Specifically: the preeminent Audio Newspaper for a Visual World has returned. That is, a new, full episode of the satirical comedy podcast “The Bugle” has been released, appropriately titled “Mayhem Update”. The podcast, helmed by comedians Andy Zaltzman and John Oliver, and no doubt already familiar to all the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, rendering this explanation redundant, usually dissects the week’s news with what Andy would probably describe as the scalpel “of eternal vengeance”. However, in recent weeks, the team has chosen to shirk their responsibilities and spend their Fridays on projects known variously as “real jobs” or “reporting from the cricket world cup for ESPN”. I know. A shameful dereliction of duty. But all is forgiven now since, as mentioned, IT’S BACK! And available for free download in all good podcast stores (iTunes link, and it has an explicit tag, so be prepared for some language and whatnot). For anyone interested in old episodes, unfortunately, the Times Online website (of the Times newspaper, which produces the show) is now behind a pay wall, and iTunes only goes as far back as episode 90 (of 148 at time of writing). However, a google search for “the bugle archive”, without quotes, will be sufficient to gain access to the complete “oeuvre”.
In terms of where this podcasts falls in the landscape of downloadable audio comedy, anyone familiar with the Daily Show should think of it as something of an audio (and distinctly not-American) version of that. In some ways it is a little like The Now Show, on the Friday Night Comedy podcast from BBC Radio 4, except funnier and with more puns and references to an alleged obsession with waffles on the part of the Belgian nation. Although, in style, it is (strangely) reminiscent of Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo’s Movie Review Podcast on BBC Radio Five Live, given the anarchic atmosphere and occasional hilarious interruption of the producer, Chris (who used to be called Tom, until he had to change his name and voice because the CIA were getting close to uncovering his true identity).

As someone who has become increasingly bored, and then frustrated, with BBC Radio 4′s recent attempts at comedy (with a number of shining exceptions, which I cannot be bothered to list here because I am lazy), this is a moderately rebellious, welcome change.

Additionally: you can follow the official Bugle twitter feed (operated by Andy Zaltzman) at: @hellobuglers on twitter. As an act of defiance against all those who tweet about boring things which are indeed happening, Andy likes to tweet about particularly outrageous things which are not happening, such as:

Follow @hellobuglers@hellobuglers
The Bugle

Italy and Libya reportedly "very close" to agreeing terms of a Berlusconi-for-Gaddafi swap deal. Spokesman: "It would benefit both nations."

April 10, 2011 12:04 pm via TwitBirdReplyRetweetFavorite

Oh, and one more fragment+colon prefixed non sequitur: I like to waste my life listening to podcasts, so short reviews on those ones that I like (or particularly dislike) may form fodder for future posts. You have been warned

It has come to my attention that the Windows Vista log on screen epitomises my approach to the difficult issues raised by work. Now, bear with me – this is not quite as nonsensical as it definitely initially seems.

The laptop I use almost everyday (for various tasks such as “checking” my email and “looking at” Twitter) is equipped with an integrated fingerprint scanner. This affords an alternative means of authentication (i.e. not multi-factor; if a valid fingerprint is read, the password entry step is bypassed). Thus, after the laptop boots, Windows Vista presents me with the choice to enter a password or swipe my fingerprint to log on. This seems simple enough. Indeed, the time taken for the human to authenticate is probably a small fraction of the total boot/startup duration, given the unwieldy nature of the world’s most popular operating system.

Yet, like most wildly mundane moments in life, scratch its surface and one will discover a marginally bloggable, “teachable moment”.  In fact, the choice involves some cost benefit analysis.  On the one hand, the fingerprint scanner constitutes an easy option.  I need merely “swipe” one finger over the sensor.  The password entry, on the other hand, requires me to fully operate the keyboard.  Perhaps I can only motivate myself to use the scanner.  However, therein also lies a pitfall…  Or maybe: there, also lies, however, a pitfall in… Or: also, however, a pitfall in there lies.  Can pitfalls lie?

Anyhow, the point is this: look before you leap… or swipe.  Whether it is due to my deficient fingerprint scanning technique, down to an inadequately implemented scanner, or as a result of poor user instructions, it is usually only on the third or fourth attempted finger scan that authentication is successful.  I must repeatedly wait, and try again, perhaps adjusting the speed with which I pass my print over the sensor, or changing the orientation of my finger.  Compare that to password authentication.  Keyboard entry is relatively precise; I rarely make an error entering my password.

In short, whilst I almost always opt to authenticate by scanning my finger print, because it is immediately less bothersome, the upshot is almost always a longer authentication process, over what would have been involved in opting directly for password entry.  The teachable moment in this?  Nothing that is not obvious.  Just that the option to procrastinate is usually more labour intensive.  Nevertheless, that option seems, a priori (given that every time I approach the log on procedure, I do not draw on knowledge from experience to make the decision), more appealing to my brain than the sure-fire password entry option.

And another thing: no offence productivity gurus, but the pinnacle of irony that is writing a self-centred blog post about procrastination has not escaped me.

I can’t be referring to the UK election because, at time of writing, the election isn’t featured as any of the top stories on the BBC website. Of course, if you continue to the News page you can find more coverage than you require. But still, it’s an interesting statement on the relative unimportance of this election, to the rest of the World, that the stories

Greek parliament to vote on cuts

and

BP box sent to seal Gulf oil leak

and also

Dramatic rise in China syphilis

all feature twice within the ” More top stories” widget on bbc.co.uk, whereas the UK election is confined to the news.bbc.co.uk site.

This is the first time I have been old enough to vote in the UK General Elections. However, the UK election is even less important for me personally than it is for most British citizens. Not only do I not live in the UK (I live in the Netherlands, and can vote in the local elections here), but also (despite the fact that I registered to vote well before the deadline) I have yet to receive my postal ballot. Now, I should take this opportunity to point out to those people to whom the UK election is irrelevant (ie the rest of the World) that the date of the election is May 6 2010. Given that today is May 6 2010, we can then derive the number of days in the month of May left for me to receive my ballot and perform the appropriate democratic activities and send it back. This calculation is shown in the following equation:

So it would seem that my wildly uninformed democratic voice will not be heard this time around. According to the http://aboutmyvote.co.uk website, from The Electoral Commission,

You should receive your postal ballot about one week before the election. If it doesn’t arrive, you can get a replacement ballot paper in person from your Returning Officer up until 5pm on election day.

(http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/faq/voting_by_post.aspx)

so I have less than 3 hours to get back to blighty and locate my friendly neighbourhood returning officer. This information, though, is clearly directed at postal voters in the UK. I suppose it is entirely my own fault for not appointing a proxy to vote for me (I’m assuming the person overseas gets to tell the proxy who the vote is for, rather than just delegating that tricky part of ‘choosing the candidate’, to the proxy):

Postal votes are only sent out about a week before election day, and you will need to consider whether this gives you enough time to complete and return your form in time. It may be better to appoint a proxy to vote on your behalf.

(http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/faq/overseas_voters.aspx)

One begins to wonder why bother even allowing voting by post for overseas voters. The Netherlands is not all that far from the UK, and there are relatively few war zones and erupting volcanoes between me and the British Isles, so if postal votes arrive much too late for me, the situation could presumably be much worse for overseas voters in places further afield.

I suppose it is not such a disaster if, at this first opportunity for me, I cannot vote. I probably would have wasted it by voting Liberal Democrat, anyway.

UPDATE: My mother received her ballot at lunchtime May 6. I have yet to receive mine. Yay.

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.)

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.