Grossly exaggerated editorial in the Guardian today about the choice of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's candidate for Vice President.

Enthusiasm for Rupert Murdoch; a "lunatic" approach to economics; negligent proposals that "would end in the deaths of many poor Americans"; the prospective trashing of American science, American veterans, the American military; and a pandering to the "foaming reactionary fringe".

Had this editorial been written with sincerity one would have to conclude that the writer was stupid.

Only stupidity or fear could have provoked such invective.

As it is not the Guardian's style to be stupid it would appear that the newspaper is afraid of Mr Ryan.

I know little about American politics, but even I can see (from thousands of miles away) that this is someone interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-us-elections?INTCMP=SRCH 

Translating the British by Carol Ann Duffy has been in my mind

Since Saturday the poem Translating the British by Carol Ann Duffy has been in my mind.

On a first reading it appears to be just doggerel, scorned and jeered at by journalist Nick Cohen and his coterie.

Is it possible that someone as sophisticated and sensitive as Carol Ann Duffy would produce poetry little better than a Madonna lyric (a list of names with McGonagallesque rhymes attached viz "They had style, they had grace; Rita Hayworth gave good face; Lauren, Katherine, Lana too; Bette Davis, we love you" etc).

And then today, re-reading Translating the British, it occurred to me that Carol Ann Duffy had produced in poetry a satire of Danny Boyle's left-wing usurpation of the Opening Ceremony.

Sedition of the seditionaires is very deep.

http://afroml.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/olympian-poem-by-carol-ann-duffy.html

I have a small mole on the back of my neck that itches a lot.

Have just tried to book an appointment to see my doctor to get it checked and have been told that because so many doctors are on holiday in August they just have block bookings where you go along and sit and wait and take your chance on how long you have to sit there.

These doctors are paid on average £120k per year.

Perhaps along with the pyjama-clad children and funky nurses the Olympic Opening Ceremony could have featured huddled masses enduring "block bookings" and gate-keeper surgery receptionists turning people away unless they are actually expiring on the premises.

Ceremony

In retrospect one has to say that both the opening ceremony and the closing ceremony were superfluous to the London Olympics, and you might almost say they were irrelevant.

Both seemed to have been "conceptualised" by PR company Perfect Curve.

Not sure what to make of the Closing Ceremoney.

But on the basis that it irritated many of the people who deserve to be irritated I think we can call it a success.

Looking at various Twitter sites, lots of people are saying the Closing Ceremony is bad.

Is there an unofficial campaign to slight the Closing Ceremony so that the Opening Ceremony (with its ideology) can be bigged up?

Sorry if that sounds suspicious.

I am currently watching the Olympic Closing Ceremony on BBC1.

Olympian poem by Carol Ann Duffy

It is a matter of course that a poem written by the official Poet Laureate immediately enters the canon of twenty-first century English literature.

Therefore the Olympian poem by Carol Ann Duffy, appearing on the front page of today's Guardian, deserves serious study (you might need to click on the image to enlarge it).

The last line quotes the Chancellor George Osborne. 

The poem needs to be read several times before the meanings become apparent - and they will not be the immediate conclusions that this is about government spending.

Nick Cohen on his Twitter site is indulging in sniggering:

All other considerations are completely unimportant

Obviously the American election is nothing to do with me.  And in any case the choice between Democrats and Republicans often seems like choosing between the left-wing and the right-wing of the British Conservative Party.  But in my opinion the most important thing to know about Paul Ryan is that he is pro-life - beside that fact all other considerations are completely unimportant.

David Frum, writing for Newsweek, has other factors:  http://magazine-directory.com/Newsweek.htm

Update:

Whatever his detractors say, Paul Ryan does at least seem to have an integrated view of the world, a complete philosophical outlook - he seems to be someone important because of what he is rather than (as is the norm with politicians) what he is promising to become.

I thought this article by Nate Silver was interesting:  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/?hp

Lack of school playing fields was not the issue

I was educated at a comprehensive school and my experience of sports is that the three PE teachers were interested in their football and rugby teams (about forty boys out of a school population of 1,200) and that was it.

No-one else mattered and no-one else was taught anything.

For instance, there were lots of free weights in a large storage area and I never saw them used once.

Typically PE was two afternoons per week, with several classes (30 or so to a class) taking part.  We would be split up into different football matches and the PE teachers would look after one match (with their star players) and the rest of us were just expected to get on with it.  Same with rugby. 

Only one summer term in all the time I was at the school did we do athletics (which I was quite good at). 

A few boys got to play tennis but no idea how they managed it, except that the really keen tennis guy was the son of one of the teachers, and like most teachers' sons got special treatment.

Lack of school playing fields was not the issue.

The problem was the teachers not doing the job they were paid to do.

Lazy worthless teachers.

