Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 564)
Montreal Canadiens

Habs’ PK Subban before Game 2 (2 of 2) Habs’ Subban before Game 2 (1 of 2) Habs’ Brent Sopel before Game 2 Third String Goalie: 1988-89 Montreal Canadiens Chris Chelios Jersey Chris Chelios began his NHL career during President Ronald Regan’s first term in office back in 1984 with the Montreal Canadiens , who drafted him 40th overall in the 1981 NHL Entry Draft, with 12 regular season and 15 playoff games … Watching Montreal Canadiens Vs Boston Bruins Game 2 LIVE Stream … Live Streaming Free NHL playoffs TV Schedule April 16, 2011 Online Schedule, Time, Live Scores, Kick off Time, Highlights On Versus, RDS, CBC TV Channels and. Game 2 preview: Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins | Crash The Crease Game 2 preview: Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins. From Shawn Roarke: Big story: Montreal accomplished its goal of stealing home-ice advantage with Thursday night’s victory. “We came in here with a plan,” goalie Carey Price said after … FREE Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins Live Online NHL Playoffs … Looking for FREE Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins Live Online NHL Playoffs Game 2 04.16.2011 at 7:00 PM. This Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins match up is full of excitement and it is now moving ahead with a very wonderful … Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins FREE Live Stream NHL Playoffs … Watch Montreal Canadiens vs Boston Bruins Live Stream NHL Playoffs April 16 2011 Game 2, game will start at exactly 7:00 PM ET, if you want to feel a heart pumping game live online. Witness how this two teams played their very best in … nhlspies says: #Bruins Michael Cammalleri Pre-Game 2 Sound: Montreal Canadiens forward Michael Cammalleri talks to the media ab… http://bit.ly/gErJaW

Continue reading …
John King Justifies Bringing on Birther Orly Taitz: Our Job is Not Just to Cover Things We Know to be True

