Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1339)

Bullies

No Comment

The Daily Show Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes , Political Humor & Satire Blog , The Daily Show on Facebook There is an old adage that always was a lot of comfort to those of us who barely survived our junior high school years: if you stand up to bullies, you’ll find they tend to be cowards not very far beneath the surface. Part of it is that they are so used to people cowering and giving way before them that when someone does stand up and fight back, they don’t how to handle it. We are seeing that play out right now in the world of politics. Big corporate interests and conservative Republicans are so used to bullying people into easy submission, that when someone stands up to them, they lose it awfully fast. My first example is Republican reaction to the President’s budget speech last week. Can you believe the level of high-pitched whining coming from Republicans when the President pointed out the fairly obvious fact that their budget is a tad bit unfair because it takes health care and nursing home coverage from seniors and those with disabilities while giving massive new tax cuts to millionaires ? Seems obvious to me, but when Obama stood his ground and made these self-evident points, these guys squealed like stuck pigs. “Partisan,” “class warfare,” and all that. Ryan even complained that Obama invited him to the speech but then criticized his plan, which sounded a lot to me like Newt being invited onto Air Force and then complaining about his seating assignment. Now, as Jon Stewart hilariously pointed out , this is coming from a party whose leaders have spent the last three years calling Obama a socialist, communist, Nazi, and a friend of terrorists, questioning his citizenship and his religion and his patriotism. Great on the old dishing it out thing, not so much on the taking it thing. Here’s another example: Wall Street bankers fretting about the “moral hazard” of homeowners having their mortgages written down or about the fact that other businesspeople are tired of having the big banks make tens of billions of profit off of swipe fees while refusing to negotiate on the issue. The big Wall Street banks have been so used to having their way all the time, unfortunately with either party in power, that when anyone challenges their right to do whatever they want, they get very hurt. They were appalled when Obama and other Democrats said the mildest things in reproach while working to pass last year’s financial reform bill. One Wall Street billionaire, chairman of Blackstone Stephen Schwarzman, even compared Obama to Hitler , saying about a modest proposal to close a big loophole for wealthy bankers, it’s a “war… like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” Schwarzman and other top bankers are said to be furious about the fact that Obama occasionally suggest modest new regulations and taxes on the elite circle of financial wizards who created a the biggest financial bubble in history, wreaked trillions of dollars of destruction on the economy (both ours and the world’s), got saved by our government and the taxpayers, and got to keep not only cushy jobs but their nifty bonuses anyway. Now they are appalled that Elizabeth Warren might want to force them to not have misleading fine print in their consumer financial documents. They are outraged at the idea that Dick Durbin and retail businesses might want some oversight that would keep them from charging whatever swipe fees they want to charge. They are deeply disturbed at the moral hazard of underwater homeowners getting their mortgages written down a little. They take umbrage at the idea that a senior citizen taking in $14,000 a year in Social Security isn’t willing to sacrifice by letting their benefits be cut, or to have to pay $6,000 more a year in out-of-pocket Medicare costs. If we don’t stop outraging these poor Wall Street bankers so much, they might have to get treated for hypertension. When they aren’t comparing Obama to Hitler, or complaining to their friends at very expensive dinner parties, they are spending lots and lots of money. Campaign contributions, lobbying expenses, advertising, money to the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove front groups that is harder to trace because there is no reporting requirements. And a lot of this money will go back to Republicans so they can do PR campaigns attacking Obama as being too “partisan,” or engaging in “class warfare.” By the way, speaking of front groups, here’s the other thing the Republicans and Wall Street are colluding on: using Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s rating services to support their agenda. I wrote last week about Moody’s changing the rating on Wisconsin to help Scott Walker’s jihad against unions. Now Standard and Poor’s are issuing vague threats — engineered to get headlines — about lowering the federal government credit rating if we don’t do “something” about the deficit sometime soon. The problem, as I wrote last week , is that having the two companies at the heart of the financial fraud, the two companies who rated everything their client banks asked them to as AAA bonds regardless of how weak they were, be the arbiter on good fiscal policy is like having a convicted murderer be a character witness at your trial. This is politics pure and simple, with Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s continuing to serve their main clients’ agendas no matter how much fraud is involved. Congressional Republicans and the big banks are classic bullies, used to getting their way on all issues all of the time. When you stand up to them and ask for something as foreign to them as fairness and decency, they lose it and lash out in return. Obama, and Democrats, and progressives in general need to keep them from getting away with it.

