Local elections, an outside view on prime ministers
So what do the local elections
mean exactly. There's been a massive surge in support for Labour, a drop in Cons vote, and the lib dem's numbers have continued to collapse. Importantly Labour out-performed the goals the conservatives gave them, a big failure in expectation management on the tories part, meaning that these results must have taken them by surprise. In particular, it was predicted that Labour would get under 700 (in fact Tom Watson on twitter was saying around 450 would be good), which they beat, that Boris would crush Ken, which didn't really happen, and the SNP would gain Glasgow, which didn't happen.
So are these mid-term blues? Well theres no doubt in mind that had these elections occurred in the weeks before the budget the results would have been very different. In the aftermath of a regressive, very conservative budget, there have been a series of political mistakes made by the conservative government, followed by hanging on to Hunt, and of course us being in a second recession, has made their numbers drop. So the question is, will things change or stay the same?
Well... its hard to say. The election date is fixed in 2015, unless the coalition collapses (at which point all bets are off really), and thats a really long time. The economy could recover, the Murdoch stuff will have gone away by then, and all will be a memory. I do tend to think elections are for the incumbent to lose- the best opposition can do is look governmental. People are drawing connections to Hague, who did well in 2000 and pitifully in 2001, but that situation was different. At the time, the government had an untouchable majority. Frankly anyone expecting a one term Labour government when they had over 400 seats was dreaming. Of course, the conservatives didn't even manage to take back many seats in that election, but bear in mind that it is pretty evidence from 2011 that unless a miracle happens, the liberal democrats vote share is going to utterly collapse in the general election, and their seats will probably mostly fall to Labour (I think. I haven't analysed it, but as I'm aware the conservatives have gobbled up quite a few lib dems seats already. Also, its surely left wing support of the lib dems that will disappear next election, not right wing support), and the conservatives do not have a governing majority.
I don't know what vote share the conservatives got in the 2000 local elections: BBC gives the number of seats, but not the actual vote percentage, so its hard to tell what that actually reflects.Still, anything could change. The question remains whether Ed Milliband could be voted for. I don't believe he's that insubstantial, but he comes across really badly in media appearances, and I'm not convinced he'll do well in the debates if we have them.
Some conservatives have claimed that Cameron should be got rid of, that the party needs to shift to the right. This is frankly as foolish as those who claimed Blair needed to shift to the left. When you are losing votes to the left, you don't shift further to the right! Centrists get elected, Blair demonstrated that very effectively until the war in Iraq and time made him lose his tarnish.
Similarly, I'm not convinced by these "Boris for prime minister" calls. I honestly believe that if Labour had fielded a better candidate that Labour would have the mayorality right now, indeed the voting strongly implies it- several noted Labour activists spoke out, having got tired of Ken and his anti-Semitic baggage. I don't know if Ken is an anti-Semite, but there are a lot of politicians, and most of them don't have to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism. Why? Because they tend not to say anti-Semitic things. Its not that hard.
So yeah, all in all a very good day for Labour, and Ed Milliband in general, but the conservatives can win this. Discipline is the way forward. Getting Downing Street in order, avoiding these small and large mistakes they've been making recently, and honing their image, and they can defeat an opposition that until a few months ago looked weak. As for Labour, they need to do their best to look as prime ministerial as possible, and keep on pressing home the attack that the Conservatives haven't fixed the economy, and are as sleasy as ever. I suspect, at this rate, that it'll come down to the economy. If its still this grim in three years, which it very well may be, then I believe Labour will get back in power. If by some chance the economy managed to turn around, then the Conservatives will have the message they need for another term.
Cabin in the woods
To begin with no spoilers, Cabin in the Woods is a fun and funny horror film. Its not for people who dislike gore and violence in general, as there are some slightly unpleasant scenes midway trhough the movie, although they do serve a larger purpose: they are not quite violence for violence sake as in some noted horror staples. If you have no problem with this, Cabin is worth watching, and I’m fairly confident you (yes, you) will enjoy it. One thing I would warn is that, at least for the genre savvy, the film doesn’t actually have the big twists you might expect. The premise of the film has been pretty much explicitly stated by about 15-20 minutes in, and while there are some fun developments, they’re not necessarily completely unexpected.
So, to spoilers, and a full and frank discussion in which I totally give away the end of the film. Cabin in the Woods follows two joint narratives: 5 teenagers out in the woods being slowly (well, not very slowly to be honest) picked off by some crazed zombie rednecks and some corporate drones who control every element of their deaths. The drones (as is revealed implicitly about 20 minutes in, and then explicitly around an hour or so in), must ensure that the deaths occur, and in the correct order, as if they do not the ancient evil which slumbers under the earth will arise and annihilate humanity.
There’s humour to be had out of the premise, and this film certainly has it, especially in the closing third, where the various monsters are unleashed on the facility via a ludicrously placed button. There's some cute shout outs to horror fans, obvious ones being the ring, evil dead and hellraiser, and I'm sure there are more for those who are more genre savvy at me.
Now, pretty obviously, the film serves as a metaphor. This is in no way subtle, and Sigourney Weaver's character is even called the director. The question is, what is the metaphor? The teenagers are the actors, not in control of their destiny, and punished for straying from the script, and the facility are the film makers- jaded and hammering out yet another production, determined to stay on budget and on time. But what of the ancient monsters. The most obvious, and possibly mean spirited interpretation is that the ancients are the audience, demanding the murder of the actors in the same old tired way, the same loop repeated again, and that to break that pact would lead to the falling of horror. But I wonder if this can't be spun in a more positive way. The ritual is a way of keeping the audience passive, sated but not interested, and perhaps Whedon is suggesting that while creativity and originality might destroy film making (and the studio's money), maybe it might make it better.
On a brief note, I think theres a pretty obvious undertone that all these projects are being sabotaged. Its never given who, but for all the projects to fail, and in such specific ways: the failures of the drugs given to the actors, the failures of the explosives, the failure of the faculty's defence mechanisms when the monsters get released: even the monsters getting released in the first place. I like that thats sitting in the background. I don't see how this film could possibly have a sequel, but it allows room for some fun speculation.
So yes, I would recommend Cabin in the Woods, and I would like to watch it again. I think that it would bear repeat viewing well.
Kony
So theres been a lot of talk in the media about
Joseph Kony. He's not a good guy. This campaigning has been done by Invisible Children. It doesn't sound like they're good guys. I have yet to watch the documentary they created, but I have read multiple articles critisising it on many levels. If you're concerned about this issue, might I recommend you do the same?
I'd start with this
metafilter thread, then maybe
this,
this and definitely
these t
hree l
inks. Oh, and
this. Then, if you feel like making a difference,
this page has a lot of resources.
Labels: politics
DVD regions
I don't like to download shows. I know a lot of people who do it habitually, but for me it just feels... a bit off. If I have the option of watching the show in the format its sold in, I will, whether thats DVD or on tv with the ads. If I like a show enough, I want it to have my custom, so its creators get to make more great tv. That seems only fair to me.
So why do the media companies want to make it nearly impossible for me to do so? I recently got the first season of Community on DVD for Christmas, and absolutely loved it. Its incredibly funny, just some great television. This DVD only became available in November. Community has now shown
three seasons in the US, but I can only get season one on DVD?
Now there should be a solution to this, right? I should just be able to import a DVD from the US. It'll cost a bit more, but then I can watch to my hearts content. Except, of course, to do so I would have to
also buy a new DVD player and set it to region 1. Weirdly, I'm not willing to do this.
The thing is, its not very hard for me to go and download Community. I totally could, and watch it at my leisure, owning it for life, with no irritating copyright messages sprawled all over it. Its an infuriating message, and something a lot of big media don't get. The more inconvenient you make it for me to pay for your product, the more likely I am to switch to the free version. The free version should be
worse than the paid version, otherwise you are doing something very, very wrong.
Labels: rant, television
Buffy Season 8, slaying the metaphor
Warning, I'm going to spoil the hell out of the Buffy Season 8 comics (and the show itself). So if you don't want me to do that, probably stop reading now.
So at the end of Season 7 there was a very, very explicit message of feminist empowerment. Buffy gives all potential slayers the power they deserve. This couldn't be more clear if Joss Whedon had appeared, waved a flag and said "women should be empowered, damnit!" As metaphors go, it worked pretty well (there is an issue with the selective nature of it, but one can overlook it), and was a fairly good way to go out in style. The series as a whole was a call for feminine empowerment, while being about growing up in general (with the theme of letting go of power to your children, represented by the potentials in the final series).
Of course, there are more stories to be told. The universe is pretty rich, and the characters are fun, and comics allow the authors to try out stories they had not before, so Whedon was tempted to write an "eight season" for Buffy. And, indeed, it was a lot of fun. Demons could be bigger and nastier, threats could be more epic, battles much larger, because budget was no issue anymore. There were problems: comics don't translate dialogue as well, so Buffy, which has always been a wordy show (with notable exceptions) had to portray its characters in different ways, leaving some characterisation feeling a bit rushed.
There was also the issue of brining back old characters purely for fan service: Amy and Warren are back, even though they don't make a great deal of sense, because we recognise them, and the writers weren't brave enough to build up new enemies.
Still, my biggest problem was the thematic arc. Throughout the series the leads are threatened by a deadly force called Twilight, who aims to bring an end to all magic, and attacks our heros at several points. Finally it is dramatically revealed that it is Angel, who um.. well isn't evil. He was pretending to be evil to protect Buffy. By violently attacking her. And bringing together forces who clearly wouldn't have joined up without Twilight. Um. So yeah. But anyway, turns out that Buffy and Angel are to be rewarded with magic sex and a new lovely universe while the old universe, where all their friends, and lives, and everything they fought for, gets blown up. Um. So yeah. So obviously Buffy doesn't accept this deal, because who would, and she heads back, and finds the seed of magic. And chooses to destroy it. Oh, and Angel, who is evil again, murders Giles. Um. So yeah.
So Buffy undoes the act of good she did at the end of Seaosn 7. The reason she does this is that Slayers simply cannot be trusted with their power. Rogue slayers are killing people, and even Buffy decided to rob a bank. This imbalance was going to destroy the world, so power had to be taken away. From women. Because they couldn't be trusted with power. Um. So. Yeah.
Now the comic has dropped the previous metaphor. Its done this before. In season 4, magic=gay sex. Thats pretty obviously the metaphor, and was there to deal with network qualms primarily. As the show got more adventurous, the metaphor got unattached, and magic became something of an addictive force, basically equalling power in season 6, or sometimes drugs. There was... some.. anger at Tara's death and Willow's craaazy killing spree because people were hung up on the old metaphor, and were thinking the show was saying that gay sex makes you go on a craaazy killing show. Which it was not. It was saying grief and an addiction to power makes one do that.
So the comic was doing the same, and replacing the metaphor witha "power corrupts" story. Only the show had actually rejected this as kinda bad- Season 7 argued that you can't just ignore power, you need to harness it for good, because its not just going to go away, and you can do good with it. I really hate this luddite notion that the
only thing humans ever do with power is abuse it because historically it isn't true. Its certainly true that people abuse power when given it, but people also use power to save people's lives and make it better. All the goddamn time.
So all in all... not a massive fan of Season 8 of Buffy, it has to be said.
Labels: buffy, comics, rant, television
On welfare
Long time no post. Lots to write, but I think I'll start with politics. So the govt have been impressively mean on several levels recently. I'll discuss benefits for now.
The coalition has the country on their side here. British people, and indeed most people, dislike the idea of unfair play. The idea that someone should get something for nothing does not sit well with most citizens, and, indeed, it seems like many people are doing this in our economy. But a few pointers.
The key argument has hinged around the £27,000 benefit cap: the median household wage. That sounds reasonable: why should someone get that benefit if they are not working? Well. Households vary in size and cost. A household with 10 members will have far more costs than one with 3, and households in geographic locations vary in cost. London costs a lot more than Liverpool. Housing costs, and particularly rent, have only been rising, thanks to poor housing policy in general, and lack of social housing in specific. Whenever sweeping laws are made to simplify a law, they ignore the reasons that the complications arose in the first place.
Also, there is an argument that cutting someone's benefit will force them to work. I am not aware of evidence for this assertion, and some weak evidence to its contrary (the 50s, which saw some of the highest benefit/wage ratios, saw very low unemployment). If said individual fails to get work, do we just let them starve? No, because we have a requirement to not do so, and we will often end up paying in other ways- particularly local councils may be forced to take up the slack.
On the other major arguments. No money for cancer patients past the first year. Really govt? Really? And charging people money for not getting money off their wealthy partners? Stay classy coalition, stay classy.
That the Lords have noticed all this (and many conservative peers have rebelled!) and not the Commons seems to be a massive indictment of the primacy of parliament. Too often parliament is simply a vehicle for the legislation the govt wants to pass, whether it makes sense or is workable. I had hoped that with the liberal democrats in the coalition we might see some sensitivity, but their tactic has been to blindly vote through laws and occasionally let their lords deal with it. This is not healthy for democracy. A parliament with no/weaker whips would be a parliament which makes better bills.
If Clegg cannot stand on these issues there is little point to the lib dems in the coalition. I don't want to have to see these kind of laws passed by a party that claimed to represent me.
A brief rant on the use of language
Apparently totalbiscuit, a fairly popular online caster of starcraft games and reviewer of video games, recently used a homophobic slur when referring to someone online. A sc player, somewhat disturbed by this, made a thread on a popular
sc2 forum (team liquid). Now TB has apologised for his remarks, and while I'm not sure he's entirely clear on why using such language is bad, he's not my main target here.
In that thread, I discovered this comment "You've gotta be joking OP, this is beyond ridiculous. Faggot doesn't even mean homosexual any more, it's just a generic insult. Grow up."
The notion that the term "faggot" and "gay" have become disassociated from homosexuality, and are merely words without the impact that they used to have, is an argument I have been confronted with more than once. Distressingly, even the BBC attempted such an argument when their golden boy, Chris Moyles, used such words.
Let me explain why such an argument doesn't really work. If a word is currently used to refer to a particular subgroup of people, and also to indicate that something is bad, then it is rather difficult to disassociate the two. If I and my friends were to use the word "Jewish" to indicate that something were bad, and were to insist that the word had been used so much that it didn't have any racial connotations for us, I suspect you would believe that I was an idiot.
Worse yet, at least when I sit with my friends, calling things "Jewish", I am relatively confident none of them are. One of the many issues with using homophobic slurs in mixed company is that we do not live in a society where all homosexual people feel free to say that they are. We are not in a post-prejudice society. There are many places in the world where being openly homosexual can prove a threat to one's health and welfare. Even in the more liberal UK, intolerance does indeed exist, and admitting that one is homosexual can be damaging to one's career and relationships. And, indeed, in some extreme cases, potentially be damaging to one's health.
Every time you use a homophobic slur, you contribute to a culture where such language, such
framing of homosexuality is frequent, and unfriendly, where homosexuals feel less comfortable. In short, you make the world a little worse.
Now language being what it is, of course, some insults do get stuck in the vocabulary. Idiot was a technical term for mental retardation and has now become a word which applies to anyone who shows a particular mental failure. It is possible that "gay" may become stuck as an insult for something that is bad. If that becomes the case then it is likely that the homosexual community will have "lost" the word, because it will be difficult to self describe as gay when the word has such a pejorative meaning. This has not yet happened yet, however, we are currently in a battle of usage. I know which side I am on.
Labels: rant