Click here to view this media John King knew he was going to be criticized for bringing in Birther queen Orly Taitz during a segment which began with talking about whether or not Gov. Jan Brewer is going to sign Arizona’s Birther law which just made its way through their state legislature . Here’s the damage control from King at the end of the segment from the criticism he knew he had coming: KING: I’m going to end the conversation now. People are entitled to go to your Web site and I hope we can talk again. But I’m going to end this conversation tonight right now. Listen, I sit in meetings for those of you at home and I’m going to pick this up and read it all. For those at home who says, you know, you crazy jerk, why are you even going down this road? I’m going down this road because our job is not just to cover things that we know to be true. It’s our job is to cover things that people are talking about in politics. And to try, to try to have rational conversations about why people believe what they believe, even if our reporting suggests what they believe is not true. And we will continue to do that. I can assure you, we will never be perfect, but we try to do it in a respectful way. There’s nothing “respectful” about spending at least half of the 12 minutes of a segment of your show allowing some discredited Birther nut like Taitz to rant and rave and spew conspiracy theories that you know aren’t true. Well, at least someone on CNN admitted what we already knew was true: Facts don’t matter much in their reporting. If some wingnut politician or political figure says something, they must cover it in the name of being “fair and balanced.” King went on to ask if the White House is somehow more worried about the Birther nonsense than they’re letting on and if they’re trying to “at least use a subtle message to rebut this.” Yeah, that’s it, John. They’re speaking to the Birthers in coded messages that the rest of us somehow missed. Transcript of the portion via CNN below the fold. KING: OK. Let me — let me Cornell — stay with us, please. I’m sorry. But stay with us. I just want to let Cornell into the conversation — because when you listen to that, you can say, if you want, you can say, crazy. You can say absurd. However — however, you’re in the polling business, and a chunk and not an insignificant chunk of the American people believe this. Let’s look at our latest poll. Was Barack Obama born in the United States? Definitely yes: 46 percent. Probably yes: 26 percent. Probably no: 15 percent. Definitely no: 10 percent. Ten percent of all Americans think their president is not born in this country. CORNELL BELCHER: And I wonder what party they — KING: Well, you say what party. So, let’s look it. Let’s break it down by party. Was Barack Obama born in the United States? Forty-three percent of Republicans say probably or definitely not. Twenty-three percent of independents say probably or definitely not. But this one jumps out and surprised me — 11 percent of Democrats say probably or definitely not. Does the president have to do something more proactively to clean this up? Or as he said yesterday with this interview with George Stephanopoulos, you know, I don’t do conspiracy theories. Is that enough? BELCHER: No. KING: Is that enough that in a close election, this controversy, we at CNN have done a lot of work on this and we think it’s bogus, but 43 percent of Republicans, 23 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats have doubts. BELCHER: Forty-three percent of Republicans is what you want to focus on, quite frankly. As someone who did polling work for the Obama campaign, it’s not something that’s new to me and something that sort of has a direct relationship with their inability to sort of accept Barack Obama. The problem here is this: it is so categorically insane and you have so many sort of rational people, you know, not wanting to accept the truth. You have to ask: what is it about this president that makes them not want to accept the truth? Why are so many people vesting so much in something that is categorically — KING: Orly, I think the question Cornell is asking, he’s trying to ask it more politely. Let me ask it bluntly. If Barack Obama were white, would we be going through this? TAITZ: Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, when President McCain ran for office, the Senate — KING: President McCain said — Senator McCain, excuse me, Senator McCain said, take this off the table. He is an American. I believe he is an American. Let’s talk about his views on taxes. Let’s talk about his views on Social Security. Let’s talk about his views on national security. TAITZ: Let me answer. When Senator McCain wanted to run there was a hearing, a senatorial hearing, and it was Senate resolution 511 whereby it was decided that he was a natural born citizen. And as a matter of fact, what I believe is there is a political correctness that went haywire that allowed Barack Obama to get in the White House with a stolen Social Security number. Here, I have documents that the nation needs to see. This is — BELCHER: Senator McCain — here’s the problem. You’ve dominated the time. (CROSSTALK) TAITZ: No, no, sir. BELCHER: You’ve dominated the time. I’m going to talk. Senator McCain is a guy who wasn’t born in this country and you don’t have the same sort of fervor going around saying anything — (CROSSTALK) BELCHER: What’s the variable? What is the variable here? The variable here is you’ve got an African-American president. TAITZ: No. No. BELCHER: None of this ever came up (INAUDIBLE) African-American president. That’s the only variable here. And when you have this sort of ill logic, there is nothing the president can do to sort of prove this. You have a birth certificate. You have an announcement. They reject the truth. They don’t want the truth to be true. Why do they want this truth to be true in this case with this president? KING: Let me play — I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Hold on one second. Just one second. I will let you answer. Hold on one second. My name is in the funny lights behind me. I get to talk just a little bit. I want you — this is the cynic in me, Cornell, that the White House says they don’t worry about this, but every now and then, you start to hear things where I think that somebody quietly is trying to at least use a subtle message to rebut this. Listen to this recent little — several little snippets of the president and things around him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We’re all Americans. And that spirit of patriotism. This isn’t a Democratic or a Republican idea, it’s patriotism. This is what America is all about, everybody from different places, enjoying those things that bind us together. The thing about America is that is great is that we’re bold. We’re tough. We show the world that all things are possible in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) BELCHER: That’s who he is. I mean, that’s not new. That’s going back to the very beginning of this campaign. Look, we’ve got a fairly good percentage of Republicans last time around who voted for us, I mean, somebody, I think even Ike’s daughter voted for us because of this idea of American exceptionalism. There were articles after articles sort of saying this president reminds us of Ronald Reagan because of his exceptionalism. TAITZ: Sir, I mean, look, this is ridiculous. BELCHER: The ideals this guy believes that we are one and sort of patriotic. Patriotism isn’t a Republican ideal. It’s a Democratic ideal as well. KING: Orly, we’ve been waiting. TAITZ: Let me respond to this. KING: Let me ask you a question. We’ve been waiting — Donald Trump, the businessman who says he may run for president. We’re waiting — he’s supposed to do a live event down in Florida. That’s the event right there where he’s supposed to come out and talk to reporters. He has – he has risen in the polls among Republicans to second in our recent poll behind Mike Huckabee, tied with Mike Huckabee at 19 percent. He has jumped up in the polls the last few weeks because he has been beating this like a drum. Would you vote for Donald Trump for president? TAITZ: Absolutely. And it’s not only because of the Social Security issue. Not only because of the birth certificate. Barack Obama is committing Social Security fraud. The biggest crime ever committed — KING: You’re accusing the president of the United States of committing a felony. TAITZ: Absolutely. Yes. And he’s not a legitimate — he’s not legitimate president. Here is selective service certificate that can be seen on my Web site OrlyTaitzESQ.com, and it was filed with the courts. KING: I’m going to end the conversation now. People are entitled to go to your Web site and I hope we can talk again. But I’m going to end this conversation tonight right now. Listen, I sit in meetings for those of you at home and I’m going to pick this up and read it all. For those at home who says, you know, you crazy jerk, why are you even going down this road? I’m going down this road because our job is not just to cover things that we know to be true. It’s our job is to cover things that people are talking about in politics. And to try, to try to have rational conversations about why people believe what they believe, even if our reporting suggests what they believe is not true. And we will continue to do that. I can assure you, we will never be perfect, but we try to do it in a respectful way.