Continue reading …
Standard & Poor’s Is Playing Us For Fools

Click here to view this media Since no one in the media has a long enough memory to actually reach back for the truth, let’s all go back over what contributed to the financial meltdown again, in simple, so-easy-a-CNN-reporter-can-understand-it terms. Bankers decided to sell mortgages as securities. To spread the risk, they carved them up into separate “tranches”. The mortgages they packaged up were high-risk, toxic loans to people who never had even a small itty-bitty chance of repaying them. Yet, agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s gave these bonds triple-A ratings, along with the brokerage houses who sold them. The house fell down. Rating agencies shrugged and said “Huh, I guess we were wrong.” Lest you doubt : Moody’s Corp and Standard and Poor’s triggered the worst financial crisis in decades when they were forced to downgrade the inflated ratings they slapped on complex mortgage-backed securities, a U.S. congressional report concluded on Wednesday. In one of the most stark condemnations of the credit rating agencies, a Senate investigations panel said the agencies continued to give top ratings to mortgage-backed securities months after the housing market started to collapse. The agencies then unleashed on the financial system a flood of downgrades in July 2007, the panel said. “Perhaps more than any other single event, the sudden mass downgrades of (residential mortgage-backed securities) and (collateralized debt obligation) ratings were the immediate trigger for the financial crisis,” the staff for Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn wrote in their report. And lo, it came to pass that Wall Street got some anemic regulation, including the rating agencies. And verily, since November Republicans have been doing their best to block that regulation, including defunding agencies’ enforcement arms, and introducing legislation to repeal the Dodd-Frank provisions entirely. What we have today from them is a little temper tantrum. No, actually, it’s a big temper tantrum . CNN : “The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012,” said S&P credit analyst Nikola Swann. S&P maintained its top-tier ‘AAA/A-1+’ credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt, saying the nation’s “highly diversified” economy and “effective monetary policies” have helped support growth. But the ratings agency lowered its outlook for America’s long-term credit rating to “negative” from “stable.” If you don’t think we’re being played with this (and the markets, too), guess again. On some level, this can certainly be read as leverage for Republicans to quit screwing around with the threats on the debt ceiling, and it can also be read as leverage for rapid and strong deficit reduction. Nevertheless, it is really just simple manipulation, and these agencies know it. From CorrenteWire last December when Moodys threatened the same thing: The objective risk of default by the US Government is not increased by the increased size of the deficit, debt, or debt-to-GDP ratio. And Moody’s view that the risk of default is increased by such increases, only shows that Moody’s doesn’t understand the monetary operations of nations sovereign in their own currencies. Increases in these numbers don’t in any way lessen the constitutional authority of the Government (including the Congress) to spend or make money. It’s basic solvency, in other words is untouched by the tax deal, and if Congress allows the Executive to use its currency powers, then the risk of default as a result of the deal is exactly zero. Whatever additional risk exists as a result of the deal, comes only from the increased likelihood that Congress, mistakenly thinking that the Government is like a household, or, or ideological reasons, determined to “starve the beast” might constrain the Executive from meeting its obligations, and declare a US default of its obligations when there is no reason to do so. The question here is not whether the rating should have been lowered or not. The question is why anyone, least of all reporters, would believe what these people put out there. I can show you report after glowing report about the CDOs they rated AAA+ when they were full of poison from these agencies. They’re fighting any regulatory authority or limits on what they do, and we’re supposed to believe this crap? When Alan Greenspan reversed himself on the Bush tax cuts after saying the way to head off economic instability was to pay off the debt, I called it BS. and was proven right. I call Standard & Poor’s symbolic move the same thing. It’s just a way to rock the markets and give the idiots on Fox and CNN ammunition to fearmonger while playing ordinary Americans as fools. Are there real problems ahead? Possibly. We’ve got student loan debt approaching $1 trillion , thanks to the for-profit colleges that were happy to take care of putting them in debt with no job on the exit side while college fees continue to climb and students are squeezed from all sides. It’s a problem, no doubt. But it is not an “oh-my-god-we’re-going-to-die-and-go-bankrupt” kind of problem, no matter what the Fox talkers and CNN hand-wringers tell you. Whether or not there are bumps ahead, this much is true. Rating agencies play politics with their ratings today just as they did in 2007, only this time, it’s the US government they’re playing with, which is a bad, bad idea. Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s time to give them no weight.

