is not harmful.  Secondly, the nature of the system (as far as I understand) encourages the adoption of an ‘Apple-like’ attitude to design, ie. clean, uncluttered and functional interfaces.  Some of my favourite apps so far are the Apple Remote app (which allows the user to control the iTunes music player on a computer using the touch/iPhone as a sort of remote control on steroids), the Facebook app (which is a little limited, but is rather elegantly designed) and Twitterrific (a [perhaps the] Twitter utility).  I’m also looking forward to the purportedly imminent release of an official WordPress app for mobile blogging.

The Whole Shebang

One thing which really comes across when using the new software is that I no longer feel like I am using the Internet when I am using apps such as Facebook and Twitterrific, which are outside of the web browser.  The user is separated from address bars, login names, passwords and bookmarks and the apps form a perfect interface between user and network.  Another thing which I should also mention under this fairly general sub-heading is one small but incredibly clever function which I suspected might exist and only discovered because I tried it out.  It relates to photos.  The iPod touch (unlike the iPhone) has no built-in camera, so, on the face of it, the only way to get photos onto the touch is by connecting it to a computer and downloading them using iTunes.  As it turns out, with the version of the Safari web browser which is part of the new software, if you tap and immediately hold an image in the browser, a menu will appear, offering the user the option of saving the image directly onto the iPod touch.  If I were American, I suppose I would call this ‘neat’.

So that’s my patchy overview of the new iPod touch/iPhone software.

In God We Trust

Looks like Gordon Brown’s problems are far from over.  A comment made by Health Minister Ben Bradshaw on Friday’s edition of the Today programme, the day after Labour lost the Henley by-election (and when I say lost, I mean really lost), probably didn’t help.  Audio of the interview can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7476000/7476833.stm.  The good bit starts around 3:22, when James Naughtie asks him a question about the apparent failure of Gordon Brown, in the eyes of political commentators.  In answering the question Bradshaw directly implies that David Cameron has proven himself a highly capable leader, and therefore the media have been proved wrong in the past when it comes to the viability of party leaders.  At this rate, come 2010, the Labour Party will probably just concede the election before the people go to the polls, with Gordon Brown endorsing Cameron and campaigning on his behalf.  Or maybe not.

 

On the subject of the elections in Zimbabwe, I find it difficult to know what to write.  I will mention, though, firstly, a petition which can be signed on the subject, and also a rather interesting BBC News article about the possible scenarios which could play out as a result of the current crisis.  It seems that, given the apparent inability of the international community to effect real change in the country, it really will take divine intervention to change things for the better.  On that front, however, I hear God already has his hands full stopping the Democrats from letting the Republicans win again, in November.

Triangular Kiwi

Here is a cross section of one of the kiwis I bought today:

A triangular kiwi.  Hmm…   Genetic modification?  Seems unlikely, especially since the packet said that they were organic.  I don’t know much about kiwis, so perhaps this is just a variety I’ve never come across before in Albert Heijn.  (Wait a minute?  According to Latin, shouldn’t kiwi be the plural?  That would make the singular ‘kiwus’.  Perhaps not…)

I recently joined twitter and what struck me most about the site was something which also struck me about vimeo.com.  Far from exhibiting the predilection for point 9 font in the name of elegance, both these sites have clean, elegant, appealing designs, with a large font sizes.  This makes them much easier to read and significantly more user-friendly.  Furthermore, the skillful use of colour really helps in improving usability in both cases.  Contrast these two sites, then, with myspace.com, which is the embodiment of unnavigable clutter.

Meanwhile: the BBC has discovered that Gordon Brown personally telephones people who send him letters.  That must have been difficult for Downing Street to own up to.  (Stand clear of the copious sarcasm.)  Especially as the government is currently trying to promote the idea that Brown ‘listens to the people’.  Wow!  What a coincidence that this comes out so close to the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.  You could almost suggest it was more than a coincidence.  Nah!  That’s about as unlikely as coming across a triangular kiwi.  Oh… So… that would be ‘quite likely’ then.

Ceci n’est pas un blog post

Finally: the opportunity to post returns once again. On Wednesday, I completed my final examination for the International Baccalaureate Diploma, meaning I have now (theoretically) finished my secondary education. I do not, though, recieve the results until early July.

I was listening to a podcast today called New Kids on the Blog, originally broadcast in December last year on BBC Radio 4, about the revolution taking place in the news media due to the power of the internet and ‘user generated content’. The whole programme was generally interesting, but perhaps the best quote was a comment at the end of the programme made by ABC’s Charles Gibson. Warning of the dangers which arise as a result of the media and bloggers attempting to grab attention and distinguish themselves from the crowd by providing opinion and being “shrill” rather than providing journalistic reporting, he said “it leads to people being sort of spring-loaded in the pissed-off position”.

With that in mind, let me now turn to another podcast, but one which moderately annoyed me at times. A couple of years ago, the BBC broadcast a programme called Humphrys in Search of God, in which John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4 presenter) interviewed three prominent religious figures on the subject of faith and the existence of God. It was a really interesting programme, but was, at times, bemusing. Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) had the first go at converting Humphrys from agnosticism to religion. The following is an extract from the interview, with my emphasis added (the full text is available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/scripts/humphryswilliams.html)

…

Rowan Williams: Putting myself in that position, it’s a very difficult question, actually. I think I might say maybe you should ask somebody who does believe in God, and see what it sounds like. Not, I think, entirely irrelevant, as belief in God appears to come more naturally to children than to adults. And you can take that in one of two ways, can’t you? You can take it as saying belief in God is one of those things like belief in Santa Claus that every sensible person…

John Humphrys: Just what I was about to say.

Rowan Williams: Indeed. Or you can say there’s something instinctive about belief in God which life educates out of some of us in ways that are not always positive or constructive.

…

BBC Radio 4. “Dr Rowan Williams – broadcast interview.” 31.10.06. Humphrys in Search of God. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/scripts/humphryswilliams.html] (23.05.08).

Eh? Clearly, this is not a case of Rowan Williams having missed the obvious, since he acknowledges that there is an opposing view to the belief that children possess an innate understanding of the existence of God (the opposing view being that they are effectively “indoctrinated” with a belief which eventually fades away), but then simply presents it as an inferior explanation. (This is clear from the context of the quote as well. See the full text for the interview). Rowan Williams’ explanation of how suffering in the world can be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent (and, perhaps more importantly, benevolent) god is also rather unimpressive (to me at least).

Also today, I would like to point any travellers within the blogsphere who may pass this way towards the BBC blog of Mark Kermode (BBC film critic, whose weekly film review radio programme bears almost religious importance to me). This week he has posted a daily video diary from the Cannes Film Festival, which are all the more entertaining given his intense dislike of the festival itself. However, although site visitor numbers are not readily available, judging from the number of comments, it looks like his blog could do with more search traffic. Perhaps, to this end, he should take a leaf out of this blogger’s book and replicate his humourous (but apparently effective) tactics designed to increase site traffic. As for as my posts are concerned though, I’ll probably just stick with the short, vaguely obscure titles I have always given my posts, even if it is at the expense of my popularity amongst the gullible-link-clicker demographic.

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor

Having not posted here for a while, I should start by directing the reader’s attention to a number of videos I have uploaded recently. They are a mixture of footage and photography, accompanied by original music uploaded to the site ‘vimeo.com’. Below are a couple of the lower resolution videos I have made so far.

From my vimeo profile page (at http://vimeo.com/refuge) my HD photography slideshows can also be viewed.

On the subject of internet new media (<– stand clear of the unnecessarily unwieldy segue), BBC News has finally finished revamping its website. The BBC homepage had already been redesigned, however the News section of the site was, until recently, still working under the old design. Details on hows and whys of the new layout can be found in this entry on the BBC ‘The Editors’ blog. I’m personally a big fan of the new design, and not only because it allows me to witter on about a subject which is far less controversial than the current affairs reported on the BBC News site itself (Tibet/Zimbabwe/The Apprentice UK).

Finally, as regular readers will be aware, I cannot end a post without mentioning (read: ‘ranting about) President George ‘Dubya’ Bush. Today’s mention comes in the form of a video from the American television news programme ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ presented by… well, Keith Olbermann (the antidote to Bill O’Reilly). The fun part begins around 0:45 in, when the phrase ’stay the course’ comes under discussion.

Field

Here’s something fairly wacky: an audio track I created using GarageBand on the Mac. Its called ‘Field’. (I should emphasise that it does not include any pre-created loops/audio clips, so it’s my own work.)