Continue reading …
John King Justifies Bringing on Birther Orly Taitz: Our Job is Not Just to Cover Things We Know to be True

Click here to view this media John King knew he was going to be criticized for bringing in Birther queen Orly Taitz during a segment which began with talking about whether or not Gov. Jan Brewer is going to sign Arizona’s Birther law which just made its way through their state legislature . Here’s the damage control from King at the end of the segment from the criticism he knew he had coming: KING: I’m going to end the conversation now. People are entitled to go to your Web site and I hope we can talk again. But I’m going to end this conversation tonight right now. Listen, I sit in meetings for those of you at home and I’m going to pick this up and read it all. For those at home who says, you know, you crazy jerk, why are you even going down this road? I’m going down this road because our job is not just to cover things that we know to be true. It’s our job is to cover things that people are talking about in politics. And to try, to try to have rational conversations about why people believe what they believe, even if our reporting suggests what they believe is not true. And we will continue to do that. I can assure you, we will never be perfect, but we try to do it in a respectful way. There’s nothing “respectful” about spending at least half of the 12 minutes of a segment of your show allowing some discredited Birther nut like Taitz to rant and rave and spew conspiracy theories that you know aren’t true. Well, at least someone on CNN admitted what we already knew was true: Facts don’t matter much in their reporting. If some wingnut politician or political figure says something, they must cover it in the name of being “fair and balanced.” King went on to ask if the White House is somehow more worried about the Birther nonsense than they’re letting on and if they’re trying to “at least use a subtle message to rebut this.” Yeah, that’s it, John. They’re speaking to the Birthers in coded messages that the rest of us somehow missed. Transcript of the portion via CNN below the fold. KING: OK. Let me — let me Cornell — stay with us, please. I’m sorry. But stay with us. I just want to let Cornell into the conversation — because when you listen to that, you can say, if you want, you can say, crazy. You can say absurd. However — however, you’re in the polling business, and a chunk and not an insignificant chunk of the American people believe this. Let’s look at our latest poll. Was Barack Obama born in the United States? Definitely yes: 46 percent. Probably yes: 26 percent. Probably no: 15 percent. Definitely no: 10 percent. Ten percent of all Americans think their president is not born in this country. CORNELL BELCHER: And I wonder what party they — KING: Well, you say what party. So, let’s look it. Let’s break it down by party. Was Barack Obama born in the United States? Forty-three percent of Republicans say probably or definitely not. Twenty-three percent of independents say probably or definitely not. But this one jumps out and surprised me — 11 percent of Democrats say probably or definitely not. Does the president have to do something more proactively to clean this up? Or as he said yesterday with this interview with George Stephanopoulos, you know, I don’t do conspiracy theories. Is that enough? BELCHER: No. KING: Is that enough that in a close election, this controversy, we at CNN have done a lot of work on this and we think it’s bogus, but 43 percent of Republicans, 23 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats have doubts. BELCHER: Forty-three percent of Republicans is what you want to focus on, quite frankly. As someone who did polling work for the Obama campaign, it’s not something that’s new to me and something that sort of has a direct relationship with their inability to sort of accept Barack Obama. The problem here is this: it is so categorically insane and you have so many sort of rational people, you know, not wanting to accept the truth. You have to ask: what is it about this president that makes them not want to accept the truth? Why are so many people vesting so much in something that is categorically — KING: Orly, I think the question Cornell is asking, he’s trying to ask it more politely. Let me ask it bluntly. If Barack Obama were white, would we be going through this? TAITZ: Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, when President McCain ran for office, the Senate — KING: President McCain said — Senator McCain, excuse me, Senator McCain said, take this off the table. He is an American. I believe he is an American. Let’s talk about his views on taxes. Let’s talk about his views on Social Security. Let’s talk about his views on national security. TAITZ: Let me