What I have to say ...

Strictly Come Dancing - unless you’re too fat, too old or too tall

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:55:00 +0000

Precisely what do the judges on Strictly Come Dancing expect John Sargeant to do? Quit the show?

To those not up on the latest British controversy, Strictly Come Dancing is a popular British BBC program - a celebrity is paired with a professional dancer,who teaches and choreographs an assigned dance each week. Four judges award points to each pair and the pairs listed in order. The public then votes on the celebrity they would like to remain on the show. The rankings are combined, the lowest two pairs have a dance-off and the judges choose to save one. The other is eliminated.

John Sargeant is a respected British political journalist, recently retired, overweight as one becomes in one's sixties, who has ranked last in the judges' ratings for the last three or four weeks. The public, however, love him. He remains on the show. The judges, and some members of the press and fans of the show, have gotten more and more annoyed - he is forcing good dancers off the show, they say.

Judges on Strictly want a particular kind of contestant. Professional athletes do well. They're used to practicing and in good shape. TV presenters normally do rather badly - they're couch potato people. Entertainers - singers, actresses - sometimes do very well; other times, badly. If you are too tall, too fat or too old, the judges on Strictly will give you low scores. Patronizing in the early stages, contemptuous in the middle, and very hostile if you survive. John's problem: he's survived.

I'm a John Sargeant supporter myself. Some of the votes John gets are in reaction to the very nasty comments of the judges. That is not the only reason for my support - John Sargeant works hard. His partner is a very good choreographer, a new professional on the show, Christine. His performance is always entertaining. At times, it is charming - his waltz suggested an elderly uncle, dancing with a well-loved niece at her coming out ball. He is delightful to watch in a way that those whose heads are held at the correct angle and who toe properly are not.

One of John's performances was a Strictly highlight for me. He danced the Paso Doble. The dance is based on the Spanish bullfight - it's the 'man's dance'. The male is to be in control, the female partner serves as the cape or the bull. Instead of a professional dancers' vision of the bullfight, John's more nearly resembled a little boy in the nursery, daydreaming about being a bull fighter. It was fun to watch - clever, witty, charming. The judges were amused; John's scores weren't good, but they were in the bottom quarter rather than dead last and the comments weren't too bad. (That was saved for another celebrity - Foster, an Olympic swimmer. His performance was described as a 'painful shambles'; 'you look like a god but you dance like a geek.'}

A friend persuaded me to watch Strictly four or five years ago, and I've watched it ever since. It's one of the highlights of the fall tv schedule for me. It's the beautiful dresses, the music, the different dances, the general atmosphere. It's also about the celebrities - watching them improve, learn. I would love to be able to dance a tango or waltz wearing something elegant and long - but I do not want to be a professional dancer. I identify with the celebrities learning to dance, not the judges or the professionals.

The judges insist that this is a dance competition, and dancing should be the sole criteria for voting. The audience has different criteria. I think I'm like a lot of the audience; I'm less interested in the naturally talented dancer that's been to drama school and does well than the less talented person that works hard at it and shows improvement from week to week.

My favorite dance last week was Jodi Kidd's quick step. Jodi had said earlier she wanted to dance like she was running over hot coals - she did. She looked like she was caught up in dancing, exhilarated with the music and movement. I loved watching it - and I loved a waltz Jodi did several weeks ago.

The judge's highest scores went to a Rhumba by Rachel and Vincent. They loved it - I thought it was boring. It was a very professional performance. Jodi seemed swept away in the dance - and took the audience with her. Rachel and Vincent, on the other hand, were performing; it was something to watch. The Rhumba is the 'dance of love' (or lust, I forget which.)

Cherie Lunghi danced the rhumba in an earlier episode of the show. I enjoyed her performance much more than that of Rachel and Vincent. Her technique, the judges said, was very good but she was criticized for not projecting emotion - they, the judges, didn't believe in the love. Well, I certainly didn't believe Rachel and Vincent were in love, despite the little clip showing them sharing spaghetti. The judges are looking for something very specific, and it's obviously slightly different than what the audience wants. And what the audience wants is also important - the basis of elimination is audience rankings as well as judges' ranking.

Every year Strictly Come Dancing has contestants with a range of ages and backgrounds. That's one of its strengths and a reason people watch the show. Sedentary professionals and people in their late forties, fifties and sixties will not do as well as professional athletes or entertainers in their twenties. Having invited such people to participate as contestants, don't humiliate them. Give them low scores without ridicule.

Coming back to my opening paragraph, just what do the judges want John Sargeant to do? Resign? Why should he? With audience support, John Sargeant does deserve to be on the show - and it's rude and untrue to say he doesn't. He's not going to win - I don't think he should. But, equally, I see no reason to treat him like something found on the sole of your shoe.

Hope and Glory

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:17:33 +0000

Can anyone live up to the expectations people, not just Americans, have of an Obama presidency? From watching assorted people in the street interviews on television, I think a lot, maybe most, Americans are fairly realistic. They know the economy is bad, blame Bush and expect some hard times. As long as a national health service comes through, and there's some moratorium on house repossessions, some job creation, I think they'll tolerate a diminished standard of living especially if it's seen as applying to everyone.

Outside the US, I think a lot of the expectations are unrealistic. This blog is in response to something I heard. Individuals in Gaza are making random long distance calls to the US, then trying to persuade whoever answers to vote for Obama. This made me very sad. Obama will be better for Palestine than McCain - but I'm not sure any President of the US will be very fair towards Palestinians.

Obama has said that Israel has his full support. "Full support for Israel" has, in US politics, meant ignoring how Palestinians are treated, Israeli settlements within Palestinian territory, the building of a wall on Palestinian land, separating villages from their fields, bombing Lebanon...

Clinton had a more even-handed treatment of Palestine and Israel. He could get away with it. Obama, because of his name and the rumours about his secret Muslim identity, will have a lot more trouble in doing something about the Palestinian/Israeli problem.

A Joe the Plumber sort of metaphor here: I always take my good friend Marie shopping with me. Marie says yes, it was £300. and is reduced to £50. It's your size. But your bum looks huge, the shoulders don't hang right and you look like a lumpy cow. (Well, friend Marie is a lot more tactful than that, but that's the gist of what she says.)