Continue reading …
Police hold court ‘tweetathon’

Birmingham magistrates court hosts its first tweet-a-thon aimed at showing the reality of police work and the legal system In an age when crime can be committed on Twitter, it was only a matter of time before the social networking tool became involved in punishment. Claiming an internet first, police in the Midlands began a ” tweet-a-thon ” on Tuesday, posting live updates from a magistrates court as a motley cast of alleged shoplifters, brawlers and ne’er-do-wells made their way through the lower chambers of the British legal system. Five press officers from the West Midlands police, the country’s second largest force, were deployed to Birmingham magistrates court armed with a wireless laptop. Their mission: to bear witness, in fewer than 140 characters, to justice being meted out. The day-long exercise had a serious purpose: showing police work doesn’t end with an arrest, according to the force’s assistant chief constable, Garry Forsyth. However, like an exercise in Manchester last October to tweet 24 hours of police incidents, it shone a light on the sometimes surreal world of petty crime. ” A 60 yr old female suspected shoplifter appeared in court for stealing flour and a cucumber. Adjourned until next week ,” said one early contribution. In another, a light-fingered shopper’s activities were given pithy mitigation: ” 24 yr old Yardley man £200 fine £65 compensation for stealing electric fans and a mirror as the queue was too long! ” To pad out the inevitable (and sometimes interminable, as anyone who has ever attended court can testify) delays between cases, the police tweeters also served up informative snippets about the history of Birmingham magistrates court. Who knew that it cost £113,000 to build and has eight stained-glass windows ? Being a magistrates court, which can only serve justice on relatively minor offences, many of the sentences were (conveniently for Twitter), short. The brief posts, however, didn’t reveal why some sentences were shorter than others. If he was following proceedings on his mobile phone, the 27-year-old Small Heath man given a 12-week sentence for stealing wine from a branch of Aldi – a punishment which triggered instant apoplexy in the Twittersphere – was probably annoyed to read about the 39-year-old merely fined £115 for a similar theft . ” Crazy! ” was the instant response from Twitter user Pastorwhitley, perhaps kicking off one of the swiftest-ever justice campaigns for a defendant who may become known as the Aldi One. More sentence reports, rich in tragically banal details, followed: ” Police: The woman was found to be smuggling mascara out of a shop down her bra. She also stole aftershave. ” There were, of course, more complicated charges, including at least one rape and several serious assaults. These were duly bumped upstairs, legally speaking, to crown court, where the jury is still out on the legality of live Twitter reporting by journalists. Though it would have been sublimely appropriate, there were no reports of Twitter-related criminal activity similar to the case last year that saw 27-year-old accountant Paul Chambers convicted of “menace” and fined £1,000 for tweeting a threat to blow up Doncaster airport. Police Twitter UK criminal justice guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
BBC upholds three Gaza complaints