answer. When Senator McCain wanted to run there was a hearing, a senatorial hearing, and it was Senate resolution 511 whereby it was decided that he was a natural born citizen. And as a matter of fact, what I believe is there is a political correctness that went haywire that allowed Barack Obama to get in the White House with a stolen Social Security number. Here, I have documents that the nation needs to see. This is — BELCHER: Senator McCain — here’s the problem. You’ve dominated the time. (CROSSTALK) TAITZ: No, no, sir. BELCHER: You’ve dominated the time. I’m going to talk. Senator McCain is a guy who wasn’t born in this country and you don’t have the same sort of fervor going around saying anything — (CROSSTALK) BELCHER: What’s the variable? What is the variable here? The variable here is you’ve got an African-American president. TAITZ: No. No. BELCHER: None of this ever came up (INAUDIBLE) African-American president. That’s the only variable here. And when you have this sort of ill logic, there is nothing the president can do to sort of prove this. You have a birth certificate. You have an announcement. They reject the truth. They don’t want the truth to be true. Why do they want this truth to be true in this case with this president? KING: Let me play — I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Hold on one second. Just one second. I will let you answer. Hold on one second. My name is in the funny lights behind me. I get to talk just a little bit. I want you — this is the cynic in me, Cornell, that the White House says they don’t worry about this, but every now and then, you start to hear things where I think that somebody quietly is trying to at least use a subtle message to rebut this. Listen to this recent little — several little snippets of the president and things around him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We’re all Americans. And that spirit of patriotism. This isn’t a Democratic or a Republican idea, it’s patriotism. This is what America is all about, everybody from different places, enjoying those things that bind us together. The thing about America is that is great is that we’re bold. We’re tough. We show the world that all things are possible in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) BELCHER: That’s who he is. I mean, that’s not new. That’s going back to the very beginning of this campaign. Look, we’ve got a fairly good percentage of Republicans last time around who voted for us, I mean, somebody, I think even Ike’s daughter voted for us because of this idea of American exceptionalism. There were articles after articles sort of saying this president reminds us of Ronald Reagan because of his exceptionalism. TAITZ: Sir, I mean, look, this is ridiculous. BELCHER: The ideals this guy believes that we are one and sort of patriotic. Patriotism isn’t a Republican ideal. It’s a Democratic ideal as well. KING: Orly, we’ve been waiting. TAITZ: Let me respond to this. KING: Let me ask you a question. We’ve been waiting — Donald Trump, the businessman who says he may run for president. We’re waiting — he’s supposed to do a live event down in Florida. That’s the event right there where he’s supposed to come out and talk to reporters. He has – he has risen in the polls among Republicans to second in our recent poll behind Mike Huckabee, tied with Mike Huckabee at 19 percent. He has jumped up in the polls the last few weeks because he has been beating this like a drum. Would you vote for Donald Trump for president? TAITZ: Absolutely. And it’s not only because of the Social Security issue. Not only because of the birth certificate. Barack Obama is committing Social Security fraud. The biggest crime ever committed — KING: You’re accusing the president of the United States of committing a felony. TAITZ: Absolutely. Yes. And he’s not a legitimate — he’s not legitimate president. Here is selective service certificate that can be seen on my Web site OrlyTaitzESQ.com, and it was filed with the courts. KING: I’m going to end the conversation now. People are entitled to go to your Web site and I hope we can talk again. But I’m going to end this conversation tonight right now. Listen, I sit in meetings for those of you at home and I’m going to pick this up and read it all. For those at home who says, you know, you crazy jerk, why are you even going down this road? I’m going down this road because our job is not just to cover things that we know to be true. It’s our job is to cover things that people are talking about in politics. And to try, to try to have rational conversations about why people believe what they believe, even if our reporting suggests what they believe is not true. And we will continue to do that. I can assure you, we will never be perfect, but we try to do it in a respectful way.

