INXS rocked. JD was awesome. You know, when they said he won I was sure they had made a mistake. Not anymore. The guy is a consummate showman who can hold a crowd of 3000 people in small town New Zealand rapt for hours on end. And let's face it, with the older generation coming out in droves, and being very skeptical of this person who won a reality TV show, New Plymouth was a tough crowd.
JD, I apologise, I was wrong about you.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Rave: Meds
Meds is the album Placebo have been trying to write forever. Finally, all the creative juices are flowing in the same direction... and what an album it is. The worst song on the album is still far better than many of the things Placebo have written, and the best stuff is positively transcendental.
This is an album that has drumming on a bike, two guest appearances, and the full spectrum of emotion, from giddy love to spiteful hate. Meds itself, is lost, scary, scared, and in love... who else would remind you when you're losing it to take your pills? (it is also my personal anthem at the moment, but that is a whole other story). Song to Say Goodbye has some scathing words that can only be born out of hurt and abandonment set to music that that sounds like it was written for something else. Post Blue is strange, pretty, and exciting; Brian spits out the word "fuck" like it's a word he doesn't use, and somehow manages to make it sound like he's making love anyway. Follow the Cops Back Home is a bit of a political protest, a bit of a love song, and a bit of a lament. If it had been on an earlier album, I would have hated it, but somehow Placebo have managed to avoid whatever went wrong with My Sweet Prince and Narcoleptic. The two standout songs, though, are Infra-red, and Drag. Infra-red has a great hook, and bounces along apace, and yet it is an anthem to just how badly things can go wrong between two people. Drag, on the other hand is a more real love song than I do, I think. It's the kind of love that can't quite believe its own luck, and is self effacing because of it. It's the kind of love I would expect, somehow, of Placebo... These two songs, for me, really say it all about Placebo:
Contradictory, caught between love and hate, of others and of themselves; beautiful, even when enraged, and surprising, even though they are jaded.
Well done, team. Because, you know, despite the fact that without you I am not nothing, without you, my life would be less.
This is an album that has drumming on a bike, two guest appearances, and the full spectrum of emotion, from giddy love to spiteful hate. Meds itself, is lost, scary, scared, and in love... who else would remind you when you're losing it to take your pills? (it is also my personal anthem at the moment, but that is a whole other story). Song to Say Goodbye has some scathing words that can only be born out of hurt and abandonment set to music that that sounds like it was written for something else. Post Blue is strange, pretty, and exciting; Brian spits out the word "fuck" like it's a word he doesn't use, and somehow manages to make it sound like he's making love anyway. Follow the Cops Back Home is a bit of a political protest, a bit of a love song, and a bit of a lament. If it had been on an earlier album, I would have hated it, but somehow Placebo have managed to avoid whatever went wrong with My Sweet Prince and Narcoleptic. The two standout songs, though, are Infra-red, and Drag. Infra-red has a great hook, and bounces along apace, and yet it is an anthem to just how badly things can go wrong between two people. Drag, on the other hand is a more real love song than I do, I think. It's the kind of love that can't quite believe its own luck, and is self effacing because of it. It's the kind of love I would expect, somehow, of Placebo... These two songs, for me, really say it all about Placebo:
Contradictory, caught between love and hate, of others and of themselves; beautiful, even when enraged, and surprising, even though they are jaded.
Well done, team. Because, you know, despite the fact that without you I am not nothing, without you, my life would be less.
Rave: Brian Molko still has it (as do Steve and Stefan)
Recently, even though I am dirt-ass poor, I travelled 2000km, and $1000 NZD, and went to see Placebo live again. Yes, I am insane, and yes, I am that dedicated. It was kind of a special trip, some of my very close friends, and of course Mike (my best friend, my lover, the other half of my life) came along to see Placebo for the first time (there were some other good friends there too -- we had seen Placebo together before).
The music, was as always, blisteringly good, and I came out of the concert still with that wow feeling that Placebo are just an incredible live act, and much better in real life than they are on disc -- which is an impressive feat, for someone who has just put out my favourite album of all time. I was surprised however, that Brian was not as chatty as he usually is, and some discussion ensued after the gig. I felt Brian's closed mouth was so strange that I said it felt like he was protecting his voice; well, it turns out I was right -- less than a week later he spent two days in hospital with tonsilitis. Call Brian what you will, he is a consummate professional to sing for two hours with brewing tonsilitis.
Tonsilitis notwithstanding, and despite the fact that we were up for over 24 hours, when I asked Mike if he would do it all again, he replied "yes, just not tomorrow". Mike really must be my other half -- he's as mad as me.