BBC Trust clears Panorama documentary on Mavi Marmara over majority of complaints, but upholds three out of 51 points The BBC Trust has ruled that a Panorama documentary about the Israeli boarding of the Mavi Marmara was “accurate and impartial” overall, but did breach editorial guidelines. Panorama: Death in the Med, presented by Jane Corbin and broadcast on BBC1 in August 2010, looked at the controversial boarding by Israeli commandos of the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Nine people travelling with the flotilla died in the ensuing confrontation, and a number of Israelis were also injured. Death in the Med prompted 2,000 calls to the BBC. Of those who expressed their opinion about the programme, 72% were negative, although a quarter of those were part of a lobby organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign website, according to the BBC. Subsequently 19 complaints, raising 51 substantive points, were put to the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee. Complaints on three of these points were upheld by the trust – two relating to breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines regarding accuracy and one on impartiality. The accuracy breaches related to the inclusion of preliminary autopsy reports into how activists died and details of the full extent of the aid on board the flotilla. Panorama was also found by the BBC Trust to have breached impartiality guidelines by not verifying that Israelis took proper care of the badly wounded following allegations of mistreatment of some of the casualties. “The BBC’s courageous journalism is perhaps the clearest articulation of its public service mission, and it is essential that the BBC is able to report on the most controversial issues of the day. But it is equally essential that it meets the very highest standards of accuracy and impartiality,” said Alison Hastings, the chair of the trust’s editorial standards committee. “By having a robust system in place to reassure licence fee payers that issues are picked up and lessons are learned, the BBC can have the space and credibility to make these types of programmes.” A spokesman for BBC News, which made Panorama: Death in the Med said: “BBC News welcomes the findings of the trust on the Panorama Death in the Med. We are pleased that the trust found that the film achieved ‘due impartiality and due accuracy’ and did not uphold the complaint overall. We also welcome the trust’s conclusion that the film was ‘an original, illuminating and well-researched piece of journalism’ and that ‘Panorama performed a valuable public service’. “We note that the trust upheld three out of the 51 points of complaint and we will consider seriously any lessons to be learned. We note that the trust also remarked it is unlikely that a current affairs programme such as this, covering such a contentious issue, would be found to be entirely flawless if it were subjected to the level of deconstruction and analysis that Death in the Med has undergone.” More details soon… •

Continue reading …

“I’m not biased,” CNN host and ex-Democratic politician Eliot Spitzer told NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell on In the Arena Monday night. Bozell was on CNN to talk about the budget fight and his 800,000 member grassroots political organization, ForAmerica , but Spitzer first wanted to ask about various NewsBusters items documenting his liberal approach, particularly about the recent budget showdown. “Brent Bozell is a self-described right-wing voice who takes on what he views as the liberal media bias,” Spitzer began the segment. “Through his Media Research Center and NewsBusters web site, lately, my coverage of the budget and deficit reduction has been featured as bias. So I thought it would be fun and maybe insightful to bring him on and talk about what he sees as my one-sided coverage.” ( Partial video clip below the fold ).

Continue reading …
‘Giving rape victims confidence is key’

Interview with Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions As the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer is responsible for prosecutions, legal issues and criminal justice policy. Since he took up the post in November 2008, he has had to contend with the case of the death of Ian Tomlinson at the 2009 G20 Summit, the controversy around assisted suicide and has been drawn into the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Now he faces another challenge. Last autumn, a 28-year-old mother began an eight-month prison sentence for “falsely retracting” a rape allegation against her husband, despite the court accepting that she had suffered prolonged domestic abuse and had withdrawn the