Continue reading …
The sweet smell of success

Who cares about being antisocial? Some meals are so good the foul after-effects are worth it… I am, for the most part, a sociable chap. I like the company of others. Apart from homeopaths, libertarians, Morris dancers and men who drive small sporty BMWs with leather trim. Oh, and John McCririck. Other than that, come one, come all. In certain matters of appetite, however, I

Continue reading …
Is Cowell essential to The X Factor?

Simon Cowell is rumoured to be on the verge of quitting The X Factor. Tom Lamont and Euan Ferguson debate whether the programme could survive such a blow Yes, says Observer journalist Tom Lamont To borrow Cowell’s own expansive interpretation of maths: 1,000,000% yes. He is essential to The X Factor . That is not to say that when, as has been suggested, Cowell steps down from his on-screen role on the show, ending a seven-year run as judge and mentor to focus his attention on American TV, The X Factor will end. More than 20 million tuned in at its peak last year; ITV will not cull this revenue source in a hurry. But without Cowell The X Factor will be diminished. Keen smiles ( We’re OK! ). Host Dermot O’Leary doing twice as many clicks and heel-spins ( It’s still fun! ). Singers trying to look grave as they listen to verdicts from Cowell’s replacement ( This is legitimate criticism! ). The show will live on, but unhappily. The contestants are the problem. Conditioned by years of platitude and catchphrase-analysis from the show’s other judges (first Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne, then Walsh, Dannii Minogue and Cheryl Cole), auditionees have learned to care only what Cowell thinks. Good performers wait kindly while Walsh repeats their name several times and pronounces on their “star quality”, while Minogue says something about “smashing it” and Cole tries to cry. Yeah, yeah, their faces say – but what does he think? Bad performers look properly distraught if Walsh, Minogue or Cole say something mean, but always have one eye on Cowell. One of the incidental delights of The X Factor is that bit, a quarter-way through, when the contestants are divided into groups (under-25s, boy bands, and so on) and told which judge will “mentor” them. If they get Cowell it’s chaos: fancying themselves that much closer to escape from routine life, the hopefuls run towards him as if he were the last American helicopter out of ‘Nam. The other judges get a bit of fist-pumping, all the contestants grin, but their eyes are worried. They’re thinking about those peers, weeping and bear-hugging in Simon Cowell’s living room. It shows they’ve got some industry nous, already, to care about Cowell so much. Outside the bounds of its 20-week TV run, the show’s best chart successes have been defined by their relationship to Cowell. Either boosted by his lavish support (Leona Lewis, an X Factor champ in 2006) or by his teasing opposition (Will Young, a contestant on X Factor predecessor Pop Idol , launched to fame by being the first contestant to talk back to Cowell, to spar with the master). So, yes, he’s essential – essential, lastly, to audience enjoyment. At least mine. As is probably clear, I’m not so much a fan of The X Factor as a fan of the Simon Cowell bits. He’s really the only one with the nebulous quality the programme purports to search for. Charged to think up new ways to say “You’re good” or “You’re bad” well over 100 times a series, he keeps his little blasts of critique enviably fresh. Perhaps more impressively he keeps all boredom in check as, every year, the same crowd of karaoke veterans, frustrated professionals, tearful family types ( always instructed to audition at the deathbed of a relative) troop through. He keeps our boredom in check too. Cowell’s the whole show. No, says Observer TV critic Euan Ferguson Personally, I’d rather Mr Cowell stayed in Britain. Not, and I mean that word in big angry italics, because I think he does any good, but because Americans are now going to spend the next year thinking the cream of British style, wit and intellect today is faithfully represented by Simon Cowell and Piers

Continue reading …
Nigel Slater’s main course salads

Frisée and trevisse, alfalfa and amaranth… with all the spring leaves to choose from, April is an inspiring time for salads The spring weather encourages a lighter touch to our cooking, and in my kitchen at least, a greater emphasis on main course salads. The leafy base may include some of the crisp, refreshingly bitter chicories and mild, mixed spring leaves but this is also when sprouted seeds and members of the cress family can be used to add everything from mustardy heat to a

Continue reading …
The Cultural Kryptonite Of The American Right

Click here to view this media Before U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on Muammar Gaddafi’s air defenses, the only conversation that President Obama had to have was with his senior advisers. They, and they alone would decide whether a country founded as a democratic republic would engage in what George Washington would have likely viewed as a “foreign entanglement” – using 21st-century ordinance against a sociopath with a history of violence and a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr. Obviously, in 200 years the United States has evolved from a rebel-with-a-cause into a world power, and additional involvement in world affairs has become part of the cost of doing business. There is also a good argument to be made that after the terrible mistake of the Iraq invasion, the US can do some good by putting an end to the murderous Gaddafi in Libya, as part of an international coalition made up of Arab and African countries, blessed by the United Nations. Yet, that does not change the fact that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow. Obama and his people simply knew they could ignore the people’s representatives and safely rely upon a militarized culture primed to support an attack on an Arab nation. Particularly one the US had already thrown down with only a generation ago. It is this fact that makes author, syndicated columnist and talk radio host David Sirota’s new book, Back To Our Future, not only a fascinating read about the culture of the 1980s, but a manifestly important work in helping explain why the United States does the things it does today. From involvement in a civil war in Libya to allowing a madman sans background check to saunter into his local arms bazaar and purchase a high-powered firearm for an attempted assassination of a congresswoman. The latter being easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955. ‘Outlaw with morals’ As Sirota explains it, the ’80s were the age of cross-marketing, when concepts that had a place in American history suddenly became commonplace. The anti-government language of president Ronald Reagan adorned films such as Ghostbusters and E.T. These “political messages in non-political settings indoctrinated the young, when their filter for political propaganda was turned off.” As a result, these framed narratives became part of the conventional wisdom, continuing to this day. In much the way E.T. heightened suspicions about our government, Libyan terrorists in Back To The Future and a bad-guy professional wrestling star named The Iron Sheik helped prepare the American people for the role we’ve played in the Arab world over the past decade. Meanwhile, the “outlaw with morals”, or rogue who had to work against the system to get things done, was a key message that reached the masses. The bromide of “government being the problem, not the solution”, was not only contained in Reagan’s philosophy, but Wall Street’s ethic, the frontier mythology of many regions of the country, and films, music, and television series, but perhaps most importantly promoted using athletes by one of the most powerful marketing machines ever seen – Nike. As Sirota offers about Nike’s effect, “they took this narrative to the level of societal saturation”. This can at least partially explain the rogue individualism that can be found in the love affair certain Americans have with guns, and even more importantly, the corollary that only they can protect themselves, often from the very government they once looked upon for this service. Of course, this cultural sea change did not just happen by itself. An array of right-wing think tanks and media organizations, born in the 1970s to lead this kind of a cultural revolution, synergistically grabbed this societal zeitgeist and hopped, skipped and jumped with it, declaring the 1960s and 1970s an illegitimate, naïve, or even dangerous social experiment. As Sirota reminds us, in the 1980s a minister speaking at The Heritage Foundation, one of these newish (1973) and lavishly funded right-wing media and policy operations intricately tied to the Reagan administration, believed he and his ilk, were “here to turn the clock back to 1954 in this country”. ‘Prepubescents’ in charge Danny Goldberg, former CEO of Air America, has also recognized this cultural evolution, and the role played by well-funded conservative organs in helping spread the non-love. As he sees it, appealing to the psyche and vision of the American people or pulling on their heartstrings, if you will, is in short supply on the Left, as “Democrats do not use imagination and culture to open minds for their agenda”. As Goldberg put it in a Nation piece, “you can count how many people click onto a web page, how long it was viewed and how many people it was forwarded to but determining how much impact it has on the minds of the readers requires educated guesses and fallible intuitive human analysis.” The Left had better begin to under this outsized role of culture, imagination and emotion in our politics soon. Because if we are indeed operating in parameters set up by not only the politics, but the arts and letters of 1980s, reinforced by millions of dollars invested in long-term conservative projects to convince the American people this is the way it has always been, we are in for a rough decade or three. For as Sirota says, “our world is increasingly run by the prepubescents, college kids, and young ladder-climbers who were originally indoctrinated and inculcated in the 1980s.” Therefore, if we are looking for an alternative to all-too-present strains of foreign adventurism, Wall Street me-ism and domestic militia-ism – among other challenges – we will need our own cultural rebirth to return to the values that once animated this nation. Because, whether he comes from Krypton, Kansas City or Kazakhstan, I am not ready to start kneeling before Zod anytime soon. You can follow Cliff on Twitter: @cliffschecter This column was first published at Al Jazeera English

