Soooo..... regular readers of this blog will have noted a certain inactivity of late. When posting has happened, it has been sporadic at best. And there's going to be no apology for that, merely an excuse - that when you are working two jobs as well as two a full-time PhD, something has to give. And that something is blogging.

Part of me wants to call time on this blogging enterprise, because there is a lack of inspiration combined with a bloated workload. But I do have ideas for posts, even if there is no time to do them justice. And the last time I "gave up" blogging, it lasted for just a few weeks (during which I spent a lot of time writing at DK's place). So an involuntary sabbatical is in place. Said sabbatical may end in early December, maybe not.

But ttfn.

To Protect and to Serve

Now, as regular readers will know, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the occupy movement. I think there is much wrong in this world and much to protest about; trying to stigmatise the banking industry through spurious and clearly false claims to be representing the 99% strikes me as a pretty crass basis for a global protest movement, though. That said, those carrying out these protests should be allowed to do so. They certainly shouldn't be pepper sprayed in the face by a bovine, corpulent cop who either is too stupid to know or too ignorant to care that he is clearly going to be filmed by someone.

There's international outcry over this; and legtimately so in my not at all humble opinon. But there are a couple of points to make here. Firstly, let's tone down the hyperbole - this isn't, as I saw someone on Facebook stating, the moment when the revolution starts. Kent State - a far more terrifying example of police brutality - went past without provoking a revolution, as have similar actions by police on both sides of the Atlantic, so the actions of this pot-bellied pig are unlikely to provoke anything more than a very vocal but equally very fleeting furore. The second point is that the police across the world need to remember that their actions need to be proportional; thus, sitting back and letting rioting mobs tear up shitty parts of London is not an appropriate police response; nor is pepper spraying seated protestors in the face. And this sort of brutal, disportionate response does nothing other than increase the sympathies for the protestors among people like myself who are circumspect at best about these protestors.

Doctor Who: The First Christmas Trailer...

It would seem remiss of me not to post this. In fact, it is probably remiss of me not to have done so already...

On Beauty. And Goths.

Over at Orphans of Conservatism Liberty, James Higham has been considering art and aesthetics. And he offers some thoughts on females and alternative fashion:

The sight of ugly goth girls with nosebones and tatts trying to do steampunk is an utter travesty. and yet intrinisically, in terms of the outer form G-d gave them, those lasses could be so beautiful. Why are they trying to be ugly? How are they so under the spell of the dark side that they could wallow in this pit of ordure? How are they so pig-ignorant, so harsh of cackle, so witch-like? What a mockery of the supposed beauty of youth.

Now, neither James nor anyone other than the actual girls concerned can truly say why they choose to adopt the goth subculture. It is perfectly possible that they choose these apparently controversial "nosebones and tatts" for numerous reasons - to fit in with the goth subculture, to provoke reactions, to assert an identity different from the ones they were raised with. Y'know, alternative culture as a form of protest (and thus an important part of growing up for some people). Nothing to do with the dark side or being pig-ignorant, or witchlike.

Likewise with art. It is simply not a case of representing beautiful things in a beautiful way. It can be about being provocative, about challenging people, about getting a debate going. Two of the most striking art exhibitions I have seen at the Chapman brothers' "What if Hitler was a Hippy?" and one of Francis Bacon's work (including the notorious Screaming Popes) - and neither of those could really be described as beautiful despite being highly effective art.

But there is another possibilty: it is more than possible that the "ugly goth girls" aren't "trying to be ugly". In fact, it could be that these girls (and the men in the goth subculture) see these piercings and tattoos as ways of enhancing their beauty. It is just that their view of what is beautiful is different to that of the Christian conservative James Higham. That's fine; that's a question of opinion. What I cannot justify is why one conception of beauty should trump another, which is precisely what Higham seems to be suggesting with the his vision of beauty good/their vision of beauty bad. Why should James' opinion trump alternative views? Answers on a postcard please, because in a pluralistic free society I can't think of any meaningful reason.

Doctor Who: The Movie

So, in the world of the nation's favourite Time Lord, we've had some big news this week - namely, that some chap who has done some stuff with the Harry Potter franchise (a film series that leaves me utterly cold) is going to spend the next three years or so creating a Doctor Who film with a former producer of the show. Great news, right?

My response would be a very circumspect "hmmmmm". Now, it is true that Doctor Who has had two feature films that stand outside of what some people call the Whoniverse (terrible word, obviously) and they work rather well. They are fast-moving, they are exciting and they have a certain charm. But they aren't demanding, and they are simply rehashes of TV stories. It seems that the movie proposed this week will be a rather different proposition.

Which is my big problem with it. It seems to be trying to reboot the whole of the Doctor Who universe. Now, reboots can and do work. But they tend to work best when the original show/franchise has run out of steam. When it has ceased to be popular. When a fresh burst of creative energy is needed to make the whole thing a viable proposition again. And Doctor Who does not need that. Quite fundamentally, it has been firing on all cylinders since it returned in 2005. Arguably, it has never been as consistently involving and striking as the last season. So there is absolutely no need to reboot it and, let's be honest, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a need within the next three years. So a movie completely detached from the ongoing and growing continuity of the show is completely unnecessary. In fact, it is arguably going to damage the TV show as people might see the movie as more important than that lil ol' show on Saturday evenings. If it happens, it could come to dominate and overpower a TV show in its prime. Which would be a crushing shame.

But that's the other point to make here - if the movie happens. There have been numerous talks about Doctor Who films over the years, especially during the wilderness years between 1989 and the TV movie of 1996. And they all came to nothing. So you'll have to forgive me if I question whether this movie will even take place. But if it does, then I really worry about the impact it will have on a TV show that is going from strength to strength. When I see the director talking about how the show needs a radical change, I can't help but this that he is completely and totally wrong. And probably needs to bugger off and actually watch the show he's doing to start mauling for no reason.

But we'll see. As a wise man once said, time will tell. It always does.

Paranormal Activity 3

Let's be honest about it, Paranormal Activity 2  - or Paranormal Inactivity as I prefer to call it - was poor. As any horror movie that focuses on spooky goings on involving a pool cleaner for much of the first third of its run time would inevitably be. It felt like a tired, overlong re-run of the far more effective first outing for what is now a film franchise. Therefore, the idea of Paranormal Activity 3 did not sound desperately appealing to me. Fortunately, the makers of that film - who also made the impressive mockumentary Catfish - worked out what they needed to do to get the franchise back on track. And they do it in two ways.

Firstly, they don't slavishly follow the original, but instead play with the audience's expectations. So rather than this all happening concurrently with the original film (as the first sequel sort of tried to do), PA3 is a genuine prequel. And that helps to create some fun with the format. Aside from the (at times OTT) eighties references, the film has to cope with the fact that technology was not as advanced in the eighties, so documenting a demonic haunting would not have been as easy as it is in that day and age. This leads to a lot of improvisation - including using a fan-mounted video camera, which in turn leads to some of the movie's most effective moments.

It also introduces ideas such as the demonic force not being the sole evil force with this movie - something perhaps forced on it by the "revelation" in the previous film about the cause of the demonic haunting, but also a hand it plays well. And it also bucks the trend of having the leading male character being a dick by having a genuinely likable protagonist in Dennis. It becomes far easier to watch a film - and care about the character's eventual brutal fate - if he is basically likable rather than a bit of a dick.

But above all it remembers to be scary. It does this simultaneously by offering cheap scares based on the characters' awareness of the cameras (the babysitter disappearing and then jumping out at the camera) but also by offering some genuine chills and some truly stressful scenes - in particular, the "bloody Mary" sequences followed by the child's chair been kicked across the bedroom or the moment when the ghost/demon cleans the kitchen, only to bring it all crashing down again. The film knows it needs to up the ante in terms of the scares and the same time as confound expectations; it manages to do both.

As with everything, it isn't flawless. Indeed, there are a couple of moments when I positively winced - such as when the camera recorded the dust falling on the demon in the aftermath of an earthquake. And the ever-present problems of the found footage genre were there (why are you still filming this? Why the hell do you have the foresight to record this stuff but not to turn on the fucking lights when something goes bang in the night?) However, overall, this was exactly what it should be - a clever, occasionally scary and witty horror film that can make you jump. If you want more than that, then look elsewhere. But if you want more than that, seeking out the third installment of a horror franchise is the wrong place to start.

Rick Perry: Intellectual Giant

Random Observations #3

The 2012 Olympics are already deeply tedious, and we haven't even reached 2012 yet. Any chance we could all just pretend that they had already happened, and therefore skip further Olympics related tedium?

Random Observations #2

Number of random nutters at the bus station this morning: 3.

Number of random nutters who want to have a conversation with me: 3.

You can reach your own conclusion based on those stats.

Random Observations #1

To the makers of Felix "As good as it looks" cat food: it doesn't look that good. In fact, it looks like shredded chunks of dead animal in fatty jelly. The cats love it because, I suspect, it is the feline equivalent of KFC. But given how it looks to this human, you might want to work on your marketing just a wee bit.

How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

The Church ♥ Occupy

When I heard yesterday afternoon about the Church's u-turn on the Occupy protests I couldn't help but think that it is pretty much perfect. It is effectively one bunch of increasingly irrelevant fantasists backing another bunch of increasingly irrelevant fantasists. And I can't help but think that real life is happening while these cretins engage in their useless and incoherent posturing.

Democracy Coma*

Now, I’m not the world’s biggest fan of democracy. I’m certainly not one of these people who fetishize it and argue that it should be an aggressive international export; sent by the West across the globe (by force if need be). But I am even less of a fan of our version of democracy. Because, for me, our democracy has ceased to be about politics. In fact, I’d argue that our democracy has become the absence of politics.

Don’t believe me? Well, when was the last time you had contact with your elected representative? For most people, the last engagement with those people and therefore with what we laughably call politics was at the polls either in the general or local elections. Putting your “x” in the preferred box (or, most likely, voting for your least hated option). And that’s it. That’s you done, politically speaking. If humans are, to paraphrase Aristotle, social and political animals, then we’re only about 50% human.

Of course, there is more that we could do politically if we wanted, but it is all largely pointless. Write to your MP – why? It isn’t going to change how they vote in the House – that tends to be based on what the Whips want – and unless you are one of the very few that they can proactively help then the chances are you will end up with a very polite fuck off letter. Write to a more senior politician and you’ll be lucky to get the brush off – most likely your epistle will be consigned to the file marked “b1n”.

Then again, we could be involved with a political party. But again that little question springs up – why? What does that achieve? Join one of the main political parties will involve substantial compromise for most, and will see you joining a party that, in vast swathes of policy and ideology, broadly agrees with its main opponents. And as for joining a smaller party – well, you may as well take your membership subscription and flush it down the toilet. Overall, you’d be better off joining some sort of pressure group. At least they tend to believe in something, and often have the tunnel vision to effectively pursue that belief.

So there we have it; democracy, or voting whenever you are given the chance, is the extent to which we get to engage with politics in this country. For the rest of the time, the vast majority of us are in a democracy coma, or a political stupor induced by being able to vote for people you don’t know and even if you did, you probably wouldn’t rate. In the meantime, that empty ritual of voting allows the self-perpetuating oligarchy in charge of this country to do pretty much what they want, to the occasional but utterly impotent howls of the people.

What’s the alternative? Well, we often hear that direct democracy is the way forward. Let’s have more referenda. Let’s get the people making legislation whenever they can. Which is all well and good, until you consider the cost of such exercises. And that nature of a referendum – the government decides a question, and you get to say yes or no to it. And then there’s that sinking feeling I get when I think about the sort of results we might get from referenda. I’d be pretty happy to have one on the EU right about now, because I’m reasonably sure I would agree with the outcome. But one of the death penalty? Thanks, but no thanks. Part of it is a lack of faith the in intelligence of the electorate (look at how many millions still voted for Gordon Brown in 2010, for example), but if I’m totally honest a lot of it boils down in my lack of faith that the electorate will always back what I believe in.

Besides politics could – and should – be about a lot more than assenting or otherwise to a closed question designed to rubber stamp (almost certainly uncontroversial) government policy. Therefore, to have a genuine return to politics in this country, politicians need to do less and the people more. There needs to be a fundamental redistribution of powers from the former to the latter. We need more localism, and less central government. And we need it urgently. We need disparate and different communities that reflect our diverse and fundamentally pluralist culture – not an attempt by central government to come up with policy designed to impress all 60 million people in this country that ends up impressing none. And we need the right of exit within those communities, so the successful ones are able to flourish and the less successful ones fade away without government intervention to favour or suppress any particular preference in terms of community.

Of course, the chances of this happening are next to none. Our political class won’t let it. They are like black holes when it comes to power – power is dragged towards them, almost like a law of physics, and power moving in the other direction looks like an impossibility. But we’re responsible for it too, you know. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be fobbed off with the chance to vote every few years for anonymous candidates representing largely indistinguishable parties. We should demand more. Because we certainly aren’t going to get to be active participants in the political process unless we do so.

*Also a song title by Manic Street Preachers.