Young, Bright and on the Right directed by Alisa Pomeroy

When I noticed the documentary Young, Bright and on the Right directed by Alisa Pomeroy had been mentioned as a Guardian Pick of the Day I thought that it might be worth looking at.  Not because the Guardian's Guide is a reliable arbiter of what to watch on television (it is anything but that).  Mainly because I suspected they might have an agenda in drawing attention to this programme.

Predictably the documentary revealed two foppish students with highly exaggerated world views.  It would be hard to imagine any more stereotypical portrayal of Conservative students in a production that seemed solely designed to provoke anti-Conservative prejudices.  It was a 2012 equivalent of Jude Süss (and yes, I do know Alisa Pomeroy is Jewish - it is because she is Jewish that she should know better than to produce work in a Veit Harlan style, especially as she has previously targeted other examples of society's "freaks" and "weirdos" in her documentaries).

Equally predictably the documentary was seized upon by left-wing commentators.

Nick Cohen, on his Twitter microblog, predicted that the documentary would affect the Conservative vote in marginal constituencies, with the implication that it would swing the next election.  On the face of it this is a very silly remark.  I do not know the audience figures for Young, Bright and on the Right but I would doubt that they were so large they would have an electoral effect.  But Nick Cohen's Tweet does reveal a level of wish-fulfilment bordering on desperation.  Is the Labour party so bereft of ideas that the only way they can win is through negative campaigning about their "toff" opponents?  If that is the case then there is little hope for the Left.

Above:  part of Sam Wollaston's review in today's Guardian.

Sam Wollaston devoted a page (a whole page) to the documentary in today's Guardian, drawing attention to the many ways in which the subjects of the documentary damned themselves.  For instance, one of the students says "port" repeatedly (but you do not hear whether he has been prompted to say port - my guess is that he was being urged on by the film-makers).  One of the students is supposed to have manipulated the media - except that the media seemed to be manipulating him.

I'm not a fan of Oxbridge.  And I don't think teenagers are particularly worth much attention.  But I felt sorry for these two guys obviously being set-up by an exploitative production and then being devoured by a slaverous commentariat. 

The reason these two individuals (both in their way from broken homes, and both having had a hard upbringing) have "an unhealthy interest in power" is probably because they feel personally so powerless.  Anyone from a working-class background will immediately empathise with that feeling.  And who can blame them for wanting to join the elite so that they can assume power and crush the people who previously tormented them.

Isn't that what Margaret Thatcher did?


https://twitter.com/NickCohen4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/aug/09/young-bright-and-on-the-right

Why does Eddie Mair feel compelled to introduce the Newsnight headlines standing with his hands in his pockets?

Is this some kind of differentiation to make him seem different from the other presenters? (like the slobby way Paul Mason sometimes appears without a tie).

If Eddie Mair is unsure what to do with his hands perhaps they could give him a clipboard to hold.

These people are paid a lot of money from public funds to appear on television, so why do they show such contempt for their audience?

Or is this some kind of protest against bourgeois conventions?

Stop and search

In a letter published by today's Independent a collective of groups is calling for stop and search powers to be removed from the police on the grounds that they are damaging relations between young people and society.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/09/stop-and-search-an-open-letter-to-theresa-may-mp-nick-herbert-mp-and-sir-bernard-hogan-howe/

Perhaps local councils should carry out referendums in their areas allowing the validation (or not) of local stop and search powers for the police.

That would remove any doubt about whether a local community supports the principle of stop and search.

It would also remove any pressure on the police as they will be clearly acting on the wishes of the local people (my guess is that if asked a local community would grant almost unlimited powers to the police to stop crime).

Newington Estate near Elephant & Castle

A quick look round the Newington Estate near Elephant & Castle.

Plain 1970s architecture, the stark geometric shapes denuded of all surface interest.  Cheap yellow bricks.  It looks as if the architect had been determined to design a completely souless environment without joy or personality.

Social housing for the deserving poor perhaps, but the deserving poor must never forget they are beholden to the state for their subsistence, and on no account must they be indulged with fripperies such as architectural embellishments.

A generally safe and well-maintained place to live.  Anti-social issues are mainly due to the boredom consequent to youth unemployment.  For many unemployed people with low educational achievement the past is a blank and the future merely a continuation of the present.

Some strange alliances

Following Paul Mason's endorsement of The Sun on Newsnight yesterday the same newspaper was quoted approving by Hugh Muir in the Guardian today (above).

You might say that Hugh Muir's regular column in the Guardian is just as bigoted and biased as anything you might find in The Sun (but in a different way and for a different audience) so it could be a case of like calling to like.

But it would seem that the mood of hyper-nationalism generated by the Olympic Games (traditional nationalism in The Sun and what you might call social nationalism among the Left) is making for some strange alliances.

I draw comfort from the fact that the Church of England has today announced that it is unethical even to hold News International shares.

One cannot touch pitch and not be defiled (as they say).

The monkeys are in raptures

Yesterday's Newsnight remains in my mind.

Did Paul Mason really produce a copy of The Sun and read from it as evidence to an argument he was making?

Is The Sun to be dignified, by inclusion and quotation on Newsnight, as a reliable and impartial source of accurate information?

What effect will the Newsnight aura of respectability have on The Sun itself - I visualise the scene in Kipling's The Jungle Book where the monkeys are in raptures because someone noticed them.

Rather confusing report by Paul Mason on Newsnight just now.

He was boasting about the comprehensive education system achieving eight gold medals for Britain in the Olympics (I counted them as he listed the names).

As the United Kingdom has won a total of eighteen gold medals, how is eight a triumph for comprehensive education? (given that the overwhelming majority of British schools are comprehensives and that statistically the sector should have claimed sixteen or seventeen of the golds).

It's not a good sign when an economics editor cannot do simple calculations.

What is happening to the BRIC countries?

Can I ask vis a vis the London 2012 Olympics what is happening to the BRIC countries?

China is currently heading the medals table but Brazil, Russia and India are languishing far far behind the United Kingdom (maybe Russia is technically just behind, but when you consider the disparity in population this is not saying much)

Of course I am only too aware that pride goes before a fall.  "We" could easily slip from our position close to the top.  And in any case the achievement is due to individual British athletes not collective national endeavour (despite the Olympics being a form of war without tears). 

But what has happened to all those dire warnings about how power, wealth and prestige were passing from the West to the East?  Nick Clegg's dismissal of the United Kingdom as a "pygmy nation" (insulting as that was to both pygmies and British people)?  Of all the scoffing and sneering of RT television and Agnes Poirier and Mr Ahmadinejad etc etc?

That exciting moment in Orwell's 1984

Above:  a couple of days ago the Guardian, in its official editorial, tells us that British success in the Olympics was disproportionately reliant on the United Kingdom's private schools.

Above:  today the Guardian, in its official editorial, tells us that British success in the Olympics is reliant on the state schools (this argument further developed in articles by John Harris and Jackie Ashley).

I was reminded of that exciting moment in Orwell's 1984 when Winston Smith holds two official statements from the Ministry of Truth that directly contradict each other.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/london-2012-olympic-gold-lesson-politics?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/ennis-farah-murray-state-school-myth?INTCMP=SRCH 

In this respect, if no other, London 2012 resembles Berlin 1936

Half-way through the Olympic Games and the United Kingdom seems to have given itself over to a cathartic expression of collective nationalism (presumably related to the fact that "we" are currently third in the medals table).

That the Olympic Games represents the most naked celebration of nationalism (short of actual war) is an axiomatic statement.

That a large section of the British population enjoys this Olympic-themed nationalism at four-yearly intervals is well known.

What is unusual is that this time the Left has felt able to join in.

Even Miranda Sawyer, in her Observer column today, indulged in a sort of right-on nationalism, describing how it is "all Team GB" in her house, how she took her six-year-old son to see Great Britain "beat" Brazil at women's football, and how her mood matches the "celebratory madness" that has taken over British radio.

What is happening here?

Possibly Danny Boyle's Opening Ceremony, with it's left-leaning imagery (Shadow Minister Andy Burnham is reported to have burst into tears at the socialist beauty of the pageant) has given left-wing people permission to love their country.

In a half-page article in the Guardian yesterday writer Stuart Jeffries talked about the emotional impact that Danny Boyle's Opening Ceremony had on him.

But before we accord these Olympics the title "the People's Games" (as Blair would have done) there is an inconvenient fact to be explained.

Despite the way the Opening Ceremony lauded socialism "British sporting success is once again disproportionately reliant on the private schools" (to quote the Guardian's editorial).

In this respect, if no other, London 2012 resembles Berlin 1936.  Both Opening Ceremonies presented an ideological vision of the host country, breathtaking in ambition and compelling in spectacle.  In both cases the hubris of propaganda found itself undermined by the achievements of the athletes (the Nazi vision undermined by Jesse Owens; the Danny Boyle State-Is-Good vision undermined by the achievements of the privately-educated athletes).

This is not to defend private education per se.  Often when I meet public school educated people I find myself disliking them.  But for showing up the limitations of totalitarian socialist education policy one has to be thankful they exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/london-2012-olympics-blog/2012/aug/03/london-2012-olympics-blubbing-emotion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182328/London-2012-opening-ceremony-Danny-Boyles-genius-taken-Marxist-propaganda.html

PS so there should be no misunderstanding I am not attacking the Olympics as a whole or the British athletes or indeed the validity of nationalism - my objective it to examine the behaviour of the Left in all this.