Continue reading …
University a lottery for people like me

With projected A-level grades of three As and a B, this talented student had hopes of reading English at Oxford or Bristol. But the huge influx of students trying to beat the rise in tuition fees has left her and countless others disappointed For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to go to Oxford. Martin Luther King had his dream, and I have mine – granted, mine is a lot more egotistical and selfish and not really concerned with social utility, but I’m 17 years old, give me a break. I don’t want to go to Oxford because I’ve had some inspirational chinwag with an eccentric teacher who satiated my growing ego with tales of how much potential I have and how good a writer I am (I am pretty good though, I can paint pictures with words, make them all pretty, like). I want to go there because it’s the best university in the country (excepting Cambridge, but they’re essentially the same thing, let’s call a spade a spade) and, according to universally acknowledged league tables, the best for my subject, which, if you hadn’t guessed from my colourful vocabulary, is English literature. I didn’t get into Oxford and it hurt, but I’m not going to detail my grieving process because it brings up too much buried pain and I’m reserving that material for my therapist. Anyway, it’s not just Oxbridge and it’s not just black students: getting into university this year has been a perilous feat, leaving students depressed, dejected and with a dismal outlook on life. The cap on tuition fees has been blown off like an unruly volcano and now we students are festering in the poisonous lava. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are trying to get ethnic minorities interested in aiming higher, yet their coalition government is allowing the increase in fees and sticking us with the prospect of a £27,000 debt over our heads. So this year, with an unbelievable influx of applicants all trying to beat the hike, all universities have had the undesirable job of choosing the best students out of a pretty indistinguishable pile. And thus we are stuck with a catch-22 where the only way out is a student lottery. Which is why people with higher grades, lower grades and pretty much the same grades as me are getting in, and others with higher grades, lower grades and pretty much the same grades as me are not. And that is just the way the unfair, unjustified and just plain stupid cookie crumbles. The most painful thing about not getting into Oxford was that, at the time, I didn’t understand why. I was predicted A*AAB (which, after the results of my January exams, has now been revised to A*A*A*B – bittersweet, to say the least), I had a strong personal statement, a good reference and a glittering personality (seriously, ask anyone). I met the entrance requirements, I aced the admissions test and my interview went pretty well, too. What went wrong? It wasn’t just Oxford that rejected me, but Warwick, Bristol, UCL and, seemingly, life – life has rejected me and left me a writhing, gibbering wreck with nothing to look forward to except a perpetual cycle of rejection. Hallelujah. Bristol was the worst. With every other university, it was more or less a clean break. It was all “we have received your application” and then – kaboom – “unsuccessful”. But not Bristol, they had to reject me with style. They had to be the rejectors to beat all rejectors. They had to make me want it. They had to make me wait with ceaseless expectation as they tended to my application. Keeping track became like monitoring a disease that got progressively worse, and then, when I had the most chance of recovery, Bristol pulled the plug on my life support machine, leaving me, to all intents and purposes, dead. And I still don’t know why. I mean, running with this disease metaphor, a doctor, while tending to my rotting corpse, would give my family closure, tell them that my application lacked passion or something, so the next time, following miraculous revivification, I would understand how not to die. But none of the universities thought past killing me. I do know, however, that it was not a lack of aspiration that led to these failures. It’s often said that due to a stifling culture that forces black students into not aiming high enough, or aspiring for better than their council flat in Bermondsey or their inevitable descent into gang warfare, ethnic minorities think Oxbridge is an unachievable dream. Well, they don’t. It’s not a case of black people seeing a mass of impenetrable whiteness at Russell Group universities and therefore being scared out of applying. I mean, we got a man on the moon. We didn’t let our fear of aliens stop us from breakdancing on that over-sized lump of rock, did we? Well, I mean “we” as a collective human race, not “you and me”, unless you happen to be Neil Armstrong. Ethnic minorities won’t succumb to not succeeding just because they’ve been dissuaded by a couple of secondary school teachers; if there’s something to aspire to, people aspire. I aimed high, and am from a generation that consistently dares to be better and achieve greater things, especially in the face of adversity. I aimed even higher when I was selected by the Social Mobility Foundation (SMF) – because I’m high-achieving, but underprivileged (yippee, I think) – for special mentoring. I still had to apply, though – you’d think being selected would grant me immunity from having to fill out the application form, but no such luck. I was paired with an amazing mentor called Ajay, who went to Cambridge and got a first in history and is now a journalist. This made me plan out the next decade of my life as such: go to Oxford, get a first-class degree, become a journalist, be amazing. As a mentor, Ajay gave me advice about applications and emailed cyber slaps whenever I was freaking out about life, the universe and everything. The SMF set me up with a wealth of interview preparation sessions and got speakers to come in and talk to us about careers, so I was pretty confident when, in wintry December, I had my interview at Oxford. It went well. You can’t hear my tone, so I’m going to have to state that I am not being sarcastic, it actually did go pretty well. When I got to Oxford, it was initially rather calamitous because I tried to make friends with some international students who probably thought I was an alien (with the blue hair and everything) and promptly ran away, and I couldn’t talk to anyone else because they were all sitting in fully formed circles in the junior common room, so I went to bed thinking, “Gah! Oxford is terrible!” But then I woke up and it was like it never happened. I met the rest of the English students and we bonded before our interviews and there was a really nice atmosphere because we swore that we would be best friends for ever. Except we can’t now, because Oxford has dashed my dreams of world domination. And having wicked cool friends. I had two interviews over consecutive days, each with two tutors. I’d been prepared for the old “So, why do you want to read English?” question, which, of course, they didn’t ask (because that was what my personal statement was answering). I was expecting a sort of “good cop, bad cop” operation, where one tutor would ask me where Leo Tolstoy spent his pocket money as a child while snarling at me, and the other would counter with “Now, tell me, what is a rhyming couplet?” Instead, the first tutor discussed a poem with me (it wasn’t a very good poem), then the second tutor and I discussed the socio-economic state of India in The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy and other examples in literature where a character has failed to adapt to changing situations. I even slipped in some background reading I’d done by way of an essay by Roland Barthes called “The Death of the Author”. They were smiling and nodding like Cheshire cats on acid when they heard that. In the second interview, I quoted the introduction of Lolita because it’s my favourite part of the novel and I like quoting things, and I linked the language used in Lolita to the grandiose language of Othello , which is my A-level text. Granted, I did confuse “Ode to a Nightingale” with “Ode on a Grecian Urn”, but it wasn’t as though I thought Charlotte Brontë wrote Hamlet or anything and I corrected myself and continued with my analysis of Romantic literature. I thought I did pretty well. Although I probably saw about one other black person while I was in Oxford, I didn’t feel like a minority. I remember meeting a German guy called Florian who was applying for linguistics – we had an argument over the spelling of “Bach”. It was good times. The only point at which I experienced any discrimination was when my all-male pub quiz team in the junior common room ignored me when I knew the answer to a football question. It’s been a gruelling year for students. Cameron and his cronies need to stop making strange racial assertions about one of the country’s oldest establishments and ensure the radical changes to the education system don’t make students of all colours fear for their futures. Tuition fees University of Oxford Higher education Students guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
MPs lament long hours in Commons

Mumsnet poll show parliamentarians lament late nights spent voting on legislation and say the system is still not family friendly Nearly one in three MPs say they have considered quitting because of the pressure on their families caused by long working hours. Politicians complain that late-night votes and the strain of splitting their lives between constituencies and London places them under strain. Despite efforts in recent years to reform House of Commons practices, a survey by the website Mumsnet shows nearly two thirds of MPs believe their jobs have had a negative impact on their family lives. More than 90% of the 101 MPs surveyed said that parliament was not family friendly – a figure indicating that steps such as the opening of a creche for the children of MPs and staff have not succeeded in rectifying the Commons work/life balance. MPs regularly have to stay for late night sittings that go beyond 10pm. And last year a Cardiff Liberal Democrat MP complained it was “crazy” that she had to leave her baby with colleagues during votes in the House of Commons. Jenny Willott said she handed her 18-week-old son Toby “to the nearest MP” to comply with rules that allows only MPs into the division lobbies where votes are cast. The complaints are not new. A number of former MPs have cited the lack of time they are allowed to spend with their loved ones as a reason for their eventual abandonment of a life in parliamentary politics.One veteran MP said: “I never saw my children grow up and I’ll regret that for the rest of my life.” Another MP added: “I am newly elected and cannot see how I can keep this up for the next four years without damaging my family relationships.” Almost half of those MPs asked said they wanted to end late night voting. John Woodcock, the Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, said he had never considered giving up parliament but had grown concerned since being elected in May about the effect of the working practices at the Commons into MPs’ lives at home. Woodcock, Labour’s transport spokesman, who has a two-year-old daughter, Maisie, said: “It is a huge privilege to do the job and I’m working flat out at it. But it inevitably puts a strain on the family to live in two places through the week, spending half the week in the constituency and half the week in London.”Speaking to colleagues, on top of that, the hours of the House of Commons for many people are not geared up to ease family existence for those who have their family in London during the week. Late night votes and meetings leaves them tired at the weekend and that has an effect on life at home.” ” Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour party, said she had long-contended that reforms were urgently necessary to make parliament more effective. “It is important that we allow MPs family lives because so much policy is centred around family,” she said. “I have for a long time said that MPs should be able to travel back from their constituencies on a Monday and start work earlier on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so they can finish earlier on those days. I think that would make parliament a more family friendly and actually a more effective place.” Despite the concerns, 85% MPs have roundly rejected the idea of parliamentarians having job shares, an idea proposed by the newly elected Green MP Caroline Lucas. Commenting on the survey findings, CEO and co-founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts, said: “Making a country or workplace family friendly relies on all of us helping to change the culture around us. If politicians want the country to be more family friendly they need to lead by example, and at the moment parliament falls far short of this. If we want legislation that reflects the needs of families, it seems fair we allow MPs to live as families.The country could waste a lot of talent if we give in to the viewpoint that parliament is no place for a parent with young kids.” House of Commons Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Nicolas Cage held on abuse charges

Oscar-winning actor Cage taken into custody in New Orleans after allegedly grabbing his wife and damaging parked cars Actor Nicolas Cage has been arrested on suspicion of domestic abuse after an allegedly drunken altercation with his wife. The Oscar-winning actor was taken into custody in New Orleans on Friday after he was said to have grabbed his wife, Alice Kim, and damaged parked cars during an argument about where they were staying in the city. Cage, 47, was booked on suspicion of domestic-abuse battery, disturbing the peace and public drunkenness, said New Orleans police spokesman Gary Floyd. “[They] were standing in front of a residence that he insisted was the property the couple was renting,” said Floyd. “She disagreed and Cage grabbed her by the upper arm and pulled her to what he believed was the correct address.” He is then alleged to have begun striking cars. “An officer… observed that Cage was heavily intoxicated.” There were no visible injuries to Cage’s wife and the actor was later released on bail. Nicolas Cage Domestic violence United States guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …