Click here to view this media Representative Keith Ellison came to the House floor tonight to explain what the Progressive Caucus stands for. In the process, he drew some sharp, biting, well-deserved distinctions between conservatives and progressives. It should be required viewing for every Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh fan. In this short excerpt, Ellison gets very specific about his view of the American Dream. You should watch the whole speech if you get the chance over on CSPAN, but this was where he really got passionate and animated. The American Dream, but the dream I’m talking about is rooted in the Pledge of Allegiance. I’ve got to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I love coming here to say the Pledge of Allegiance whenever I’m privileged enough to be on the House floor at 10 AM or 12 or whenever we open. I always feel good about saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I teach it to my children. Note: for those who still doubt Muslims’ loyalty to this country, please read that and view the clip over and over till you get it. The Pledge of Allegiance. And my favorite part of it — and of course I love the whole thing — my favorite part of it is when we say “liberty and justice for all.” I love that part of it! For ALL. Now see, the conservatives in this body, they like to talk about liberty. And then when they’re talking about liberty they’re not talking about a woman’s right to choose, ’cause that’s liberty. They’re not talking about the freedom of worship — to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Bahai, no religion at all — they don’t believe in that. They believe in only one way to seek the divine and they get more radical with it every single day. They don’t believe in liberties like that. They don’t believe you should be able to say whatever you want to say, they don’t necessarily believe in the liberties that I’m talking about. They believe in property rights. That’s the liberty they’re talking about. They mean that you ought to be able to own as much as you want and if you can buy the whole state of Texas, Oklahoma, or Minnesota and you’ve got the money for it you ought to be able to do it. That’s what they’re talking about. They’re talking about property. They’re talking about — now, I believe in property rights, too. I’m a very firm believer that you ought to own your home, you ought to own your business, you ought to be able to have some things that are yours and not for the government to control. I share that belief with them, not to the extreme they believe it, but I do believe there is an important role for property rights and I also believe that there’s a right for personal liberties, too. And, they’re not so hot about that. But it seems like they end the whole discussion after “and justice for all.” They’re ok with the liberty part as long as it’s property rights. But they’re against the “and justice for all.” It says “and justice.” Not “or justice.” And justice. Justice has to do with treating people equally. All colors, all cultures, all faiths. Justice means that you marry who you want to marry in America. It’s not the government’s business. Justice means treating people with fairness. That’s what it means. Justice in the economic sphere means that all of us have to share the burden and expense of this great country of ours and that none of us can reap all the goodies of being in America but don’t have to pay anything when it comes to footing the bill. That’s justice. Justice. Now, this last part in some ways is the best part. For all. For every one. Last week we had some hearings in the Homeland Security Committee where one particular religious group was pointed out for persecution, actually. That was a sad day. For all, though. America is about for all. For everybody. All Americans. Of whatever faith group, of whatever color, of whatever — rural or urban. Straight, gay, all of us. Liberty and justice for all. It ought to make you feel good. And when you think about liberty, this means you can do what you want to do. My conservative friends think it only means property. But it really means property or personal liberty. Justice means we treat people fairly in America. [Note, the final line refers to the right to a fair trial. I cut it off a little choppily] I’m not sure I can add much more to this than he said, except to applaud him for coming to the floor of the House at 7:30 pm while the Wisconsin GOP was yukking it up with lobbyists and Haley Barbour’s cronies elsewhere and speaking about the values that progressives hold dear. Values everyone should hold dear, but too many don’t. Here’s a bonus: Watch Rep. Ellison call out B of A, GE, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and ExxonMobil for paying NO taxes. After he does that, he launches into a passionate defense of public workers. Kudos. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Almeida, London Addiction is a difficult subject to dramatise: it depends on repetition, isolation, an inability to connect with other people. But, although David Eldridge’s moving new play doesn’t avoid all the pitfalls, it greatly heightens our understanding of the addictive personality and shows that dependence, whether on drugs or alcohol, is no respecter of class or status. Eldridge was prompted, in part, by the desire to write a whopping role for Lisa Dillon in which he has certainly succeeded. She gets to play Lucy: a golden girl whose career as a TV children’s-show presenter is cut short when she’s discovered by her producer smoking heroin in her dressing room. We watch as the suspended Lucy, supported by her loving mother and sniped at by her abrasive elder sister, lapses into a state of helpless dependence before winding up in a crisis intervention centre. But the rocky road to recovery not only becomes a test of Lucy’s resilience. It also forces the family to face up to long-buried secrets. “Why has this happened to us?” Lucy’s mother plaintively asks at one point; and the answer, dramatically, comes rather late in the day. But the great virtue of Eldridge’s approach is his painstaking exploration of what addiction entails and his refusal to pass easy moral judgements. Lucy herself is seen neither as pitiable victim nor heroic coper: she is a liar, self-deceiver and ruthless exploiter of her mother’s private wealth but also someone whose recovery hinges on a confrontation with truth. Equally, her mother is ambivalently viewed as both adoring protector and indulgent enabler of Lucy’s habit. Even the icy self-control of her solicitor sister proves to be a camouflage for a deeply damaged psyche. But what really impressed me was that Eldridge never lectures us about the evils of addiction: he simply shows its destructive consequences and suggests its causes are often hereditary rather than environmental. It’s a painful subject but Michael Attenborough’s production, deftly designed by Peter McKintosh, makes it aesthetically bearable and Dillon amply fills a giant role. What she makes clear is that you never quite know which Lucy you are going to see. And she conveys the addict’s fluctuating sense of self in a riveting interview with a psychiatrist in which she moves from snide aggression to desperate neediness. Margot Leicester catches equally well the mother’s mix of smothering love and bewildered exasperation. And Abigail Cruttenden as the steely-seeming sister, Sophie Stanton as a pragmatic carer and Kieran Bew as sundry blokes from druggies to journos all offer vibrant support. I wouldn’t say that, in the end, I love Lucy; but, thanks to Eldridge’s compassionately inquiring play, I begin to understand her. Rating: 4/5 Theatre Michael Billington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There are many ways of discreetly finding like-minded partners, says Pamela Stephenson Connolly I am 80-plus and have recently become a widower. Is there anywhere I can find a male friend (say 60ish)? I could not make any local inquiries as I am a highly respected person. When my wife was very ill she told me that she would be happy if I had the luck to find a man, because I was gay in my teenage years and she thought I would like to renew that experience. I feel the deep desire to satisfy my emotions. My late wife understood because she was a lesbian from the age of 12 until we met. How touching that your late wife had such understanding and acceptance of your sexuality! Nowadays there generally tends to be more acceptance of gay, lesbian and bisexual people than there was when you were a teenager; however, I can certainly understand your desire for privacy. Internet dating sites and special “finder” phone apps such as Grindr now play a huge part in helping people contact like-minded partners. Consider joining an internet dating service. If this seems technically difficult, perhaps there’s someone (maybe at your local library) who could teach you the necessary skills – you don’t have to tell them why! Otherwise, consider placing an anonymous ad in a non-local newspaper. Set up a separate PO box or phone number (pre-paid mobile is best) for the replies. Do you have any gay friends at all? There’s an efficient mentoring system in the gay community, so once you feel safe enough to explain your situation you will probably find someone to introduce you around. Good luck! • Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist who specialises in treating sexual disorders. • Send your problem to private.lives@guardian.co.uk Sex Relationships Pamela Stephenson Connolly guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Users in Canada have to pay monthly subscriptions from Thursday ahead of global roll-out at end of March • Poll: will you become a subscriber? The New York Times started charging for access to its website in Canada on Thursday ahead of a global roll-out on 28 March, with monthly subscriptions charged at between $15 (£9.3) and $35. The paper has settled on allowing users access to 20 articles for free each month – including slideshows and videos – before users will be asked to become digital subscribers. The NYT, which has the most-read newspaper site in the world, is launching in Canada first to “fine tune” the customer experience ahead of the global roll-out. There will be three charging options for four weeks’ access, with the cheapest at $15 for the NYT website and its smartphone app; $20 for the website and the tablet app; and $35 for all devices. An introductory offer will be unveiled on 28 March. However, the company said that the Top News section of its website will remain free on its smartphone and tablet applications. In addition users who access New York Times articles from searches, blogs and social media will be able to read those individual articles even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. Customers who subscribe for home delivery of the paper will receive free unlimited access to digital content. The NYT first floated plans to develop a metered-access payment system over a year ago but has been cautious in developing a system that will not drive away its huge amount of online readers. “Today marks a significant transition for the Times, an important day in our 159-year history of evolution and reinvention,” said Arthur Sulzberger, chairman of The New York Times Company. “Our decision to begin charging for digital access will result in another source of revenue, strengthening our ability to continue to invest in the journalism and digital innovation on which our readers have come to depend.” •
Continue reading …enlarge Patrick Rodgers, who sued Wells Fargo and won. Remember when I wrote last month about a Philadelphia music promoter who sued Wells Fargo — and won the right to auction off their property? I couldn’t figure out why Wells Fargo was forcing this replacement-value insurance policy on the guy: Rodgers made all his mortgage payments on time, but Wells decided out of the blue that he had to carry insurance for the full replacement value of his home — $1 million — and started to charge him an extra $500 a month in premiums . When Rodgers sent a formal letter to the lender questioning this, they did not answer in good time, so a court awarded him $1,000 in damages, which Wells wouldn’t pay. So the court is allowing him to sell the contents of the lender’s office to make good on the bill. “It’s a completely unreasonable demand,” says Irv Ackelsberg, a mortgage expert at the Philadelphia law firm Langer, Grogan & Diver. “Their interest is in protecting their mortgage, not ensuring that the house is rebuilt.” Rodgers’ next step put him at some risk, he concedes now. He refused to renew the higher-cost policy. Instead, Wells Fargo bought him so-called forced-placement insurance – a policy that typically costs much more than ordinary coverage and only protects the mortgage-holder’s interests. It took a couple of days after the Anonymous leak for the contents to sink in , but I finally connected the dots. Rodgers was more than a victim of bank abuse — this was systematic outright fraud throughout the mortgage and banking industry. It wasn’t just Wells Fargo. Here’s what Jeff Horwitz points out in the November 2010 issue of American Banker : Bank of America Corp. owns a force-placed insurance subsidiary, and most other major servicers receive commissions or reinsurance fees on the very same policies they purchase on investors’ and borrowers’ behalf. Court documents show that a subsidiary of the country’s largest specialty insurer paid undisclosed “commissions” for the rights to a servicer’s force-placed business . State court filings show alleged abuse in which banks charged borrowers for unnecessary insurance and backdated policies providing coverage retroactively. Often the insurance was acquired only after banks stopped advancing the premiums of delinquent borrowers’ escrowed policies, causing those cheaper and more comprehensive policies to expire. In response to questions from American Banker, federal and state officials said that some practices that industry trade groups defend may not be legal . Foreclosure defense and legal aid attorneys say force-placed insurance is found on most of the severely delinquent loans in this country. If so, the cost to investors may well be in the billions of dollars. With little regulatory oversight or even private investor awareness, force-placed insurance has helped make drawn-out foreclosures lucrative for servicers — far more so, in some cases, than helping a borrower return to performing status. As the intermediary between borrower and investor, servicers appear to be benefiting themselves at the expense of both. Horwitz says JPMorgan Chase wouldn’t tell him what insurance company they used for reinsurance, but figured out that Assurant’s annual report “describes precisely such a relationship from an insurer’s perspective.” In an effort to align its interests with its servicer customers, the company will often reinsure the policies it writes with the same servicer that requested them . “Such arrangements allow significant flexibility in structuring the sharing of risks and profits on the underlying business,” Assurant notes. The interests of the two parties are so aligned, in fact, that in many cases there ceases to be a clear difference between the entity purchasing insurance and the entity selling it . So if it’s accurate, the Anonymous leak is the smoking gun in this mess. Because it indicates from Bank of America’s own internal documents that this was intentional fraud for profit, and explains just why mortgage companies were dragging out the foreclosure process — and refusing modifications. They were making so much more money on the re-insurance policies, it didn’t pay to modify. The Daily Bail, writing at Seeking Alpha: It also becomes clear that the interests of the servicer and the insurance company are aligned against the interests of both homeowners and investors . This is because servicers in many cases are reimbursed for the insurance they purchase on behalf of borrowers out of the proceeds of foreclosure sales, foreclosures which they helped bring about through overly expensive force-place insurance policies . That is, the servicers get paid before investors and by over-charging for the insurance in the first place the servicers are able to extract even more money from the investors they are supposed to be working for. Where the situation gets really interesting is when a bank like BofA actually owns the insurance company, as in the case of Balboa . In this email, the Balboa employee appears to be saying that errors in tracking of mortgages were common, but that he had more incentive to blame outsourced clerical workers for errors, thereby reducing the fee Balboa paid to the other company for handling the paperwork, than he had incentive for actually preventing such errors in the first place : enlarge It isn’t clear what kind of “system glitch” the employee is referring to, but presumably it is a glitch related to lapsed insurance payments. If it is the case that Balboa/BofA was knowingly allowing servicing errors to occur, so that they could then force-place insurance policies on borrowers, then that in itself could be a huge blow to BofA — in addition to the perhaps related issue of allegedly trying to erase DTNs on scanned documents. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism: Um, he names a long list of servicers, not lienholders, but we’ll continue. Balboa makes some money by charging these companies to track your insurance (the payment of which is factored into your loan). If you do not meet the minimum insurance requirements set by your lienholder, Balboa Insurance places a force placed insurance policy on your loan. You are sent a letter telling you that you do not have insurance, and your escrow account is then adjusted for the inflated premium of a full coverage policy placed by Balboa’s insurance tracking group, run by Steven Ramsthel, Sr Vice President of Loan Tracking Operations & Customer Care at Balboa Insurance Group…. The release also alleges that regulators were complicit (click to enlarge): enlarge And if these allegations are indeed accurate, they make a mockery of the settlement charade underway among 50 state attorneys general, Federal regulators, and what amount to banking industry crooks, aka servicers. The writing style of the author (some typos, not that yours truly is one to make much of that sort of thing) and the errors regarding the roles of key parties will lead to questions regarding validity. But as indicated, previous abuses in this area, the past behavior of underwater servicers, and the complaints I have been hearing make this all too credible.
Continue reading …And something quite lovely to post about. After the vitriolic attack of teachers and public workers by FOX, the Tea Party and most Conservatives since Gov. Walker pulled a fast one, here’s a Tea Party husband who now looks at his wife the teacher in a very new light. Anti-teacher climate humbles the conservative husband of a Cleveland educator: Connie Schultz Like most people, I could easily rattle off the names of several teachers who changed my life by the way they lived theirs. I’ll spare you that walk down my memory lane. Instead, I want to quote another self-described conservative who had a lot to say about character. His recent e-mail to me echoed the sentiments expressed by many readers who object to various states’ legislative attacks against public school teachers, including those in Ohio. These letters and e-mails are not from teachers, but from those who love them. This particular reader is a business analyst. He made it clear that, while our dads held similar blue-collar jobs, he and I grew up to disagree on many issues. He’s not a fan. But he does share my high regard for the men and women paid by taxpayers to teach America’s children. He’s been married to one of those dedicated public servants in Cleveland for nearly 14 years. “We spend tons of money on supplies for the kids,” he wrote. “I have begged her to leave Cleveland and she refuses to because it is her calling. I should be so lucky.” To insulate this man and his wife from the current blood sport of teacher-bashing, I won’t name them. He did give me permission to share the recent letter of apology he wrote to his wife: Dear Honey, I’m sorry. I am a conservative husband, belong to the Tea Party and I voted for John Kasich. I have been married to a Cleveland teacher for almost 14 years and my vote let her down. I apologize: For letting people tease you about having the summer off and not asking them to thank you for the tough days ahead that begin in early August. I know for a fact you work more hours in those 10 months than many people do in 12. All those hours are earned. For complaining that my Sunday is limited with you because you must work. For making you think you have to ask permission to buy a student socks, gloves and hats. For not understanding that you walk through a metal detector for work. For leaving dirty dishes in the sink [when you awoke] for your 4 a.m. work session. I should know you have to prepare. For thinking you took advantage of the taxpayers. Our governor continues to live off the taxpayer dole, not you. For counting the time and money you spend to buy school supplies. For not saying “thank you” enough for making the world and me better. I love you. Talk about a lesson in character.
Continue reading …It ought not to be surprising that the neocon community, who only just sent a memo to the President three weeks ago calling for a no-fly zone over Libya , are now escalating the bid to call for a regime change in Libya. Again, from the FPI : On Saturday, the Arab League endorsed Libyan opposition calls for a no fly zone.
Continue reading …The CBBC TV version of Horrible Histories has won yet another award. Now the kids’ show, which has become cult daytime viewing, is moving to a primetime slot The feedback from the BBC was unambiguous: “We really like it, but we feel the poo quotient needs to be higher.” Terry Deary , creator of the wildly successful Horrible Histories children’s publishing franchise, is recalling the two-year journey to bring his books to the screen. “At one time, it was going to be based on a ghost train at a deserted fairground carrying two children into the past. But the BBC, to its credit, was very adventurous and said that it wanted a comedy sketch-based format written by adult sketch-show writers.” It was the right call. Since Horrible Histories first aired in 2009 on CBBC , the BBC’s digital channel aimed at six- to 12-years-olds, it has been a huge hit with viewers and has won a slew of awards, including a Royal Television Society award for best children’s programme earlier this week . But it isn’t just children who have found themselves drawn to the show’s Pythonesque sketches, which skip jauntily through the books’ trademark themes such as the Rotten Romans and Groovy Greeks up to the Terrible Tudors and Vile Victorians. By the time the second series aired last summer, the programme had attracted a loyal audience of grown-ups, too; parents watching with their children at first, but soon followed by students and pensioners as it quickly developed into cult daytime viewing. Some of the most popular sketches and songs from the show have attracted more than half a million hits each on YouTube. But perhaps the show’s break-out moment came in January when it won best sketch at the Comedy Awards, the first children’s programme ever to do so. The crossover into a mainstream audience will be completed later this year when BBC1 airs a repackaged version of the show in primetime, fronted by Stephen Fry instead of the current host, a talking rat called Rattus Rattus . There are even ongoing discussions to create a stage show featuring all the actors, which would tour arenas in the autumn. And there are murmurs of a movie. “Children’s TV is, on the whole, appalling. Just shocking,” says Deary, whose books have sold 20m copies globally since the first one was published in 1993. “It’s all shouty, patronising voices. But what I love about the Horrible Histories show is that it’s not a literal translation of the books. I’ve written the odd song for the show and I make the odd cameo appearance, but I’m not a sketch writer. It’s best left to the likes of the excellent Steve Punt. Incorrectly, I get lots of credit for the TV show, but it’s the team behind it who are the massive talent.” Once the decision was taken by the BBC to use writers and actors from adult comedy shows, production company Lion Television corralled the best talent it could find. Writers such as Punt, Jon Holmes (Dead Ringers) and Giles Pilbrow (Have I Got News For You) wrote sketches for the first series, which featured comedy actors such as Meera Syal, Jim Howick (Peep Show), Simon Farnaby (The Mighty Boosh), Mathew Baynton (Gavin and Stacey) and Ben Ward (Dead Ringers). Dominic Brigstocke, the director of Green Wing and The Armstrong & Miller Show, also played a key role from the start. But by the second series, David Baddiel, Alexei Sayle and Dave Lamb (Come Dine With Me) were also making appearances. With the editing team behind The Office, Extras, and Outnumbered overseeing post-production, the show quickly stood out by some distance from its rivals on children’s TV. “The team is excellent,” says Deary. “The show’s actors were all targeted. They didn’t rely on auditioning unknowns. Yes, there is some ad-libbing at times, but it is rare because the actors are also involved in the writing. We sit around a table for about eight weeks with the director and a historical adviser and we read the books in a circle. Then someone might say, ‘That might work as a gameshow’ and they go off and write the sketch.” As a result, viewers have been treated to an Eminem-inspired pastiche about Charles II , a Victorian Dragons’ Den, “Spartan School Musical” and a Jackson 5-style explainer on hieroglyphics . The show’s unique comedy pedigree among children’s programming has long been acknowledged by those in the business. Jesse Armstrong, co-writer of the Bafta-winning Peep Show and Oscar-nominated In the Loop, admits the show has been his afternoon vice ever since it first aired. “Hit shows are very difficult to achieve. You need to have everything just right – that’s what’s so terrifying. But Horrible Histories has a great cast and brilliant writers. They’re also blessed with great source material. The tone is perfect and it is done in a non-patronising, engaging way. The key for me, though, is that the team has been given leeway to do the subjects that really interest kids – death, shit, blood and piss.” Armstrong says that it ranks alongside Pingu as his favourite children’s show: “You can just tell the creators of both shows have put more of themselves into them than is normal. I used to write for children’s TV [Tracy Beaker]; it’s certainly not easier than writing for adults. You have fewer tools at your disposal because you can’t draw on sexual content or obscenities. Kids are as discerning as adults, if anything they are quicker and clearer in knowing what they like. My daughter, who says Horrible Histories is her favourite programme, gets that the tone is sophisticated and that it takes children seriously. It doesn’t talk down to them. Just watch the Four Georges . It’s my favourite sketch – wonderfully written and beautifully performed. The programme could go on for years because the material is limitless.” The Four Georges sketch featured in the first series but is still among the most popular of the show’s trademark pastiche songs. Mocking the modern-day trend of boy bands perched on high stools sitting in a line, we see the four Georgian kings singing Born to Rule Over You under moody spotlights – “You had to do what we told you to do, just because our blood was blue” – before standing up in unison on the key change. Another much-loved repeat sketch is Stupid Deaths, which sees a comical grim reaper processing recently departed historical characters at the “Death Check-In” counter and then laughing mercilessly at the farcical manner in which they died. For example, King Edmund II, who was stabbed by a Viking hiding in his pit latrine, receives little sympathy from the reaper. No one seems to question that the show is entertaining, but is it good history? Dan Snow, the TV historian, says it doesn’t need to be both and we should celebrate it for what it is: “It’s wonderfully exciting to watch. It has such a great sense of the past. It’s fun, harmless stuff. But it isn’t a serious look at the past. It’s one step above Blackadder, but that’s fine: the Victorians fictionalised their history. We shouldn’t try to dress it up as brilliant history. For example, the Four Georges song is great, but George III was only mentally ill for a short period of his reign. It plays to stereotypes, but it’s fantastic as entry-level history.” While admitting he has not yet seen the programme, Tristram Hunt, the historian and Labour MP, expressed concerns in December about Horrible Histories being adapted for primetime BBC1, describing it as “cartoon content for adults”. “For children, Horrible Histories is an exciting aid to engage with the guts and gore of the past, but there are more sophisticated, populist ways of getting people involved in history than this.” Richard Bradley, the programme’s executive producer and managing director of Lion TV, rejects this perception: “Lion has done countless history programmes, but Horrible Histories is the best history we’ve ever done. It looks at the role of women, social history, attitudes to authority and class. We’ve done the foundation of the Anglican church and the American civil war. It’s incredibly dense and factual. My eight-year-old said to me after watching one sketch: ‘So, that’s what the Restoration was.’” Bradley says that his son must take some credit for the show ever being produced. “I had a chat with him about five years ago and he said he wanted me to make Horrible Histories for TV. But how could I get the rights? Even though the publisher Scholastic held the licence, the first thing was to get Deary on board. He had had a terrible experience with a little-known animated version of his books being produced about 10 years ago in the US. But he said there were three things that must happen if we were to do it: it must be horrible, funny and true.” Bradley says it took a while to find the “spirit of Blackadder, Monty Python and Carry On”, which he credits as the show’s key success. In addition to the time-travelling ghost-train format (“it was too similar to Doctor Who and Mr Benn”), Lion also tried to develop a Dumbledore-like master storyteller as narrator – “a sort of wizard historian” – but it felt too generic. “The click came when I met Dominic Brigstocke in the street one day and we immediately thought of doing a high-powered sketch show,” says Bradley. “We realised that when children go around stately homes all they ever want to know about is how the people went to the loo and how they died. Working with Anne Gilchrist, the then controller of CBBC, we finally struck on the live-action comedy route directed and acted by adult comedy talent.” Bradley says the programme has led the trend for adult comedy writers and directors working in kids TV. For example, Graham Norton’s company makes Sorry, I’ve Got No Head. But the most rewarding aspect of making the programme, he adds, was first showing it to children. “We took it to local schools and showed them the rough cuts. The reaction was fantastic. The recognition of the Horrible Histories brand is so strong that they even cheered the names Groovy Greeks and Rotten Romans.” There were a few sketches that missed the beat, admits Bradley – a riff on the Incas, for example. “But it made us realise that it had to be written 100% for children and not have knowing references aimed only at adults. We’re still learning what works best for children. At the moment, we have never gone further than the Blitz, but we are having discussions now about doing a sketch based during the fall of the Berlin Wall. “The Georgians with their big hair and makeup are very popular, but, from a pure comedy point of view, you really can’t beat the Romans.” Rewriting the past: What makes Horrible Histories so funny? Steve Punt At the first writers’ meeting we sat round with the producer watching clips of Blackadder and Life of Brian. The point, from the outset, was to stress that this was a comedy show based on history, not a history show with a bit of humour grafted on. It’s a fact of comedy writing that the tighter the brief, the better the result. Plucking comedy out of the air is what leads to cliches and well-worn themes. But knowing that you have to stick to the facts of what the Celts wore, or how the Tudors treated illness, concentrates the mind. It leads you into strange areas that you would never have thought of, and that’s always creatively a good thing. One underestimated element of the show is the sheer fun of all the costumes, wigs, silly beards and hats. Wigs, in my book, are funny, and so are hats. TV budgets have shrunk since the days of Blackadder and Python. My children have lived in a world where TV comedy mostly consists of people sitting behind desks on panel shows. There is a glorious, back-to-the-70s daftness about Horrible Histories’ parade of togas, wimples, ruffs and tights that makes it appealing – to a wide audience. David Baddiel People tend to go on about Horrible Histories being “not just a kid’s show, but a proper comedy show” but actually I don’t see the dichotomy there. It’s partly to do with the fact that kids are more sophisticated, especially linguistically, then they used to be, so to do a show that is clever and funny and uses arcane references but can play to adults and children is more possible now. It’s very modern in style – single camera, throwaway delivery etc – and it uses history brilliantly: they had a sketch once about how Henry VIII only found out about Catherine Howard’s adultery from his jester, since everyone else was too frightened to tell him, which was both poignant and funny – and, of course, told me something I didn’t know about the Tudors. When they asked me to play Vincenzo Larfoff (the reader of Scary Stories, which regularly turn out not to be that scary) I was really pleased, and he seems to have been a hit – I get kids shouting “scaaarry story” at me. Children’s TV Television Children and teenagers History Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• UN security council expected to pass Libya resolution • US and Britain support air strikes to protect civilians • France ready to launch first missions within hours • Gaddafi declares: ‘There will be no mercy’ in Benghazi • Qatar and UAE governments may add forces Read the Guardian’s latest news coverage 5.59pm ET: Security council members are milling about in the chamber – with the big question being, how will the votes go? The Guardian’s Luke Harding spoke with Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle , and he sounded hostile: Westerwelle warned the results of western military intervention were “unpredictable” and could have consequences for freedom movements in the Arab world. “Your own instinct is to say ‘We have to do something.’ But military intervention is to take part in a civil war that could go on for a long time. “Germany has a strong friendship with our European partners. But we won’t take part in any military operation and I will not send German troops to Libya.” Westerwelle said other options could be used against Libya including “targeted sanctions, political pressure and international isolation”. “Considering alternatives to military engagement is not the same as doing nothing,” he said. He declined to say how Germany would vote this evening at the UN security council. From the sound of those comments, Germany is likely to abstain tonight – but will Angela Merkel want Germany to be out of step with the rest of Europe on this? 5.45pm ET / 10.45pm GMT: The UN security council will shortly start its proceedings for a vote on a resolution supporting military action against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Here’s the Guardian’s latest coverage reporting today’s meeting : Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources. We’ll be following the UN security council debate, final vote and reactions here as it happens. With France’s air force said to be ready to fly missions over Libya within hours of a resolution, we’ll be watching what happens in the air and on the ground in Libya, as well as input from the Guardian’s correspondents and other international responses. A live webcast of the security council meeting can be watched here – and of course we welcome comments below. Libya United Nations Middle East Arab and Middle East protests US foreign policy France Nato Foreign policy Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mary Osborn Ouassiai, Harrisburg resident, at the Health Effects of Three Mile Island Nuclear Policy Institute symposium, presented by Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Chicago and Dr. Helen Caldicott. I’ve been listening for days now to TV talking heads explaining that potential radiation from a nuclear accident is not usually such a big deal, and they often bring up Three Mile Island as an example. (“If this is as bad as it gets, it’s all good!”) But nuclear energy lobbyists are working overtime to make sure no one looks too closely at what really happened there. If you want to know, go read this entire story from On The Issues magazine: Becky Mease, a nurse in her late twenties at the time, fled with her husband, eight-month-old daughter Pam, and two other adults two days after the accident, when then Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh suggested that pregnant women and preschool children within five miles of Three Mile Island evacuate . They drove more than 250 miles to Ocean City, Maryland, where they stayed for about three weeks. Recounting her experience to citizen researchers Katagiri Mitsuru and Aileen Smith in October 1982, Mease said Pam, who had been outside playing in the grass the day of the accident, had gotten violently ill with diarrhea and projectile vomiting about two days after they left. A full battery of tests at a local hospital failed to find any bacteria or foreign organism, which could cause such symptoms, so the hospital staff told them to go to a civil defense station. Mease knew radiation sickness can cause vomiting and diarrhea, so she asked the people at the civil defense office to check their car and belongings with a Geiger counter. “It just went completely crazy… It went like nuts when it went over my pocketbook, too,” she said. “They told us to go wash everything down.” enlarge Pam’s severe diarrhea lasted the entire three weeks they were away. “Her behind was so raw that we just left it lay on diapers. Didn’t even put them on after a couple of days,” said Mease. In the summer of 1981, when Pam was two years old, she was diagnosed with severe cataracts in both of her eyes, which her doctor attributed to juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. The Meases’ ordeal was one of thousands area residents suffered in the aftermath of the accident. But the radiation effects weren’t confined to humans. The evidence was visible across the landscape, too, with unprecedented numbers of sick and dying farm animals and strangely mutated plants. *** Three Mile Island plant owner Metropolitan Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) maintained that ten million curies of radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere from the accident, resulting in an average dose to area residents equal to a chest X-ray. Lochbaum says that figure is grossly underestimated, because it is based on a measurement of radiation levels on the Three Mile Island site a year after the fact and does not account for shorter-lived radionuclides like iodine-131, which would not have been measurable by that time . Nor, he says, does the official figure include any leakage from the containment building, the concrete dome surrounding the core of the reactor, which is meant to prevent deadly radiation from escaping into the environment in the event of an accident. Lochbaum estimates that at least 40 million curies were released during the accident . Other more recent estimates by former nuclear industry executive Arnold Gundersen calculated the radiation releases at 100 to 1,000 times higher than NRC estimates. Health studies conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, various federal government agencies, and Columbia University supported the nuclear industry claims. The affected citizens contend these studies were sloppy and included people who should not have been counted, excluded many who should have been, or the researchers did not do the necessary follow-up on people who left the area after the accident. The citizens also say study authors uncritically accepted the premise that not enough radiation was released to cause the illnesses people were experiencing, so that even when higher disease rates were found, they were attributed to other factors such as stress or “lifestyle factors” like smoking, drinking, poor diet, or taking too much anti-anxiety medication. Some scientists have attempted to find out what really happened to the community after the accident. Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, a tenured professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, immediately sought every relevant health statistic he could find. According to Sternglass, a student of Albert Einstein’s who holds several patents on X-ray technology, the health impacts from the accident were unquestionable, significant, and included a sharp spike in infant deaths and hypothyroidism. Dr. Gordon MacLeod, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health at the time, tried to ensure all health impacts from the accident were fully disclosed. He was fired by then Governor Dick Thornburgh for his efforts. More recently, University of North Carolina epidemiologist Steve Wing reanalyzed the data from the Columbia University study and concluded that people living closer to the path of the radiation cloud developed all types of cancers more frequently. In the areas of greatest fallout, lung cancer rates jumped 400 percent, and leukemia rates climbed 700 percent. These scientists — and others who question the nuclear orthodoxy — have all been either drowned out or viciously attacked as biased, unprofessional purveyors of panic with an anti-nuclear axe to grind. More than 2,000 people participated in a class-action lawsuit claiming injuries against Three Mile Island. Although an unknown number of cases settled out of court with terms that must be kept confidential, in June 1996 the class-action lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the Three Mile Island accident had caused their health problems. Mary Osborne is deeply disillusioned by what she characterizes as a gross miscarriage of justice. “Not a day goes by that I don’t think about the accident.” Nearly 32 years later, the Three Mile Island disaster and its aftermath continue to shape the lives of many who were exposed to the radioactive fallout. Three Mile Island serves as a model of what American citizens can expect if another nuclear disaster were to occur. With 104 mostly aging nuclear reactors not only still running but virtually all being granted 20-year license extensions, and, in some cases, permits to generate more power than they were designed to do, David Lochbaum believes that sheer luck rather than good management or serious concern for safety has so far prevented another nuclear disaster. Considering that approximately 190 million citizens live within 100 miles of at least one nuclear reactor, let’s hope that luck holds.
Continue reading …