The thing that makes me think Placebo still has it even more than that, though, is the vid for Meds, the new single. It's disturbing, interesting, occasionally beautiful, and still shocking without showing anything too graphic. And Brian, at 33, still looks good enough to run around in his undies.
In all seriousness, though, Meds is by far the best album Placebo have ever written, and I feel like there is more to come. I hope the passion never dies, for Placebo, and that literally in twenty years my kids are complaining about "that crap that mum listens to".
The music, was as always, blisteringly good, and I came out of the concert still with that wow feeling that Placebo are just an incredible live act, and much better in real life than they are on disc -- which is an impressive feat, for someone who has just put out my favourite album of all time. I was surprised however, that Brian was not as chatty as he usually is, and some discussion ensued after the gig. I felt Brian's closed mouth was so strange that I said it felt like he was protecting his voice; well, it turns out I was right -- less than a week later he spent two days in hospital with tonsilitis. Call Brian what you will, he is a consummate professional to sing for two hours with brewing tonsilitis.
Tonsilitis notwithstanding, and despite the fact that we were up for over 24 hours, when I asked Mike if he would do it all again, he replied "yes, just not tomorrow". Mike really must be my other half -- he's as mad as me.
The thing that makes me think Placebo still has it even more than that, though, is the vid for Meds, the new single. It's disturbing, interesting, occasionally beautiful, and still shocking without showing anything too graphic. And Brian, at 33, still looks good enough to run around in his undies.
In all seriousness, though, Meds is by far the best album Placebo have ever written, and I feel like there is more to come. I hope the passion never dies, for Placebo, and that literally in twenty years my kids are complaining about "that crap that mum listens to".
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Rave: Books can be artworks and cultural icons, too
aka Review: The Cult of iPod by Leander Kahney -- Adapted from another piece of my writing
This book covers everything iPod, from how it nearly became a Sony product (thank god their execs are too silly to see the potential, or it would be a fall-apart piece of crap that is hard to use and ugly) through the design to the ways the public are all over it and influencing the next generations though.
This book is loaded with pictures, diagrams and is written in an inherently readable almost magazine-like format (books for the iPod generation, perhaps, where one doesn't have the concentration to hear a whole album nor read a whole book, but rather the units are songs and articles).
This book is beautiful. It has rounded corners like that of the iPod, and a screen on the front cover and iPod-like copyright markings on the back cover. Underneath each page number is a battery marker, indicating how much of the book remains to be read. The font is deisgned to be similar to the proprietary Apple font. All of this would not make this a good book, though. It would make it a beautiful book, but not a good one.
What makes this book good, and the closest possible approximation of an iPod in book form, is the content. It is eclectic, from a wide variety of sources (academic, commercial, fashion, anecdotal and possibly even apocryphal), and it is entertaining and informative all at once. And like an iPod on shuffle, the information seems somehow disjointed, and yet has an odd kind of flow. Sadly, though the sources are not well referenced, so finding out more is more of a journey.
Interesting ideas and people emerging from this book are:
This book covers everything iPod, from how it nearly became a Sony product (thank god their execs are too silly to see the potential, or it would be a fall-apart piece of crap that is hard to use and ugly) through the design to the ways the public are all over it and influencing the next generations though.
This book is loaded with pictures, diagrams and is written in an inherently readable almost magazine-like format (books for the iPod generation, perhaps, where one doesn't have the concentration to hear a whole album nor read a whole book, but rather the units are songs and articles).
This book is beautiful. It has rounded corners like that of the iPod, and a screen on the front cover and iPod-like copyright markings on the back cover. Underneath each page number is a battery marker, indicating how much of the book remains to be read. The font is deisgned to be similar to the proprietary Apple font. All of this would not make this a good book, though. It would make it a beautiful book, but not a good one.
What makes this book good, and the closest possible approximation of an iPod in book form, is the content. It is eclectic, from a wide variety of sources (academic, commercial, fashion, anecdotal and possibly even apocryphal), and it is entertaining and informative all at once. And like an iPod on shuffle, the information seems somehow disjointed, and yet has an odd kind of flow. Sadly, though the sources are not well referenced, so finding out more is more of a journey.
Interesting ideas and people emerging from this book are:
- iPod Jacking, which is a new way to share music
- Markus Gielser, who was going to publish a book called iPod Therefore I am, telling people's own iPod Stories, but the title got stolen by that twat Dylan Thomas -- Markus Giesler is still around, though, and working on iPod Stories.
- Playlistism, the discrimination against (or for) someone in a college dorm because of what is in their playlist. I wonder how much study has been done on this?
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Rant: And we wonder why we have trouble getting chicks to do computer science?
I was talking to one of my supervisors a couple of days ago, and she was telling me how something as simple as a programming competition had turned a kid's life around. This kid is a teenager, very, very bright, and interested in computers. Here in good old kiwiland, tall poppies tend to get their heads cut off unless they are sportspeople or religious weirdos (or both), so this kid was having a pretty rugged time of it at school, especially because computers are his thing, because you know, computers are geeky. This kid was suicidal, until he did a programming competition and met other kids like himself -- coming out of the closet now means admitting you like computers, apparently. Nonetheless, this child is, in fact, a boy. Because more than 90% of the people who are interested in doing a degree in computing in New Zealand are boys, if our first year is anything to go by.
There are lots of reasons as to why this might be, including, but not limited to:
The third company plays on a local cultural legend, where the North Island of New Zealand was fished up by a young man sitting in the canoe that is the South Island. In this advertisement, a young caucasian lad hauls New York, Paris and London from the sea on a length of rope, "harnessing technology". Would it have been so harmful to use an image of a young girl drawing her friends closer and tying the lines of communication? I guess so.
This ad is far from the most offensive to my geeky sensibilities, however. The local telecommunication giant advertises their ISP arm, "Xtra" with a team of stereotypical geeks called the xtra-ordinaries. These guys are a team of socially inept geeks that not only contribute to the suicidal tendencies of the young man mentioned above, but leave or role model or room for a young woman to see herself as part of the technology industry.
These guys are being promoted as the image of ocmputing by the major national carrier in the telecommunications industry. They magically appear in bedrooms at night, they drive around in a clapped out van, and they have nerdy names for each other. I'm fairly confident in my own person and in my choice of a career in computing, and these guys make me a little embarrassed to be associated with the profession. What hope do I have of doing the part of my job that is encouraging young women to take up a career in computing when this is the image they, their peers, and their parents see on TV every night?
As a partially publicly funded national carrier, I would hope that this doesn't last too long, and that Telecom is asked to at least make a hot-but-nerdy-girl xtra-ordinary too. We're short if IT professionals in this country, and having one girl xtra-ordinary could make life easier for everyone who might want to pursue a career in computing. No doubt, however, Telecom thinks that poking fun at geeks is inordinately clever, and the series of ads will continue for years.
There are lots of reasons as to why this might be, including, but not limited to:
- The lack of games on the computer that appeal to girls (with 'The Sims' and some of the new PlayStation titles things are changing, slowly)
- Maths and computing teachers generally being male
- A lack of visible female role models -- we hear about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but only rarely about Helen Greiner and Grace Hopper
- The bad attitude of some male computing instructors and students toward their female students/colleagues.
The third company plays on a local cultural legend, where the North Island of New Zealand was fished up by a young man sitting in the canoe that is the South Island. In this advertisement, a young caucasian lad hauls New York, Paris and London from the sea on a length of rope, "harnessing technology". Would it have been so harmful to use an image of a young girl drawing her friends closer and tying the lines of communication? I guess so.
This ad is far from the most offensive to my geeky sensibilities, however. The local telecommunication giant advertises their ISP arm, "Xtra" with a team of stereotypical geeks called the xtra-ordinaries. These guys are a team of socially inept geeks that not only contribute to the suicidal tendencies of the young man mentioned above, but leave or role model or room for a young woman to see herself as part of the technology industry. These guys are being promoted as the image of ocmputing by the major national carrier in the telecommunications industry. They magically appear in bedrooms at night, they drive around in a clapped out van, and they have nerdy names for each other. I'm fairly confident in my own person and in my choice of a career in computing, and these guys make me a little embarrassed to be associated with the profession. What hope do I have of doing the part of my job that is encouraging young women to take up a career in computing when this is the image they, their peers, and their parents see on TV every night?
As a partially publicly funded national carrier, I would hope that this doesn't last too long, and that Telecom is asked to at least make a hot-but-nerdy-girl xtra-ordinary too. We're short if IT professionals in this country, and having one girl xtra-ordinary could make life easier for everyone who might want to pursue a career in computing. No doubt, however, Telecom thinks that poking fun at geeks is inordinately clever, and the series of ads will continue for years.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Rant: This is a self-indulgent way to ruin a perfectly good book title
a.k.a. Review: 'iPod Therefore I Am', by Dylan Jones. Adapted from another piece of my writing.
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ, a gentlemen's magazine in the UK. Apparently he was also a lonely teenager who went on to art school and found his way in life. He is also a dyed-in-the-wool musophile, though his tastes (apart from the odd surprisingly juvenile liking for Justin Timberlake or Kelis) are fairly mainstream and pedestrian for a man his age.
Dylan Jones has also fairly recently published a book called 'iPod Therefore I Am: A Personal Journey Through Music'. It's a shame that he got to the title first because there's a guy called Markus Giesler who wanted to use it for some real research -- and now can't because this British plonker got to it first and used it for a book that isn't even really about the iPod.
You know, I might not have had such a problem with this bok if it hadn't claimed to be about the iPod. I might even have found it mildly entertaining, except that Jones has extremely average taste in music which he thinks is progressive. I might even have been able to cope with it if it were a true personal journey through music. Sadly, it can't even be said that it is really about music.
What this book is really about, is Dylan Jones. How he had a stutter and was a bit of a sad case at school, and how he has spent every waking moment since then trying to prove to himself and the world that is it okay, he really is cool. Because, you know, he was one of the first 5% to equate fashion with music. And he nearly got beaten up by Sid Vicious once. And he saw some dodgy things in dodgy bars, and Bryan Ferry remembers him. And he is a big, successful man, and the editor of GQ, and he's met loads of famous people and he goes loads of exotic places for holidays.
Dylan Jones is in fact a self-absorbed bore. This book, though it is supposed to be personal, contains more detail about who was doing what to whom in various nightclubs than it does about his wife. His children appear slightly more often, but only as a showcase for what good musical taste he has instilled in them (and, I suspect, they in him). His parents feature slightly more as the evildoers who in fact drove him to music. And the rest of the book, though it may contain brief allusions to the iPod, is a litany of Jones' great war stories and favourite music (with war stories as to why it is his favourite). His favourites include Roxy Music, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Coldplay, Blur, Norah Jones, and Justin Timberlake. All except for the Justin Timberlake, probably introduced to him by his small daughters, are fairly predictable for a bloke his age. In fact, not once while reading this book did I see any mention of any group that had done anything truly unusual in the past ten or even twenty years.
References to the iPod include:
In summary:
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ, a gentlemen's magazine in the UK. Apparently he was also a lonely teenager who went on to art school and found his way in life. He is also a dyed-in-the-wool musophile, though his tastes (apart from the odd surprisingly juvenile liking for Justin Timberlake or Kelis) are fairly mainstream and pedestrian for a man his age.
Dylan Jones has also fairly recently published a book called 'iPod Therefore I Am: A Personal Journey Through Music'. It's a shame that he got to the title first because there's a guy called Markus Giesler who wanted to use it for some real research -- and now can't because this British plonker got to it first and used it for a book that isn't even really about the iPod.
You know, I might not have had such a problem with this bok if it hadn't claimed to be about the iPod. I might even have found it mildly entertaining, except that Jones has extremely average taste in music which he thinks is progressive. I might even have been able to cope with it if it were a true personal journey through music. Sadly, it can't even be said that it is really about music.
What this book is really about, is Dylan Jones. How he had a stutter and was a bit of a sad case at school, and how he has spent every waking moment since then trying to prove to himself and the world that is it okay, he really is cool. Because, you know, he was one of the first 5% to equate fashion with music. And he nearly got beaten up by Sid Vicious once. And he saw some dodgy things in dodgy bars, and Bryan Ferry remembers him. And he is a big, successful man, and the editor of GQ, and he's met loads of famous people and he goes loads of exotic places for holidays.
Dylan Jones is in fact a self-absorbed bore. This book, though it is supposed to be personal, contains more detail about who was doing what to whom in various nightclubs than it does about his wife. His children appear slightly more often, but only as a showcase for what good musical taste he has instilled in them (and, I suspect, they in him). His parents feature slightly more as the evildoers who in fact drove him to music. And the rest of the book, though it may contain brief allusions to the iPod, is a litany of Jones' great war stories and favourite music (with war stories as to why it is his favourite). His favourites include Roxy Music, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Coldplay, Blur, Norah Jones, and Justin Timberlake. All except for the Justin Timberlake, probably introduced to him by his small daughters, are fairly predictable for a bloke his age. In fact, not once while reading this book did I see any mention of any group that had done anything truly unusual in the past ten or even twenty years.
References to the iPod include:
- Hearing about Jones' own anal-retentiveness in filling the thing, including some quibbling over a miniscule amount of sound quality and file formats;
- Jones' arrogance in filling the iPods of others with his average, boring music;
- Jones subjecting friends of his to his playlists on vacation;
- Jones spending hours locked away from his family filling his iPod;
- Jones being too silly to use the internet to get his track names for him;
- Jones deciding his iPod was male;
- Jones berating people for buying smaller iPods than his;
- and war stories about when he saw the iPod and how he went to visit Apple and what wonderful people he knows who are hooked in to Apple.
- that you can get rid of songs you don't like off an album,
- you can make playlists,
- and the shuffle juxtaposes really music in an unusual way.
In summary:
- Jones is a pratt with boring taste in music
- Jones thinks he's great because he saw a lot of things and got stabbed once
- This is a waste of a good title
- This book is not about the iPod -- don't be fooled.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Rant-Rave-Whatever: Rockstar is back.
Oh, to quote Tommy Lee, "Hell Yeah". It's back. And I kind of wonder about it, you know. Here is an earlier commentary (not long after the show started) from a secret place online where I sometimes share things like this:
Yes, you have it right, that is Tommy Lee and Dave Navarro engaged in a little very, very public tongue-wrestling. And yes, Dave does look rather as though he is enjoying it. Tommy Lee just looks like he is doing exactly what I would expect -- posing for the camera to improve his own reputation, and garner some "rockstar" style publicity.
Anyways, we are now down to the last seven "rockers", and it would appear that Zayra, who was sent home this week has successfully (and fairly cynically, I would say) managed to sign a record deal already -- I would say to sing in Spanish. Because you see, that is one of the things I see as being a problem this time around -- as mentioned above, many of the people who are in this series are there purely to launch their own careers.
The other thing that happened this week is that we heard the first ever Supernova (well okay, they may still have to buy the name off a punk band) song. Cunning move, on their part, because for the world to buy in to Supernova, the world is going to want to know what Supernova sound like (particularly since Tommy Lee said in the first episode "we are not a metal band"). So, of course, there was the controversy of who would sing for them -- in their gregaroiusness, and to prove that a woman really can front Supernova, they (and the crowd) asked Dilana to sing during their inaugural performance -- foretelling things to come? Highly likely, I think. So yes, provided a woman is prepared to tolerate the presence of half naked dancing girls, she can front Supernova. And to be fair, the music was much better -- and more musical -- than I expected it would be.
So here is what really irks me about this season of Rockstar -- it isn't the mediocre level of talent accepted in some of the rockers, and it isn't even that stupid sexbot-barbie Storm Large -- it's the chauvinism.
So I guess the point is I'm sad. Something that was sweet and good an populated by pleasant, talented, genuine people the first time around has been populated in no small part by sleazeballs and cynical self-promoters the second. And it has rubbed off on Dave, who, while I know he is a bit of a loose unit, I could respect the first time around. But hey, I'm just a fan, and it isn't up to me. I hope Dilana does win, though, because she might just kick Tommy Lee in the balls and thereby mean that Supernova was actually about the music.
So, yeah, that was my view about three weeks ago. And then there was this view of the whole thing:Other things: some of you may remember my obsession with Rockstar:INXS last year. Because I loved that show so much I have been following Rockstar:Supernova, and while I can't stop watching it, I am cming to a few conclusions:
- Tommy Lee is a dick
- The talent is not as good generally, but then it doesn't have to be: Supernova aren't going to be as musical as INXS are
- Supernova as a band are EXTREMELY likely to fail. Tommy Lee generally gives the women competitors comments on their attire rather than their ability ("baby, can I marry you?"); Gilby Clarke (of GnR fame) gave one of the women a hard time for "girnding" him when he was onstage, saying that "women in music use their sexuality too much and it was tired". This is just ONE example of the band not being "pointed in the same direction".
- Dave Navarro has toned it down a whole shitload to hang with those idiots.
- Many of the contestants are there to advertise their own music careers, rather than join Supernova
- I really, really, really want one of the ones who does appear to be there to win (Dilana) not to win. She's got talen oozing out of her, she gives me goosebumps everytime I see her perform, and she's too fucking good to waste her life on a career with Tommy Lee (though she wouldn't take any shit from him).
Yes, you have it right, that is Tommy Lee and Dave Navarro engaged in a little very, very public tongue-wrestling. And yes, Dave does look rather as though he is enjoying it. Tommy Lee just looks like he is doing exactly what I would expect -- posing for the camera to improve his own reputation, and garner some "rockstar" style publicity.
Anyways, we are now down to the last seven "rockers", and it would appear that Zayra, who was sent home this week has successfully (and fairly cynically, I would say) managed to sign a record deal already -- I would say to sing in Spanish. Because you see, that is one of the things I see as being a problem this time around -- as mentioned above, many of the people who are in this series are there purely to launch their own careers.
The other thing that happened this week is that we heard the first ever Supernova (well okay, they may still have to buy the name off a punk band) song. Cunning move, on their part, because for the world to buy in to Supernova, the world is going to want to know what Supernova sound like (particularly since Tommy Lee said in the first episode "we are not a metal band"). So, of course, there was the controversy of who would sing for them -- in their gregaroiusness, and to prove that a woman really can front Supernova, they (and the crowd) asked Dilana to sing during their inaugural performance -- foretelling things to come? Highly likely, I think. So yes, provided a woman is prepared to tolerate the presence of half naked dancing girls, she can front Supernova. And to be fair, the music was much better -- and more musical -- than I expected it would be.
So here is what really irks me about this season of Rockstar -- it isn't the mediocre level of talent accepted in some of the rockers, and it isn't even that stupid sexbot-barbie Storm Large -- it's the chauvinism.
- Gilby had a go at Jill Gioia for grinding him, but when Supernova first performed, they had half-naked dancing girls on stage. There are two messages here -- one is that if a woman wants to front Supernova, she better be prepared to deal with this crap (okay, we knew that anyway, but nothing like making it perfectly clear, eh?). Dilana did deal with it well, actually -- she is such a commanding presence the girls were a mere distraction. The second, and more disturbing message, however, is that it is not okay for a woman rocker to use her own sexuality to sell the message, but that it is quite okay for Tommy Lee to pay for the sexuality of women to sell his message.
- Dave Navarro, as much as I loved him in the first series, is spending too much time with Tommy Lee. That and his split from Carmen Electra seemto be spurring on some less than pleasant tendencies, including asking the crowd to "give it up for the string section, particularly the blonde, she's doing very well". Ummm, yeah. This is the same man who told MiG Ayesa that his beautiful rendition of 'Baby I Love Your Way' made him think "only about his wife".
- Gilby Clarke and Jason Newstead, who seem to be voices of reason, actually seemed appreciative of the dancing girls (particularly Jason).
- Storm Large is playing on her sexuality -- as of the first episode, when she said she will use it for all it is worth, and despite the fact she can't sing for ass; in fact she has done a version of 'Survive' by Gloria Gaynor that Tommy Lee referred to as "sauteed in wrong sauce"; she has not yet seen the bottom three (though Magni, who is excellent, and a real contender for the top spot, has). It would seem the fans are following Tommy's lead -- but god forbid she should use her own sexuality too much, hm? Gilby might have a go at her.
- Let us not forget that the whole outfit is being run by a man who pleaded no contest to beating his wife, and is a serial adulterer. Do we think he may have just a little problem with respect for women (though animals are another issue)?
So I guess the point is I'm sad. Something that was sweet and good an populated by pleasant, talented, genuine people the first time around has been populated in no small part by sleazeballs and cynical self-promoters the second. And it has rubbed off on Dave, who, while I know he is a bit of a loose unit, I could respect the first time around. But hey, I'm just a fan, and it isn't up to me. I hope Dilana does win, though, because she might just kick Tommy Lee in the balls and thereby mean that Supernova was actually about the music.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Rant: Religious intolerance.
You know, I think we might be headed back to the times of the crusades and the Spanish inquisition (to pick a couple of examples). Only these days, instead of torturing individuals to death, we now have vastly impersonal weapons of mass destruction. How stupid can we be, as a species, really? And, more importantly, is the stupidity of regimes of all kinds going to be the end of us?
A couple of months ago, there was an international furore over the publication of some cartoons that originated in Denmark, with entire countries boycotting other entire countries because private companies within those countries had made the decision to publish. One of the cartoons in particular was at issue, which showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
Let's deal with both sides of this issue, starting with the publication of the cartoons. Yes, the publisher is a private company. Yes, the issue is topical, and therefore ripe for cartoon. Yes, they have every right to publish nearly anything they want (there are some issues with specific ideas here, holocaust denial and hate speech come to mind as things that one can't publish without fear of censure). But why on earth would any newspaper publish cartoons that weren't even very good when the obvious ptoential to offend Islam extremists and therefore cause death? By all means, be topical, witty and acerbic, but at least produce high-quality cartoons that aren't a license to kill anyone (and yes, I agree, there should be no-one killed over a cartoon, but more on that later)
It is my opinion that after the furore started then it was a fair call for other agencies to reprint the cartoons as an element of news. It is also my opnion that this reprinting does not reflect badly on the reprinting paper, nor does it show a lack of respect fort the Islamic community. In my opinion the only institution on whom any reprtinting of this material reflects badly is the Jyllands-Posten for publishing such low-quality, poor-taste cartoons to begin with (right up there in league with the Waikato Times, on that front). Not, however, in the opinion of the New Zealand government. Hiding behind their tragic bleeding heart liberalism, but in fact covering the financial ass of the agricultural sector (one of the largest in New Zealand), the New Zealand government criticised the one New Zealand newspaper that ran the cartoons, saying it could incite tensions, and that the newspapers needed to consider the impact of publishing such a thing before publishing. Sure, but the more important considerations are 1. Is it newsworthy, and 2. is it necessary to make a complete story? I can see the answer justifiably being yes in both cases.
The kiss-ass reaction of New Zealand brings me onto the Islamic response. Yes, the cartoons were offensive, but they should be no more offensive than other representations of Muhammad that already exist, if what is being claimed is true. Moreover if it is offensive to show Muhammad with a bomb because he was a peace loving man, then protest yourselves, and urge your religious fellows to respect his ways and protest peacefully. Much of the Islam response to these cartoons validated the content of the cartoons.
As to the governmental response to the cartoons, notably Iran implementing a nationwide boycott of Danish goods (and threatening to do the same to other countries), sure, that is the right of the Iranian government. However, I ask is it fair to punish an entire country for the actions of a private institution using its (misguided) right to freedom of speech? I don't think so. And to be honest, if I had the opportunity, I would like to ask the shah or whoever is in charge there now, could you really live without the goods of all the countries you threatened to boycott? I mean, I would be glad to see the end of halal butchering, which is provably cruel, in New Zealand. But more than that, I am not impressed at the bullyboy tactics of a theocracy trying to impose its will on a democracy (and I'm even less impressed that it worked).
The whole issue could have been avoided with a little concern for what the guy next to us thinks, but since it wasn't avoided, violence and governmental bullying are disgraceful responses. Clearly, the Catholic Church have grown some since the days of the crusades, because compared to the Islamic response to the cartoons, their response to the infamous 'Bloody Mary' episode of South Park was comparatively restrained. So, now let's talk about that.
South Park is generally offensive and disgusting, and this episode, I understand, is no exception. In my opinion, anything that shows anyone's menstrual blood for kicks is taking things a little too far. And unlike the Jyllands-Posten, South Park set out to offend the Catholic Church in particular, and women in general. This is nothing new, and a lot of people claim that no-one should be offended because the show goes after everyone. I can't possily comment on that, I find the show offensive, and so I don't watch it. I certainly have never heard of an episode where they went after white men, however. In the long run, this was a deliberately offensive, planned, and pretty revolting attempt to shock on the part of the South Park creators, and I consider it a low blow, and I think it is excellent that they have been challenged on something, because it forces them to evaluate their (in my opinion) sick and twisted motives.
Even given that the episode in particular and the show in general is disgusting, though, do the Catholic people have a right to have the episode destroyed? As much as we would like it, no, they do not, just as they do not have the right to prevent non-Catholic women from taking birth control, or non-Catholic children from blaspheming in the street. Do they have the right to use legal force to ban it from being aired? Maybe, in a theocracy, but here in New Zealand we are far from a theocracy, and they tried to have it censored.
Having said that, though, those are the only aspects of the Catholic response I can fault. The rest of the protest was at a level of conscience (personal boycotts) and peaceful prayer. I know that to many of you the Catholic church may seem antiquated, and goodness knows that I don't believe they are perfect, but here, when a private institution set out to deliberately offend them, they responded in peaceful ways. Kudos for that.
We could all learn a little from the peaceful response of the Catholic Church. Is it really any concern of ours what religion our neighbour practises, so long as he harms no human or animal? If our neighbour does something we disagree with because of our moral convictions, are we better to beat the shit out of him, to call the entire neighbourhood to stop speaking to him, or are we better to leave others to their own conscience and make our concerns known peacefully, if at all?
If we cannot answer this question peacefully, I think we're in deep trouble as a species. Thousands of years of evolution, and we can't do better than thinking with the alligator brain when it comes to religion? I hope that's not the case, for all our sakes.
A couple of months ago, there was an international furore over the publication of some cartoons that originated in Denmark, with entire countries boycotting other entire countries because private companies within those countries had made the decision to publish. One of the cartoons in particular was at issue, which showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
Let's deal with both sides of this issue, starting with the publication of the cartoons. Yes, the publisher is a private company. Yes, the issue is topical, and therefore ripe for cartoon. Yes, they have every right to publish nearly anything they want (there are some issues with specific ideas here, holocaust denial and hate speech come to mind as things that one can't publish without fear of censure). But why on earth would any newspaper publish cartoons that weren't even very good when the obvious ptoential to offend Islam extremists and therefore cause death? By all means, be topical, witty and acerbic, but at least produce high-quality cartoons that aren't a license to kill anyone (and yes, I agree, there should be no-one killed over a cartoon, but more on that later)
It is my opinion that after the furore started then it was a fair call for other agencies to reprint the cartoons as an element of news. It is also my opnion that this reprinting does not reflect badly on the reprinting paper, nor does it show a lack of respect fort the Islamic community. In my opinion the only institution on whom any reprtinting of this material reflects badly is the Jyllands-Posten for publishing such low-quality, poor-taste cartoons to begin with (right up there in league with the Waikato Times, on that front). Not, however, in the opinion of the New Zealand government. Hiding behind their tragic bleeding heart liberalism, but in fact covering the financial ass of the agricultural sector (one of the largest in New Zealand), the New Zealand government criticised the one New Zealand newspaper that ran the cartoons, saying it could incite tensions, and that the newspapers needed to consider the impact of publishing such a thing before publishing. Sure, but the more important considerations are 1. Is it newsworthy, and 2. is it necessary to make a complete story? I can see the answer justifiably being yes in both cases.
The kiss-ass reaction of New Zealand brings me onto the Islamic response. Yes, the cartoons were offensive, but they should be no more offensive than other representations of Muhammad that already exist, if what is being claimed is true. Moreover if it is offensive to show Muhammad with a bomb because he was a peace loving man, then protest yourselves, and urge your religious fellows to respect his ways and protest peacefully. Much of the Islam response to these cartoons validated the content of the cartoons.
As to the governmental response to the cartoons, notably Iran implementing a nationwide boycott of Danish goods (and threatening to do the same to other countries), sure, that is the right of the Iranian government. However, I ask is it fair to punish an entire country for the actions of a private institution using its (misguided) right to freedom of speech? I don't think so. And to be honest, if I had the opportunity, I would like to ask the shah or whoever is in charge there now, could you really live without the goods of all the countries you threatened to boycott? I mean, I would be glad to see the end of halal butchering, which is provably cruel, in New Zealand. But more than that, I am not impressed at the bullyboy tactics of a theocracy trying to impose its will on a democracy (and I'm even less impressed that it worked).
The whole issue could have been avoided with a little concern for what the guy next to us thinks, but since it wasn't avoided, violence and governmental bullying are disgraceful responses. Clearly, the Catholic Church have grown some since the days of the crusades, because compared to the Islamic response to the cartoons, their response to the infamous 'Bloody Mary' episode of South Park was comparatively restrained. So, now let's talk about that.
South Park is generally offensive and disgusting, and this episode, I understand, is no exception. In my opinion, anything that shows anyone's menstrual blood for kicks is taking things a little too far. And unlike the Jyllands-Posten, South Park set out to offend the Catholic Church in particular, and women in general. This is nothing new, and a lot of people claim that no-one should be offended because the show goes after everyone. I can't possily comment on that, I find the show offensive, and so I don't watch it. I certainly have never heard of an episode where they went after white men, however. In the long run, this was a deliberately offensive, planned, and pretty revolting attempt to shock on the part of the South Park creators, and I consider it a low blow, and I think it is excellent that they have been challenged on something, because it forces them to evaluate their (in my opinion) sick and twisted motives.
Even given that the episode in particular and the show in general is disgusting, though, do the Catholic people have a right to have the episode destroyed? As much as we would like it, no, they do not, just as they do not have the right to prevent non-Catholic women from taking birth control, or non-Catholic children from blaspheming in the street. Do they have the right to use legal force to ban it from being aired? Maybe, in a theocracy, but here in New Zealand we are far from a theocracy, and they tried to have it censored.
Having said that, though, those are the only aspects of the Catholic response I can fault. The rest of the protest was at a level of conscience (personal boycotts) and peaceful prayer. I know that to many of you the Catholic church may seem antiquated, and goodness knows that I don't believe they are perfect, but here, when a private institution set out to deliberately offend them, they responded in peaceful ways. Kudos for that.
We could all learn a little from the peaceful response of the Catholic Church. Is it really any concern of ours what religion our neighbour practises, so long as he harms no human or animal? If our neighbour does something we disagree with because of our moral convictions, are we better to beat the shit out of him, to call the entire neighbourhood to stop speaking to him, or are we better to leave others to their own conscience and make our concerns known peacefully, if at all?
If we cannot answer this question peacefully, I think we're in deep trouble as a species. Thousands of years of evolution, and we can't do better than thinking with the alligator brain when it comes to religion? I hope that's not the case, for all our sakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)