Israel needs a Marie-friend, one that says you've got to solve this problem politically, not militarily. We know you've got the best equipped, biggest army in the Middle East. But you're going to have make concessions for peace - and that means withdrawing to 1967 borders, allowing Palestine to develop as an independent country and giving up the small part of Lebanon you hold.

Palestinians need to hear that the right of return is lost - yes, it was very unfair that Palestinians that had lived in what is now Israel lost their native lands. No, Israel won't pay reparations; your ancestral olive fields are part of a Tel Aviv suburb, forget them.

Pragmatically, Palestinians have lost their lands and they know it. Those without force are always a lot more realistic than those with Big Guns and F-16s. But Palestine has made all the concessions they can reasonably be expected to make.

Pragmatically, Israel can bomb Palestine and Lebanon into the stone age, and have. Aside from religious crazies that believe in Greater Biblical Israel, I think most Israelis, if they felt their borders were secure, would be willing to withdraw to those borders.

Both peoples have a shared history to ignore, to forgive if not forget - forgive being bombed into the stone age, forgive the resulting dead sons and daughters and parents. Israelis have to consign past threats from surrounding countries to sweep them into the sea to history. Israelis, too, have to mourn the dead and move on.

Both Jews and Muslims are Peoples of the Book - the same book. In this shared book, we read "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord." Let's let religion be useful for a change: let the Deity sort it out.

That won't solve the problems in the Middle East; it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for a peaceful Middle East. To repeat, the problems in the Middle East can't be solved until there is a resolution to the Israel/Palestine war. And that means Palestinian interests as well as Israeli ones must be recognized and accommodated.

The US needs a Marie friend as well, one that says just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, the US can bomb Iran or Syria or Pakistan or France: but is it really a good idea? Think of the consequences for a moment... When you invade or bomb a country, the people in it fight back. That's fair. When you throw a war, both sides come. That's just the way it is - and sometimes they kill your non-combatant citizens, just the way you kill theirs. Bomb Iran? Don't be surprised when something unpleasant happens in Chicago.

The US also needs to be reminded that one of the problems with democracy is that people get elected you don't like. A Marie friend would remind the US that Iran, Venezuela and Chile are democracies that hold elections and disliking the result is not a good reason to destabilize the country. Less importantly, France and Spain have a perfect right to disagree with the US and having Freedom Fries is silly, not to mention tacky.

There's a lot of things Obama can not do internationally that I would like. There's a lot of things he will do that I will disapprove of. However, Obama is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. His decisions will be fact-based, for the most part, and that has to be an improvement. (I'm trying to be a realist here and recognize nobody around has a halo.)

Despite the dismal state of everything, I voted for Obama with hope and optimism. One of Obama's strengths is that he appeals to the best in people, not the worst. That, as much as anything else, made me vote for Obama with joy.

Going back to Israel for a minute, Israel has some important traditions involved with justice and fairness and egalitarianism and respect for labour as well as pride in their military. Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine, North African countries, even Iran, have secular political traditions that are as much a part of national consciousness as religious fervor. (True of the US as well.) Tolerance of diversity and difference... that's a part of Islam, an important part. That's something Western Europe shares. (Small town America, Palin's part, China, India, have a little trouble with that. But each of them something to bring to the mix as well. China and social solidarity? India and the separation of religious and political power? Small town America? a kind of conservatism, with a small c, that is suspicious of change for the sake of change? I’m irritated with Small Town America currently and will look at their good points next year. It will, however, take a good long time before I see anything good in Alaska.)

If we actually work with what's best in our diverse cultures, religions and political traditions, and accept that all of us might have some wee motes in the old eyeball, we - the world - could actually pull it off. We won't get utopia but we might avoid armageddon...

After the Election

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:46:22 +0100

This has been a remarkably unpleasant election. Scurrilous rumours are part of elections - I remember American history in high school, and learning about a rumour that one of the candidates had a mistress and illegitimate child. His supporters, after he won the election, chanted:
Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?
He's in the White House, Ha Ha Ha

But this election, with Palin and some other Republicans, accusing Obama and Democrats of being 'unpatriotic', of not being 'real Americans'. Talking about how Real Americans live in small towns, are God-fearing and support foreign wars. Places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago are inhabited by some sort of fake, anti-Americans that are deeply suspect.

There's the attacks on Acorn. Acorn registers voters. They turn the registration papers over to the County Registrar. If there are ten filled in forms for John Doe at 10 Main Street. This doesn't give ten votes. John Doe goes to vote, he shows identification, his name is ticked off and he's got one vote. There's no fraud perpetrated and McCain knows this. McCain was a keynote speaker at an Acorn dinner in 2006.

There was widespread illegal pruning of the voters' rolls and intimidation of voters in predominately Democratic districts in Florida in 2000. The Black Caucus in the House of Representatives asked for an investigation - a member of the Senate was required to also sign the petition; no member of the Senate was willing to do so. (Not even Ted Kennedy, which disappointed me. The Democrats establishment said that it would be dangerous to encourage distrust in the honesty of elections...)

In 2004, Diebold machines mis-functioned and there was no paper trail to check electronic voting. In looking at the Ohio election, exit polls were accurate in polling places that were either Republican or had paper ballots. The exit polls were inaccurate in polling places that were traditionally Democratic and had Diebold machines.

There are persistent lies about Obama on the net - they're picked up by Fox News and broadcast. There are claims that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, is anti-American, is tied to radical far left Christian groups... Palin brings these things up in her speeches. McCain doesn't, or at least not as blatantly.

Palin may really believe that anyone that does not share her conservative political and religious views is anti-American - which is an excellent reason she should not be on the Republican ticket. McCain doesn't believe this - and he should not use these ideas for political advantage. McCarthy used smears like this and it was very bad for the United States. How can the Republican Party think that winning an election justifies this? This really is unpatriotic...

Someone is going to win this election. Assume McCain wins. After the attacks on Acorn, the lies told about Obama, the distrust of election procedures by Democrats after 2000 and 2004, what happens if McCain wins? If he does, it will be very close - and he'll have a major part of the country seeing him as having stolen, lied and cheated his way into the White House - whether he did or not. (Whatever the polls say, there is the Bradley effect.) How can McCain govern?

If Obama wins, and I think he'll win big, he's going to have a fairly large section of American voters believe that a dangerous, anti-American terrorist is in the White House. How can Obama govern?

Whoever wins is facing major problems militarily, economically and politically. It would be a lot easier to confront them if the legitimacy of the office holder were not in question.

Blood on the Exchange Floor and Why It Matters

Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:27:44 +0100

I've been getting something of an education in finance the last couple of weeks. I was closer to Palin's Joe Six Pack and Hockey Mom than Champagne Charles and Ballet Mum. What I knew was very vague, based on an economics course at university long, long ago: post Breton Wood, pre de-regulation. If pressed, I could have given a very general definition of selling short and the discount window.

I've always pretty well gone from paycheck to paycheck, my main financial asset a house (well, to be accurate, half a house; joint occupancy/ownership with spouse.) My husband owns a little stock - bought because he likes the companies. He intends to hold the stock for long term growth. I viewed his interest in the stock market much as he viewed my liking for poetry.

Me, my family and the horse we rode in on are pretty straightforward shanty town Irish: never had a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of. Historically, at least. Like the rest of America, the current generation enjoyed the good times and have multiple pots to pee in.

My first reaction to the current economic melt down was purely personal: hmmm... son, secure job he likes, mortgage payment he can easily make. Son-in-law, same. Us: mortgage paid off in two years, one car payment, credit cards always paid at the end of the month. It couldn't hurt us unless we were standing under a bank window.

I said as much to my husband and he snarled right, you're fine unless you want to sell a house, buy a house, pay into a pension fund, have a pension or a job.

I do hope the UK University pension fund has been very, very conservative.

But I did start watching the stock market reports on the news instead of getting a cup of tea before the weather report.

By the time the US Government decided to bail out the banks, I didn't see how they could do anything else. I thought they should have gotten a lot more guarantees from the banks about future good behavior (back to the discount window) and some rules and regulations involving senior management payouts. I worried about Cheney and Friends bagging the loot and running. I didn't like taxing the poor to bail out the rich (first working of the trickle down effect!) but I agreed you can't let all your major investment banks go bust. One, yes, all, no. (Bush said something similar.)

But it kept getting bigger and bigger, this flood of economic disaster. I started watching CNN's business news, even flipping over to Bloomberg occasionally.

Our house is worth 10% less than it was last year. I didn't mind; I don't want to sell my house and I'd be pleased if friends' children could actually afford to buy. Some air lines went bust and others raised their prices. Discomfort there; I like to visit my daughter in San Francisco. But it's better for the environment.

Last night, I watched the Obama - McCain debate. (Everyone but Fox News agreed Obama won.) I watched on CNN International, and almost immediately after the debate they switched to other news. The Asian stock markets showed falling prices. At one point, the analyst on CNN said that the Japanese stock market was in free fall - "and free fall is not a term we use lightly around here. We don't call it free fall until they've lost more than 10% on the value of shares."

The Market has lost confidence, they said. Japan exports finished consumer goods. The US is a major market and Americans can't get the credit to buy new Toyotos and Sony entertainment centers anymore. (That sounded more like prudent behavior on the part of the stock sellers than a lose of confidence to me.) I ended up watching the rest of the night - high drama and fascination. They were waiting for the European and US stock markets to open: would they, too, go into free fall? It was a little like watching Hurricane Katrina approach New Orleans: you knew it was going to hit, just not how bad.

The interconnectedness of things, banks, stock markets, manufacturing, government, jobs, became dramatic and personal. It really is one bloody, interdependent world. (John Dunne, of course, noticed it long before: Poets - 1; bankers - nil.)

About 5:30 AM, one of the CNN analysts gave a maniacal cackle: "What's the season?" he asked his fellow folk on the panel.

The blond said, "Fall..."" puzzled.

He said, "But what comes after Fall?"

"Winter."

I wondered if he was going to make a joke involving "Now is the winter of our discontent..."

"No," he said, "Christmas. The retail section makes most of its sales during the Christmas season."

All those fat cats bastards that ran banks into near receivership are walking away with golden pay out bonuses they can use to buy up shares on the cheap and get richer. Plus cut rate luxury goods for Christmas prezzies while we have shriveled oranges and Brazil nuts in the stocking hung by the single lump coal fire. They've mucked up Christmas as well as the economy; they are not only greedy short term opportunists but Grinches. And I think it's very unlikely their consciences will be touched and they'll give it all back.

Post Convention Angst

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:14:12 +0100

My husband and I sat up and watched the US political conventions -- a very long night, the main speeches begin around 3 AM in the UK. The first night, we watched it on FOX and spent the evening snarling. Next night, CNN - much better. Then we found CSPAN, where they just turned on the camera...

The first night, the salute to Ted Kennedy, set the tone: handing on the baton to a new generation. Ted's speech reflected his speech at the 1980 Convention - the best Convention speech I've ever watched on TV. Ted has been a great senator - probably, a better senator than he would have been president. He’s kept the faith, day in, day out, popular or not. The poor and powerless owe him a lot.

Bill Clinton gave the best speech of the convention - and there were a lot of good speeches. Clinton is the best orator in his generation. Hillary's speech was very good, but when Bill gave his you were reminded of what a real orator can do. It wasn't just beautifully, masterfully, delivered - he framed the whole Democratic argument. Content plus Delivery: Bill delivered.  
In British politics, they say that Michael Heseltine could always find the clitoris of the Tory Party. American politics would never use such imagery, but it suits Bill and the Democrats. Liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, Bill can pitch it to both. Taking out the standing ovations, the speech was probably about 23 minutes. I could have listened for twice that long.   
In the TV hype, the Clinton/Obama dislike was highlighted. Would Hillary/Bill damn Obama with faint praise? Of course not - they’re professionals. The hype actually was kind of good - made the whole thing more exciting and gave CNN something to talk about.  
Joe Biden gave a very good speech as well. It was emotional, passionate, personal. Then Obama came on stage, very informally, acknowledged Bill and Hillary's speeches - very honest and sincere thanks, I thought. The film clip on the US military was very good - led up to Biden's speech and the theme of the evening very well.   
You can tell a real political junkie - I love the roll call at national conventions. "The Great State of Nebraska: Home of the Corn Huskers... etc. etc. etc." Then New Mexico, tension building up, Then, The Great State of New Jersey, the Garden State, industry and mountains and etc. etc. etc. passes to the Great State of Illinois, Home of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama,..." "The Great State of ILlinois passes to The Great State of New York..."   
Then Hillary moved for adoption of Barack Obama by acclimation...   
CNN interviewed assorted African Americans while all the cheering was going on. A kind of standard response, through tears, "I wish my father could have been alive to see this day..." They interviewed Spike Lee, who had been very critical of Bill's role during the primaries. To paraphrase, before Bill's speech, Spike said the man's wife had been running... he'd said some things, well, in the Democratic Party you fight hard and shake hands afterwards. Then, after Bill's speech, Spike was fulsome in his praise.   
It was a good, tribal evening.

Then came the final evening: Obama's speech did what it was supposed to; resemble a State of the Union address.

Then the Democratic Party partied.

A blissful week for the faithful, all in all.

I wonder about that roll call, though. Poor Virginia! How would they introduce their Great State? Home of Thomas Jefferson, of course. But what else? It's been years since the Democrats have gone through the whole roll call. Perhaps, to be fair, they should start at the end of the alphabet next time. If your usual practice is to ignore the roll call, try listening. There's a certain good natured absurdity about it. It's among the more idiosyncratic and surreal Convention practices.

The Republican Convention: I had every intention of watching the whole thing. I couldn't. I kept falling asleep.

The first night: Cancelled because of Gustav. McCain, here, I thought, was slightly wrong-footed. He announced he was going to New Orleans. Both President Bush and Obama announced they were not - it would complicate dealing with the hurricane to have security concerned with them.

Second Night: The Republicans saw Bush give a ten minute speech. Since McCain's running against Bush's eight years, Gustav was very convenient; a reason to keep Bush off the Convention floor. The Faithful may still love him. The American people don't.

Fred Thompson gave a good speech: we ought to vote for McCain because he's suffered for his country. Lieberman gave a good speech: we ought to vote for McCain because he's my friend and the Democrats never appreciated me.

Finally, third night, we got our new VP nominee. One of the people introducing her, a woman, got her last name wrong.

Palin's Speech: Best joke of the convention. The lipstick pit bull/hockey mom joke. She gave a speech misrepresenting most of her actions in office. She attacked Obama's experience, giving rise to the best bumper sticker I've heard about:
Jesus: Community Worker
Pontius Pilot: Governor
Mitt Romney was the neocon choice. They got McCain. Palin appears to have been chosen by McCain in an attempt to (a) avoid Romney as VP; (b) shore up the Fundamentalist Base. He certainly succeeded with A. B? Maybe. But the Fundies really don't like McCain.

Obama and McCain both appeared in a Fundamentalist forum at Saddleback Church and were asked questions by Rev. Rick Warren. Obama appeared first. McCain was supposed to be in a 'cone of silence', so he would not have the advantage of knowing the questions in advance. He was driving around in his car. The program was being broadcast. We are expected to believe the honour system prevented him from listening - and his aides from listening, then prompting him on his answers.

The Fundamentalist audience was polite to Obama. He fails the litmus test - banning all abortions. This is the one Fundie position that McCain probably honestly supports and has done for years. But are Fundamentalist Christians really so totally focused on one issue? McCain seems to think that morality, for the Fundamentalist, begins and ends with reproduction and sexual preference. Thus his choice of Palin for VP. It's an insult to women to think that any woman will do to attract the female vote. It's an insult to Fundamentalists to think that as long as a candidate wants to ban abortion and bash gays their votes are guaranteed. A Fundmentalists interviewed by Fox suggested that was not the case. He said neither political party completely satisfied what he wanted - he was concerned with an Unjust War, lack of Health Care for the poor, and a lot of other issues.

McCain's speech: His campaign strategy is to run against Bush, claim he will make changes. Look at his web site and Obama's for specifics. You can't blame a candidate for not going into the nitty gritty details (i.e., what he'll actually do) in a convention speech. On the web site, you expect more. McCain's website shows more of the last eight years - confirming tax cuts for the wealthy, an energy policy that differs little from Bush's. Obama does give specifics.

The TV and newspapers say the American public love Palin. She's just like them, not one of those elites. (Jon Stewart gave the best answer to that particular charge against Obama: I certainly hope the President of the US is a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than I am.) Palin has made the Republicans look a lot more interesting and exciting. I can't decide if it was a very clever political move by McCain or really stupid.

So now we move into the end game. Like other Democrats, I'm terrified: voter fraud, swiftboating, all the rest of it. If McCain is crushed, and crushed big, the Republicans get back their party. There used to be a strong strand in the Republican Party (Bush Sr. was a member) that was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. That appears, from the Convention, to have disappeared. These people appear to be socially very conservative, fiscally irresponsible. If McCain wins... the US will continue policies initiated by Bush and things will get very bad for most people.

I think, at this point, I just want it to be November 6.

Politics and Art

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:25:13 +0100

There is a street in Bremen, Germany, the Bötterstrasse, just off the main square: a short alley, then, over the entry, a gilded bas relief of a figure with a sword. Very shiny, very big, very neo-classical, the semi-sculpture glows with its gilding. The bas relief, entitled The Light Bringer, was created by Bernhard Hoetger but it was funded by Ludwig Roselius.

Roselius was a German industrialist who supported and contributed to Hitler. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of contemporary art - especially the work of Paula Modersohn-Becker. He bought up two abandoned, boarded-up streets in Bremen in the twenties and established a museum to show Modersohn-Becker's work and had the two streets re-built and decorated in the expressionist style.

Hitler had firm views on art. He disapproved of the "Bötterstrasse Kunst" and declared it "entartet" -- "corrupt"; "degenerate". Hitler wanted it destroyed. To placate Hitler, Roselius had the neo-classical figure of The Light Bringer placed over the entry to the streets. This didn't quite work - but then Roselius pointed out that children needed to see degenerate art so they could recognize it. The school children of Bremen took field trips to Bötterstrasse and the Modersohn-Becker Museum so they would not be deceived and seduced by Expressionism.

So, in 2008, we are amused by a clever ruse and pleased that some fine paintings and two delightful, charming streets survived.

There is a museum in Groningen, the Groningen Museum, built on an island in one of the canals, a building that is totally contemporary. It is currently showing an exhibition, "Go China!". Part of the exhibition is entitled “New World Order”.

We went down a circular staircase to the main exhibition rooms. I noticed a glow of florescent lights on one side and ignored it to enter the first room. After going round, I realized what the lights were - a tank sculpted of florescent lights, aimed at the rest of the exhibit. Think of China, think of tanks, think of Tiananmon Square. If I'd noticed, the first room would not have been such a shock.

The initial museum card summed up the organizing principle of the exhibition: modern Chinese artists using Western, European styles and techniques - Impressionism, Pop Art, Cubism, Photography, Cinema. The time covered by the exhibition was around 1968 to the present. The techniques were familiar but the way they were used was not. Part of the shock came from simple cognitive dissonance; imagine eel ice cream.

The emotional subtexts: rage, cynicism, mockery, heart break - it was a very uncomfortable exhibition to view. I think there was one painting there I could actually live with; the rest were too painful to see. The artists portrayed what they lived with and (like the florescent tank) the sensibility was formed by a part of modern Chinese history.

During the Cultural Revolution, Chinese artists were sent to the country side to "learn from the peasants". The first room had paintings by several of these artists. They felt like early Impressionist paintings - realism plus luminosity, objective portrayal plus sensibility.

But an artist can illuminate something painful and ugly realistically as well as something pretty. I remember one picture from the first room: an outdoor scene. A middle-aged brutal man leaning over a woman, apparently having fully clothed sex out doors. Her face was turned away; her expression showed contempt, boredom, dislike. It did not seem to me to be a rape - rather a woman putting up with her marital duty, a man exercising his marital rights. I saw a physical function perfunctorily satisfied. It could have been an illustration on the title page of a book by Hobbes.

I didn't take any notes while going around - I didn't buy a museum guide. After two hours, I just wanted to leave. Too confrontational, too painful, too immediately relevant. By the time something makes its way to Tate Britain or the National Gallery, you have an idea of what to expect. It's a little like reading Booker nominees. It's probably worth reading but you probably won't be blown out of the water. For me, Go China! was a blown-out-of-the-water sort of experience.

It was very political - not in the sense of sloganizing (although the pop art section presented some very cynical Mao-figure-in-the-background comments on that) but in a non-ideological challenge to the political process. These are people without power being portrayed - and the consequences of being without power are not something middle-class people like me are very comfortable with viewing. Some of Hogarth shows the same savagery but Hogarth’s stuff is always so full of people and images that the feeling of personal portrayal is missing. His people are types; these look like actual portraits.

Perhaps Hitler was right; Art can challenge the powerful. When Art insists on the validity of individual vision, and the right to present it, it challenges social and political consensus, whether it's the US Senate and Mapplethorpe, Hitler and Modersohn-Becker or the Chinese oligarchy and not-identified Chinese artists. Or, for that matter, Leni Riefenstahl and her film of the 1932 Nuremberg rally or D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation -- serious, significant art, with a moral subtext (or explicit text) that challenges democratic rather than fascist consensus.

I wonder what the school children of Bremen thought... I wonder what the school children of Atlanta would have thought if they'd seen Birth of a Nation.

Politics is about society; how a group of people legitimates the distribution of power. Of course Art can be political, can challenge consensus, assert the value of individual experience, the right to dissent. But Morality now... I’m comfortable with a challenge to the views of an American fundamentalist Christian about homosexuality -- but what about challenges to ideas about race and equality? Celebrations of anti-semitism? Art and Morality, Art and Ethics, Art and what I see as the proper way of being a human being... Beauty in celebration of my conceptualized Evil. What then?

I suppose the only response I can make to challenges to my own ethical system is to assume that censorship, in general, is more harmful to the public and social good than that which it censors.

Understanding America

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:35:11 +0100

I have been slightly irritated at my country of origin lately. Well, it's a long lately - since G.W.Bush, Jr. got elected and it's more than slightly.

I try to keep my sense of proportion; after all, he stole two elections. But he couldn't have stolen them unless it had been very, very close. There is The Daily Show. But there is also Fox and Friends. Obama got the nomination. But he hasn't won the election. The US is starting to look at their news media critically. But large numbers of people believe any rumour that surfs the net - the rumours don't even have to be consistent. How can some people believe both that Obama is a radical black Christian AND a Muslim? The US is starting to think that global warming is more than an ecologist plot. But they think that if it's real there will be a scientific fix. (Back to cognitive dissonance: if you ignore everything reputable scientists say, how can you take it for granted science can fix anything that comes up???)

I cannot decide if I am Chicken Little or a Grumpy Old Woman.

Every night, I put a cd on to listen to while I go to sleep. Last night, I got a selection of country western songs. I like C&W. Narrative combined with frequently clever lyrics; contradictory messages, I admit. Sometimes you forgive him because he's just a man. Sometimes you beg the other woman to give him back. Sometimes you say you feel bad now but By God you won't in another week. Good solid relationship stuff, and some of them are even happy.

Last night, I heard the beginning of a song, a trucker song. I love trucker songs. There was C.W. McCall, rough voice on the cb:

Ah, breaker one-nine, this here's the rubber duck. you gotta copy on me, pig pen, c'mon? ah, yeah, 10-4, pig pen, fer shure, fer shure. by golly, it's clean clear to flag town, c'mon. yeah, that Big 10-4 there, pig pen, yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy. mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a convoy...

I remembered driving from Calgary to Austin, sitting in a roadside cafe with my two children, listening to a trucker talking to the waitress about the speed limit:

"Them boys in Texas are just plain crazy. You don’t expect that in Texas."

It was during the first hike in oil prices and Nixon had imposed a 55 mile an hour speed limit on interstate highways. The fuel savings and savings in lives in traffic accidents were considerable. People were not happy. Especially truckers. They wanted to swoosh down the highway, going very very fast. 80 miles an hour, 90 miles an hour., 110 miles an hour. Demon trucks. The song continued:

 Was the dark of the moon on the sixth of june In a kenworth pullin' logs Cab-over pete with a reefer on And a jimmy haulin' hogs We is headin' for bear on i-one-oh 'bout a mile outta shaky town I says, "pig pen, this here's the rubber duck. "and i'm about to put the hammer down."

There's the funny names - rubber duck, pig pen -- there's the specialized vocabulary, understandable but giving a sense of belonging to an in-group; a slightly lawless in group, getting ready to put the hammer down.

[chorus] 'cause we got a little convoy Rockin' through the night. Yeah, we got a little convoy, Ain't she a beautiful sight? Come on and join our convoy Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way. We gonna roll this truckin' convoy 'cross the u-s-a. Convoy!

E pluribus unum in action! All them truckers forming up in a convoy so they can swoosh rather than observe the speed limit. But the authorities do not ignore this swooshing.

By the time we got into tulsa town, We had eighty-five trucks in all. But they's a roadblock up on the cloverleaf, And them bears was wall-to-wall. Yeah, them smokies is thick as bugs on a bumper; They even had a bear in the air! I says, "callin' all trucks, this here's the duck. "we about to go a-huntin' bear."

Battle has been joined. The bears get re-inforcements and so do the truckers.

Well, we rolled up interstate 44 Like a rocket sled on rails. We tore up all of our swindle sheets, And left 'em settin' on the scales. By the time we hit that chi-town, Them bears was a-gettin' smart: They'd brought up some reinforcements From the illinoise national guard. There's armored cars, and tanks, and jeeps, And rigs of ev'ry size. Yeah, them chicken coops was full'a bears And choppers filled the skies. Well, we shot the line and we went for broke With a thousand screamin' trucks An' eleven long-haired friends a' jesus In a chartreuse micra-bus.

Off they go, in their eighteen-wheelers with the deep-throated horns, co-ordinating their plans with cb radios, a mad dash across the United States on the interstate highways. It's an exaggeration of factual occurrences; truckers did form long convoys and challenge the state police. Cross a state line and you're, sorta, home free.

Well, we laid a strip for the jersey shore And prepared to cross the line I could see the bridge was lined with bears But i didn't have a dog-goned dime. I says, "pig pen, this here's the rubber duck. "we just ain't a-gonna pay no toll." So we crashed the gate doing ninety-eight I says "let them truckers roll, 10-4."

Winning free, with a final triumphant chorus:

'cause we got a mighty convoy Rockin' through the night. Yeah, we got a mighty convoy, Ain't she a beautiful sight? Come on and join our convoy Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way. We gonna roll this truckin' convoy 'cross the u-s-a.

So how come US citizens will defy the law, roar out across the country, to challenge a speed limit and care nothing about, or at least refuse to challenge, the loss of civil liberties? The kinds of things people will come in masses to object to are interesting. The French are deeply suspicious of government - any government - left, right or center. They are an example to us all, if a little unrealistic. The English come out against taxes. And the War in Iraq. And to support the miners. But when they lose they go home. And, actually, the truckers lost, just like the anti-war protesters. At least in Texas. The Texas Rangers would lurk -- many cars, many Rangers - just over the top of a hill. As the convoy crested, they came out, one ranger to one truck, and gave ‘em all tickets. In the long run, I suppose the truckers won - the speed limit went back up.

I suppose if I want to draw some kind of moral here it’s about what’s important to a country comes out in their popular music. Truckers, in the US, and cars in general - the Beachboys and their little GTO’s. Does anybody else write as much about cars? I don’t know. I can’t think of an English song about cars...

In the 1930's, there were a lot of folk songs about bank robbers. Bonnie and Clyde were admired. Banks were foreclosing on farms and at the same time going broke, with depositors losing everything. Like the song says, there's some men rob you with gun, others with a fountain pen. It was a very passive admiration; people sang songs, they didn't rob banks. We've still got the songs - but nobody admires bank robbers. I know I ought to disapprove of truckers in convoys. I ought to be supporting those bears in the air but bears in the air or on the bridges just don't have any good songs going for them.

Maybe Blue America and Red America could come together over music...

Hmmmm.... what's Bruce Springsteen doing these days?

Here's the complete lyrics to Convoy, as performed by C.W.McCall, written by C.W. McCall, B. Fries, C. Davis.  [on the cb] Ah, breaker one-nine, this here's the rubber duck. you gotta copy on me, pig pen, c'mon? ah, yeah, 10-4, pig pen, fer shure, fer shure. by golly, it's clean clear to flag town, c'mon. yeah, that Big 10-4 there, pig pen, yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy. mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a convoy...  Was the dark of the moon on the sixth of june In a kenworth pullin' logs Cab-over pete with a reefer on And a jimmy haulin' hogs We is headin' for bear on i-one-oh 'bout a mile outta shaky town I says, "pig pen, this here's the rubber duck. "and i'm about to put the hammer down."  [chorus] 'cause we got a little convoy Rockin' through the night. Yeah, we got a little convoy, Ain't she a beautiful sight? Come on and join our convoy Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way. We gonna roll this truckin' convoy 'cross the u-s-a. Convoy!   [on the cb] Ah, breaker, pig pen, this here's the duck. and, you wanna back off them hogs? yeah, 10-4, 'bout five mile or so. ten, roger. them hogs is gettin' in-tense up here.  By the time we got into tulsa town, We had eighty-five trucks in all. But they's a roadblock up on the cloverleaf, And them bears was wall-to-wall. Yeah, them smokies is thick as bugs on a bumper; They even had a bear in the air! I says, "callin' all trucks, this here's the duck. "we about to go a-huntin' bear."  [chorus] 'cause we got a great big convoy Rockin' through the night. Yeah, we got a great big convoy, Ain't she a beautiful sight? Come on and join our convoy Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way. We gonna roll this truckin' convoy 'cross the u-s-a. Convoy!   [on the cb] Ah, you wanna give me a 10-9 on that, pig pen? negatory, pig pen; you're still too close. yeah, them hogs is startin' to close up my sinuses. mercy sakes, you better back off another ten.  Well, we rolled up interstate 44 Like a rocket sled on rails. We tore up all of our swindle sheets, And left 'em settin' on the scales. By the time we hit that chi-town, Them bears was a-gettin' smart: They'd brought up some reinforcements From the illinoise national guard. There's armored cars, and tanks, and jeeps, And rigs of ev'ry size. Yeah, them chicken coops was full'a bears And choppers filled the skies. Well, we shot the line and we went for broke With a thousand screamin' trucks An' eleven long-haired friends a' jesus In a chartreuse micra-bus.   [on the cb] Ah, rubber duck to sodbuster, come over. yeah, 10-4, sodbuster? lissen, you wanna put that micra-bus right behind that suicide jockey? yeah, he's haulin' dynamite, and he needs all the help he c T.  Well, we laid a strip for the jersey shore And prepared to cross the line I could see the bridge was lined with bears But i didn't have a dog-goned dime. I says, "pig pen, this here's the rubber duck. "we just ain't a-gonna pay no toll." So we crashed the gate doing ninety-eight I says "let them truckers roll, 10-4."  [chorus] 'cause we got a mighty convoy Rockin' through the night. Yeah, we got a mighty convoy, Ain't she a beautiful sight? Come on and join our convoy Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way. We gonna roll this truckin' convoy 'cross the u-s-a.

Convoy! ah, 10-4, pig pen, what's your twenty? Convoy! omaha? well, they oughta know what to do with them hogs out there fer shure. well, mercy Convoy! sakes, good buddy, we gonna back on outta here, so keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your... Convoy! tail. we'll catch you on the flip-flop. this here's the rubber duck on the side. Convoy! we gone. 'bye,'bye.  

That Cartoon!

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:52:06 +0100

That Cartoon first appeared on the news Monday, when the New Yorker hit the news stands. The New Yorker's cover cartoon: Obama, turbaned and Arab robed, giving his wife, with bandoliers crisscrossing her chest, an automatic weapon on her back, bumping knuckles in what one of Fox's Blond Bimbos described as a 'terrorist salute'. Tuesday, the usual media frenzy: Obama's people said it was objectionable and tasteless. So did McCain's people. Wednesday: cable talking heads talked on. This morning, I got up and wandered down the stairs for the coffee I'm now drinking. My husband had one of the 24 hour cable news shows on and the resident expert was explaining why the story had 'legs': the American people were not dumb rubes that thought Obama was a Muslim but it reminded them that his father and stepfather were Muslims...so there are legitimate questions raised...

Jon Stewart focused on media reportage of the cartoon on The Daily Show Tuesday night. He showed clips from the last couple of years of all the news channels raising THOSE issues: Is Obama a Muslim? Is he/his wife unpatriotic? Does he have ties to terrorist organizations? The technique: bring up a totally unfounded allegation, put a question mark after it, and discuss it without ever actually saying it's totally untrue. Putting the question mark makes it alright, though.

Stewart then gave the response he thought Obama's people should have given: It's a cartoon, a satirical cartoon. No, I'm not upset. We know who gets upset by cartoons, don't we? Muslim fundamentalists...

Jon Stewart is a comfort.

Al Jazeera is another comfort. I spent yesterday in the front room upstairs, where the main television lives. There is a reason the TV can't be turned off; I forget it, but follow my husband's dicta where things with plugs are concerned.

My husband was gone for the day so I turned the room upside down to clean it. Moved all the furniture to one side and vacuumed each section seven times. (There's something magical about going over the same spot in different directions seven times. It gets a carpet as clean as it's going to get without shampooing.) Dusted. Cleaned Mist's cage. Switched the news channel to Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera plays the same clips over throughout the day, like the other cable news stations. But they are real news. Yesterday, the major news story was the exchange of Israeli and Lebanese prisoners in a deal negotiated by Hezbollah. Four men captured in the 2006 war in Lebanon and a man convicted of murder were exchanged for the bodies of two dead Israeli soldiers. All the factions in Lebanese politics joined in the celebration - including those opposed to Hezbollah. Al Jazeera gave the reason for the celebration: someone Lebanese had actually forced Israel to do something - not US pressure, not EU pressure, Lebanese pressure.

Al Jazeera also interviewed the families of the two Israeli soldiers whose bodies were returned. The families had hoped the men were still alive; they got coffins instead of their boys. A newscaster interviewed an Israeli spokesperson: he could see no reason why the Lebanese should celebrate the return of a convicted murderer - convicted of five murders including that of a three year old, head bashed in with a rifle butt.

Families of both sides were treated sympathetically, spokespersons of both sides were asked some uncomfortable questions.

Al Jazeera also covered a train wreck in Egypt, Malaysia's trial of Anwar, the economic news, and did a piece on why Arabic journalists and television reported the news from Darfur so badly. (Answer to the last: they're really uncomfortable with fellow Muslims committing such horrific crimes.) Good solid reporting, all of it.

The BBC World News on radio and Al Jazeera give the best coverage of news outside Europe and North America of any of the media; they include things other than genocide, which is both very useful and nice.

Yesterday, Al Jazeera did not mention That Cartoon.

A Taste of London

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:05:55 +0100

There are two tv cooking shows I watch every year when they come around - Masterchef and The Great British Menu. After watching Masterchef, I know I'd never be a professional chef. I'd thought of professional chefs as, basically, home cooks with very big pots. Some of the people on Masterchef begin as good home cooks. That's not where they end up if they make the final.

Masterchef shows the beginning stage of a professional career. The Great British Menu shows professional chefs, already well known, where the Masterchef contestants, if they are lucky, skillful and work very hard, end up.

Different chefs from different sections of the UK compete to present a menu to represent Britain in preparing a meal for a specific audience. This year, the brief was to present a menu showing the future of British cooking. Some of the usual restrictions were lifted. British cooking takes advantage of techniques and ingredients from all over the world, and this was allowed this year.

Despite enjoying the Great British Menu, I still never considered paying the cost of a top London restaurant. According to an online restaurant guide, some of the chefs on British Menu work in restaurants that have an average price of over £100 a person for a three course dinner plus house wine.

No meal is worth that kind of money. Even if I was very rich, I think I'd feel entirely too guilty thinking about the starving children in X to spend that much on a meal. Around £40 to £50 is the most I would consider - and I don't think I've ever paid that.

A Taste of London is a food fair, held in Regents Park in London, with a chance to sample items from places you’d never consider going. Top chefs offer a taste of three items from their restaurant menus. There are cooking demonstrations, stands that sell wine and food (and deliver), demonstrations of expensive cooking equipment, samples of apples and cheese and bread. You buy a ticket to be admitted during a specified four hour slot. Once admitted, you use "crowns" to purchase other things, like the restaurant samples. It's not cheap. The restaurant samples cost between £3 and £5 each. Michael and I went last year, had a good time, and decided to go again.

We caught the train up to London yesterday to A Taste of London. I had downloaded the menus and chefs offering samples and had a basic list of which booths I wanted to visit. Some of my choices were based on The Great British Menu; Atul Kochbar and Chris Horridge. Others were simply restaurants I had heard of - Le Gavroche, Cafe Spice Nemeste, and Refettorio. It was a very loose plan - just stands to look for, without commitment as it were.

A major part of the Taste of London experience is standing and walking. We never found Chris Horridge's stand. Refettorio, once we found it, wasn't appealing. Reviews on the others are mixed.

Le Gavroche offered braised beef in red wine and creamed potatoes. It was a bad choice for a day like this. The food was cold and a bit dried out from standing.

Nemeste had chosen their menu more intelligently - we got four tiny puris filled with crushed potatoes and a selection of chutneys. It was meant to be served cold and was good.

By the time we went desert hunting, I abandoned my plan. I got burnt honey and buttermilk pudding with fresh strawberries because there was a free table and I wanted to sit down. It tasted just like it sounds: nice creamy milk pudding with sharpish strawberries.

Michael wandered off and came back with a chocolate desert from L'Atalier du Joe Robuchon. It was served in a plastic glass, layers of different sorts of chocolate. In terms of quality and quantity, Michael said it was worth more than the £3. he paid for it. His desert beat mine - no competition. It looked superb. The online average cost of a meal there, £70. was almost reasonable if the rest of the menu was as good.

The revelation was the sample we got from Benares, Atul Kochbar's restaurant. I liked him on British Menu because he seemed like a very nice mine; funny, a sense of humour and very clever. The other GBM competitor on my list, Horridge, came across as a pretentious prat. But a prat that cooked beautiful, interesting food. Horridge you might hire to cook. Atul you would ask to dinner.

I wasn't expecting anything remarkable from Atul's cooking. I've been to a lot of South Asian restaurants, in India and Pakistan as well as here and the US. I thought it would taste pretty much like the best of these restaurants food. Michael likes South Asian food and wanted to try it as well. (He couldn't understand why someone would name their restaurant Benares, a city that specializes in disposing of the dead; still a puzzle.)

Then we got the food. I had squid salad with coconut passion fruit dressing and Michael had chicken tikka. Both were good choices for the place: the salad is prepared earlier and chilled. The chicken is marinated but cooked on demand.

I'm not a squid fan. Nine times out of ten, it tastes like rubber bands. This was superb. It was the best squid I've ever eaten. The dressing was perfect, a blend of flavours that remained distinct but worked together. Michael said the chicken tikka was the best chicken tikka he'd ever had. The judges on the Great British Menu consistently talk of Atul's mastery of spices and flavours. I tasted what they meant. It was 'synergy' cooking, where the whole is greater than the parts.

It was a Babette's Feast moment for both of us; an epiphany.

After buying food, we had fourteen crowns left between us. We were stuffed. When I'd first come in, I'd seen a stand, Action Against Hunger, that is a food charity. They had a sack of donated goods on offer for £12. We agreed we'd get the sack if they'd accept a combination of crowns and pounds.

The woman at the stand was very willing to accept the mix.

"Did you eat anything special while you were here?" she asked.

"Yes. The stuff from Benares. It was fantastic."

"Oh, good," she said. "Atul Kochbar is the nicest chef I've ever met."

She told us Atul had helped with a fundraising event involving children. He'd prepared recipes for the children using no more than five ingredients with using skills children could master. He brought his staff and demonstrated and it was a great day.

Michael and I ended up the day with a glass of champagne in the British Air tent.

We discussed the day and I said I'd watch for a special online two for one offer to Benares Restaurant.

Michael said, "We won't wait for a deal. We'll book and go for our anniversary."

My restaurant guide says the average cost of a meal at Benares is £62. I still refuse to pay £120, but I'm willing to pay £62 a person once a year for food as good as that we ate at the Taste of London.

First Ladies

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:10:55 +0100

Presidential candidates’ wives are expected to dress smartly, wear a little strand of pearls and look adoringly at their husbands. Nancy Reagan was the ideal type. Jackie Kennedy was a variation; she added sex appeal and perceived intelligence. Wives who were personalities themselves got a bad press - not just a modern innovation. Mrs. Lincoln was accused of being a drunk, Mrs. Wilson was abused by the press, Ford and Carter's wives both strongly criticized. They were still treated better by the press than Eleanor Roosevelt. FDR's wife was savaged by some - but she was equally loved by others. Hillary Clinton was criticized for her dress, her political aspirations and not baking chocolate chip cookies. The media is circling around Obama's wife. (At least Hillary was never accused of being unpatriotic.)

Candidates’ wives are damned if they're politically astute and patronized if they show no such awareness. I sympathize with one of Bush's twin daughters, reported to have staged a temper tantrum when he first decided to run for president. She said it would change her life. She was right; it did. The usual idiocies of eighteen year olds were public knowledge. She was better off than Chelsea Clinton, whose appearance was ridiculed. (The Bush girl might have been a drunk, but she was a pretty blonde drunk.)

I daydream about what I'd like to hear from a potential first lady; something along these lines:

My husband's running for President. I think he's a good man, a good husband and will be a good president. I'm going to vote for him. However, he's the candidate, not me. I'm not particularly interesting, I don't give him political advise and I have no intention of having a press secretary or campaigning. He's got his job, I've got mine. I teach third graders. I think that's an important job. So does he.   If he's elected, professionals run the white house - not wives of presidents. I'll attend state dinners as long as there aren't too many of them and as long as I'm not expected to have a different dress for every one. I'll go on foreign state visits during school vacations. I'll be polite and say how interesting and avoid saying anything even slightly interesting myself.   This is the last press release I ever intend to issue. I would greatly appreciate the public, and the press, understanding that they are selecting a President, not a First Lady, and focus on that procedure.   Thank you.