Continue reading …
Planet of the Apes, not monkeys

A great crime against pedantry is in progress and it’s time for someone to draw a line There are monkeys, and then there are apes. They are two different things, like dogs and bears, or pants and socks, or homeopathy and functioning medicine. Monkeys, apes. Apes, monkeys. If you’re not getting this, here’s a handy visual guide to cut out of your monitor and keep: There are many obvious differences between monkeys and apes. Apes are bigger, lack tails, have larger brains and more human-like shoulder joints. Monkeys leap around in trees and crap on your head from a great height. If an ape is crapping on your head, the chances are your head is planted in the ground with 450lbs of ape on top of it. While both are primates, apes and monkeys are in different families. Simians are divided into New World monkeys and Old World simians, with Old World creatures further divided into Old World monkeys and apes. Humans are members of the ape family, distinguished by weediness, lack of hair, technological development and widespread ironic denial of their ape heritage. These differences are important. Other writers are preoccupied with trivia like the NHS reforms or education funding, but a great crime against pedantry is in progress and it’s time for someone to draw a line. Like many of today’s problems, this one is epitomized by a Daily Mail headline : “Fans go bananas for new Planet Of The Apes trailer which takes humanised monkey effects to a whole new level.” Really? Really? Only actually, as ‘humanised monkeys’ go they look a bit rubbish to me, because they don’t really look like monkeys at all, they look more like apes, what with the film being ‘Planet of the Apes’ and all. Of course the original film is problematic as well, as you can see from the fatally-flawed premise : “An astronaut crew crash lands on a planet in the distant future where intelligent talking apes are the dominant species.” The irony here is that intelligent talking apes already are the dominant species on Earth. John F. Kennedy was an intelligent talking ape. Gandhi was an intelligent talking ape. Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed were intelligent talking apes. David Cameron is an… a talking ape. Somehow though, whether through overt denial or just poor education, we’ve wandered into a perverse reality where people think that they aren’t apes but that apes are monkeys. In terms of biological heritage this confusion is like believing your Mum is actually your distant cousin – feel free to make up your own joke about inbreeding and creationists here. Apparently these subtle nuances are beyond a lot of entertainment journalists covering “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” : Andy Serkis Knocked About With Monkeys! No, he knocked about with apes. “Trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes Promises Monkey Invasion” No it doesn’t. The monkeys aren’t invading. The monkeys aren’t really a big part of the film, certainly not in a speaking role. Rise of the Planet of the Apes – James Franco talks monkeys No, he talks apes, because he is making a film about apes. Monkey Business APE business. “‘Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes’ Concept Art: The Monkeys Shall Inherit The Earth” The monkeys shall do bugger all. The most significant change to occur in the lives of monkeys after the events of this film will be a direct result of the discovery that poo flung at furrier overlords is more likely to stick. I know that entertainment journalists aren’t all morons. Some of them are able to achieve remarkable feats of intellect and empathy, like sitting through The Last Airbender all the way to the end without having a brain aneurysm, or making up all those combo-names for celebrity couples like “Angelad”, or remembering the names of all 42 Kardashian sisters and then actually giving a crap about what they do. So come on – apes , not bloody monkeys, apes. Is it really so hard? layscience@googlemail.com | Twitter: @mjrobbins Zoology Taxonomy Science fiction and fantasy Martin Robbins guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

I have to give Jan Brewer credit: She came up to the edge of the abyss, and pulled herself back. Maybe there’s some hope for Arizona’s governor: PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed a bill to require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot. The bill vetoed by Brewer on Monday would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. According to My Fox Phoenix, the governor said the measure “is a bridge too far.” The AP reported last week on the legislation: The Arizona proposal would require political parties and presidential candidates to hand in affidavits stating a candidate’s citizenship and age and to provide the candidate’s birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years. If candidates don’t have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents. “I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’,” said Brewer in light of vetoing the bill, according to My Fox Phoenix. “This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.”

Continue reading …

On Saturday, New York Times metro reporter Richard Perez-Pena treated as a serious breach of decorum a relatively mild metaphor New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie used in front of reporters in “ This Time, Christie’s Tough Talk Draws a Wave of Criticism From Democrats .” The text box: “ The governor uses violent imagery while talking to reporters about a state senator .” Yet the Times has almost completely ignored much harsher and explicit “violent imagery” used by Democratic politicians against Republicans. Using harsh terms to attack his critics has been a regular feature of Gov. Chris Christie’s 15 months in office, and Democratic officials, wary of his and the voters’ wrath, have usually offered only a muted response. But this week, when Mr. Christie, a Republican, used violent imagery in talking about a Democratic lawmaker — a widowed grandmother, to boot — Democrats saw an opening, criticizing him en masse and demanding an apology. The episode began at a news conference on Wednesday, when the governor brought up State Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat from Bergen County, who had accused him of hypocrisy. Mr. Christie said Ms. Weinberg was the hypocrite, asking reporters, “Can you guys please take the bat out on her for once?” There was not much outcry at first, but Ms. Weinberg drew sympathetic news coverage and Mr. Christie’s remark lighted up comment pages on news Web sites. Then, on Thursday and Friday, Democrats issued a flurry of statements scolding the governor. Perez-Pena, whose reporting has not been friendly to Christie, sniffed: Mr. Christie’s instinct when criticized is generally to counterattack, not explain himself. He has labeled the teachers’ union “political thugs,” accused other officials of lying, and charged teachers with “using students like drug mules” to carry political messages. Speaking of violent rhetoric from politicians…a nytimes.com search indicates the Times has yet to even mention last week’s case of a Democratic politician from the Northeast, Pennsylvania State Rep. Margo Davidson, making a much harsher comment against a Republican opponent. According to John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News: In rendering scenarios in which the new law might excuse the killing of a person perceived as a threat, Davidson stood on the House floor and asked a question that included a reference to the chamber's most conservative member and maybe strongest pro-gun advocate, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler County. “If the gentleman from Butler County stood yelling, knowing that he's a gun-toter, and I felt threatened, would I be protected under court law if I blew his brains out?” Amid audible gasps, she then giggled. A similar incident in the new political hotbed Wisconsin occurred in late February, when Democratic State Rep. Gordon Hintz told Republican Rep. Michelle Litjens on the Assembly floor, “You are f***ing dead.” The Times has only mentioned it once, and not in print. The paper’s online “Opinionator” Tobin Harshaw included the vile remark in an April 4 post , a balanced list of “uncivil” remarks by liberals and conservatives.

Continue reading …
King’s Speech stunt takes the biscuit

Baking a selection of biscuits to promote The King’s Speech is a clever marketing ploy – even if Colin Firth’s face is missing Don’t think that you’re done with The King’s Speech yet, not by a long shot. Yes, you may have laboured through the theatrical release and all the pointedly unfunny comedy sketches and the building Oscar hype and the Oscars themselves and the cleaned-up, family friendly, slightly mercenary-seeming re-release, but The King’s Speech isn’t finished with you yet. As a frantic last-ditch effort to win over those immune to the monarchy and films about the monarchy, The King’s Speech has decided to play its joker. And, surprisingly, it turns out that its joker is biscuits. The King’s Speech – the fleetingly filthy original version, at least – is fast approaching its DVD release date, so Bracknell-based bakers Biscuiteers have whipped up a grand selection of bespoke King’s Speech biscuits as a clever marketing ploy. And, despite the fact that biscuits genuinely couldn’t have played any less of a part in the story than they did – possibly to the extent that there wasn’t even a single biscuit in the entire film – you can sort of see the appeal. It more or less makes sense. After all, what could be more British than biscuits? Drizzle and substandard dentistry, that’s what. And neither of those things would make for a practical or effective form of movie merchandise. Plus, with the royal wedding oppressively bearing down on everyone, there has never been more demand for chintzy nonsense like this. How better to salute the nuptials of the grandson of your unelected monarch than with a biscuit shaped like a carriage, or a biscuit shaped like a crown, or a biscuit shaped like the union flag, or a biscuit shaped like a rectangle with the words “The King’s Speech” on it? Short of stitching bunting from the sails of the HMS Victory herself, it’s hard to say. The only real disappointment is that the biscuits don’t truly reflect the content of the film. While there is admittedly a microphone biscuit, you can’t help but feel that they’re missing a trick by not having Colin Firth’s face on a design. Or Winston Churchill. Or a corgi. Or Guy Pearce enthusiastically nodding at a swastika. Or a biscuit shaped like a speech bubble, with the words “Fuck. Fuck. Fuck, fuck, fuck and fuck! Fuck, fuck and bugger! Bugger, bugger, buggerty buggerty buggerty, fuck, fuck, arse! Balls, balls fuckity, shit, shit, fuck and willy. Willy, shit and fuck and tits” iced across the front in flowery cursive. You could argue that baking a few biscuits to promote The King’s Speech is entirely superfluous – the DVD was already likely to become a bestseller, even before the promise of additional snacks – but this could herald an important precedent. Perhaps from now on audiences and critics will rate films based solely on the variety and quality of baked goods used to promote them. And, although that does nod towards a dystopian future where Big Momma’s House 3 is more acclaimed than Citizen Kane because each DVD had a slightly moister slice of Battenburg strapped to it, I’d argue that it wouldn’t be a world I’d mind living in. Colin Firth Drama Marketing & PR Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …