Bob Dylan didn’t mention Ai Weiwei or gripe about not being allowed to play two of his songs in Beijing. But then, he was never really political, was he? On 12 May, 1963, less than a fortnight shy of his 22nd birthday, a little-known singer-songwriter named Bob Dylan staged a walkout from The Ed Sullivan Show , America’s top entertainment programme. The host and his producers demanded that he replace the song he had been planning to perform with something more innocuous. Talkin’ John Birch Society Blues was an uproarious satire on red-baiting and commie-hunting and it fell foul of Sullivan’s notorious aversion to songs dealing with politics, sex or drugs. Sullivan and his people wouldn’t budge, so the young Dylan told them, “No, this is what I want to do. If I can’t play my song, I’d rather not appear on the show”, and promptly took a hike. No one was going to censor him. Almost half a century later, Dylan – now about to turn 70 – faced a similar dilemma. His Far Eastern tour had finally brought him to China after several years of negotiation (he played Beijing last Wednesday), but he had submitted his set list to the Chinese authorities – and some of his most famous songs were deemed unacceptable by the Chinese culture ministry. What’s more, Dylan was also under fire for not speaking out in favour of the imprisonment of celebrated Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (who was taken away by authorities last Sunday as he waited to board a flight at Beijing airport). “Back in the day, if he had been in Ai’s shoes, he [Dylan] would have expected someone to speak up for him,” said a spokesman for Human Rights Watch. “What does he have to lose?” It was not just any two songs to which Beijing objected, either. Blowin’ in the Wind was the civil rights anthem that had established Dylan’s reputation when it first appeared on his second album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan , back in 1962, and Desolation Row was the marathon poetic masterpiece that had climaxed Highway 61 Revisited three years later. Unlike other far more lyrically explicit works from Dylan’s brief but cataclysmically influential “protest song” period – a term that he always hated – such as The Times They Are A-Changin’, Masters Of War or With God On Our Side, both songs are oblique and allusive, dealing in metaphor, imagery and allegory rather than any issue-based topical specifics. Nevertheless, metaphor, imagery and allegory are the philosophical and linguistic meat and drink of the culture that gave the world Confucius, Lao Tzu and the I Ching, and the Chinese authorities understood exactly what subtexts those songs carried, even though they were written several decades ago as critiques of another society entirely. They also understood that they didn’t want those songs performed in Beijing and they said so. Dylan didn’t perform them. The times they have indeed a-changed, even though the songs haven’t. Two questions arise and the answers may or may not be blowin’ in the wind. Has the 69-year-old Dylan lost the bottle displayed by his younger self? And why is post-millennial China rattled by the same songs as 1960s America? To address the second question first: Dylan was not the only victim, either in the 60s or now. In 1967, both the Rolling Stones and the Doors fell foul of Ed Sullivan, over Let’s Spend the Night Together and Light My Fire, respectively. They coped in their different ways: Mick Jagger sang the substitute line (“Let’s spend some time together’) while pulling exaggerated faces of disgust. For his part, Jim Morrison defiantly delivered the contentious phrase (“girl, we couldn’t get much higher”) on the uncensorable live transmission at the price of having bookings for a further half-dozen appearances cancelled. More recently, in 2006, the Stones played the half-time show at the SuperBowl and had two of their three songs censored: Jagger’s microphone was muted for the lines “You make a dead man come” (from Start Me Up) and “Once upon a time I was your little rooster, am I just one of your cocks?” (from Rough Justice). Later the same year they made their own Chinese debut and Rough Justice was vetoed, alongside Let’s Spend the Night Together, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women and Beast of Burden. Jagger may be one of rock’s veteran bad boys, but he’s also one of rock’s veteran businessman/performers, who has never been accused of not knowing on which side his bread is buttered. It must, however, be pleasing for these long-assimilated elderly rebels to know that someone, somewhere, is still scared of them and that their subversive potential has not yet been utterly absorbed and nullified. Which brings us back to Dylan. The notion of Dylan as a hardcore political activist and polemicist, or as a dyed-in-the-wool man of the left, is not only antiquated but was essentially erroneous even in the early 60s. His “protest period” lasted less than two years, and even then he was suspicious of leftie folkies who wanted him to be a singing placard: enter a cause, push a button, get a song. He paid a formal farewell to the Movement with My Back Pages (from Another Side Of Bob Dylan in 1964) and by 1966 was sufficiently irritated by his alleged ideological soulmates to hang a gigantic Stars and Stripes as a stage backdrop for his now infamous “electric” European tour. In the late 1970s he outraged his following by devoting an entire album, Slow Train Coming , to his conversion to born-again evangelical Christianity and, in the 1980s, by self-identifying as a hardcore Zionist with the song Neighborhood Bully. His priority is to follow his twinned muses as a poet and musician: indeed Robert Santelli, author of the invaluable The Bob Dylan Scrapbook 1956-1966 , doubts that Dylan was ever fundamentally interested in politics in the first place. And remember: he will turn 70 years old on 24 May. A 22-year-old with nothing much to lose will charge into battle at almost any provocation. A 70-year-old will choose his battles very carefully indeed, and the People’s Republic, as a nation, is eight years younger than Dylan himself. Our second question is that of China, its place in the world and the kind of society into which it is evolving. China, like Russia before it, was driven by historical circumstance to move directly from feudalism to communism without any intermediate phases, and both are now retracing their steps back to capitalism. In China’s case, this means a unique form of state capitalism that still retains many of the authoritarian practices common to both the feudal and communist stages of its history. Old-fashioned totalitarian societies control information by suppressing what they consider inconvenient for their people to hear, while the more sophisticated capitalist democracies control information by swamping the truth in a deluge of disinformation, through which it is virtually a full-time job to sift. China’s national narrative is veined with an ingrained distrust of the outside world: a lengthy period of utter isolation was followed by the opium wars (courtesy of Britain) and some nasty interactions with Japan, the reverberations of both still with us. Hence China’s battles with Google and the Great Firewalls the country’s techies erect around the internet; hence its fear of instability, whether generated internally or externally; hence the repression involved in the cases of Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo and others less celebrated. These are not the manifestations of a secure or confident society, especially one considered in the west to be the coming masters of the new century and a phenomenon almost as terrifying as that of globalised Islamism. Ultimately, it all comes down to fear and paranoia. In the west, we’re scared of Islam and China; in China they’re still scared of Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, who are considered over here to be a bunch of eccentric pensioners who shot their respective bolts half a century back. Everybody concerned needs, essentially, to grow the hell up… and lighten the hell up. The times are always a-changin’, just neither as much as some of us hope, or as much as some of us fear. Charles Shaar Murray is an award- winning rock writer who started his career in 1970 at Oz magazine. His books include Crosstown Traffic: Jimi Hendrix And Post-War Pop Bob Dylan China Censorship Charles Shaar Murray guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …After the suspected Long Island serial killer took Melissa Barthelemy’s life, he likely took her cell phone and used it to torment her teenage sister—and he did so in a way that leads cops to think that he’s no stranger to their investigative methods, reports the New York Times….
Continue reading …WikiLeaks founder defends organisation in his first formal public appearance since being arrested over sexual assault allegations WikiLeaks is more accountable than democratically elected governments because it accepts donations from members of the public, Julian Assange has claimed, in his first formal public appearance since being arrested in December following accusations of rape and sexual assault. Questioned at a public debate about the whistleblowing organisation’s own transparency, Assange told an audience of 700 people, many of them supporters: “We are directly supported on a week-to-week basis by you. You vote with your wallets every week if you believe that our work is worthwhile or not. If you believe we have erred, you do not support us. If you believe we need to be protected in our work, you keep us strong. “That dynamic feedback, I say, is more responsive than a government that is elected after sourcing money from big business every four years.” The WikiLeaks founder, who is currently appealing against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault, told the audience at a packed debate organised by the New Statesman and the Frontline Club that whistleblowing was essential in a democracy because “the only way we can know whether information is legitimately kept secret is when it is revealed”. He cited the examples of Vietnam and “the disaster that was the Iraq war”, saying that if whistleblowers had had the courage to speak up earlier about both conflicts, “bloodbaths” could have been avoided. He said he “could speak for hours” about the impact of the publication of leaked US embassy cables, much of it through the Guardian, and that leak’s positive impact. The Hindu newspaper had in recent weeks published 21 front pages based on so-called “cablegate” revelations, he said, leading to the Indian government walking out four times and a growing anti-corruption movement in the country. But the political commentator Douglas Murray, director of the centre for social cohesion, challenged Assange over the website’s sources of funding, its staffing and connections with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, who has worked with the site. “What gives you the right to decide what should be known or not? Governments are elected. You, Mr Assange are not.” Murray also challenged the WikiLeaks founder over an account in a book by Guardian writers David Leigh and Luke Harding, in which the authors quote him suggesting that if informants were to be killed following publication of the leaks, they “had it coming to them”. Assange repeated an earlier assertion that the website “is in the process of suing the Guardian” over the assertion, and asked if Murray would like to “join the queue” of organisations he was suing. The Guardian has not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers. Jason Cowley, the editor of the New Statesman and chair of the debate, interjected to ask: “How can the great champion of open society be using our libel laws to challenge the press?” The WikiLeaks founder was obliged to leave before responding to all the questions in order to comply with the curfew conditions of his bail. WikiLeaks’ lawyer Mark Stephens could not be reached for comment. Asked after the debate whether he could shed any light on the supposed legal action, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafnsson said “not really”. WikiLeaks Julian Assange Esther Addley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The day when radiation stops spilling out of Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi is still unknown, but it’ll be at least a decade and millions of dollars beyond that by the time the nuclear plant is decommissioned, reports the AP. That’s the timeline from Toshiba, which built four of the six reactors,…
Continue reading …Growing list of members calls on government to incorporate amendments agreed at spring conference Nick Clegg’s problems with the NHS reforms have dramatically resurfaced as his party’s grassroots threaten to force MPs to vote against the government unless their demands for changes to the bill were met in full. The deputy prime minister and prime minister David Cameron promised on Wednesday to “pause and listen” to growing concerns over the scale of reforms in the health bill. But in an escalation of the controversy that now threatens to destabilise the coalition, Liberal Democrat activists demanded that amendments spearheaded by Shirley Williams and endorsed by the party’s spring conference be taken on in full. In an unprecedented show of force about 1,200 Liberal Democrat party members, councillors, former parliamentary candidates, peers, conference representatives and council leaders instructed their leadership to “fully respect the declared view of the party”. Organisers of the Liberal Democrat revolt also condemned efforts by the government to “spin” their way out of the row. Since announcing a “pause” to the progress of the health bill, the government has suggested that some amendments would be tabled to clarify that GPs who do not want to take charge of the NHS budget for their patients would be able to leave it to other GPs in their area. The ability of private firms to “cherry pick” the most lucrative NHS services would also be restricted and a regulator will be told to prioritise value for money, rather than promote market competition, it emerged. However the Liberal Democrat grassroots made it clear that they want the government to go further and declared they will pressure their MPs to block the bill unless they are satisfied by future changes. Dr Evan Harris, the party’s former health spokesman, said: “The Liberal Democrats have already compromised on health policy in making the Coalition Agreement and we are not prepared to see our parliamentarians being put under pressure to vote for market reforms and other changes that go beyond the terms of the coalition agreement and the motion that we passed.” The Liberal Democrats voted almost unanimously at the party’s conference in Sheffield last month to give councillors a central role in GP commissioning and in scrutinising foundation trusts. They called for a ban on all cherry-picking by private companies offering treatment services. GP commissioning boards must construct annual plans in conjunction with new health and well-being boards. And they declared there should be a continued separation of commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interest. Faced with certain defeat, the party’s leadership promised to take the critical messages back to government. However, Liberal Democrat activists fear their leadership is not being tough enough with the Conservatives. Health policy NHS Health Shirley Williams Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Growing list of members calls on government to incorporate amendments agreed at spring conference Nick Clegg’s problems with the NHS reforms have dramatically resurfaced as his party’s grassroots threaten to force MPs to vote against the government unless their demands for changes to the bill were met in full. The deputy prime minister and prime minister David Cameron promised on Wednesday to “pause and listen” to growing concerns over the scale of reforms in the health bill. But in an escalation of the controversy that now threatens to destabilise the coalition, Liberal Democrat activists demanded that amendments spearheaded by Shirley Williams and endorsed by the party’s spring conference be taken on in full. In an unprecedented show of force about 1,200 Liberal Democrat party members, councillors, former parliamentary candidates, peers, conference representatives and council leaders instructed their leadership to “fully respect the declared view of the party”. Organisers of the Liberal Democrat revolt also condemned efforts by the government to “spin” their way out of the row. Since announcing a “pause” to the progress of the health bill, the government has suggested that some amendments would be tabled to clarify that GPs who do not want to take charge of the NHS budget for their patients would be able to leave it to other GPs in their area. The ability of private firms to “cherry pick” the most lucrative NHS services would also be restricted and a regulator will be told to prioritise value for money, rather than promote market competition, it emerged. However the Liberal Democrat grassroots made it clear that they want the government to go further and declared they will pressure their MPs to block the bill unless they are satisfied by future changes. Dr Evan Harris, the party’s former health spokesman, said: “The Liberal Democrats have already compromised on health policy in making the Coalition Agreement and we are not prepared to see our parliamentarians being put under pressure to vote for market reforms and other changes that go beyond the terms of the coalition agreement and the motion that we passed.” The Liberal Democrats voted almost unanimously at the party’s conference in Sheffield last month to give councillors a central role in GP commissioning and in scrutinising foundation trusts. They called for a ban on all cherry-picking by private companies offering treatment services. GP commissioning boards must construct annual plans in conjunction with new health and well-being boards. And they declared there should be a continued separation of commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interest. Faced with certain defeat, the party’s leadership promised to take the critical messages back to government. However, Liberal Democrat activists fear their leadership is not being tough enough with the Conservatives. Health policy NHS Health Shirley Williams Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …While Washington, DC, was busy avoiding its own implosion last night, Charlie Sheen was bombing in New York City with his Violent Torpedo of Truth gig. The highlights: “For an hour, Sheen chain-smoked like a criminal—’can I have a f–king cigarette?’—lobbed the F-bomb like a 4-year-old suffering from…
Continue reading …Somerville, Mass., is famous for being the hometown of Marshmallow Fluff. It would like to be famous for something else, too: exceptionally happy residents. It was inspired, exotically enough, by Bhutan , which decided to put happiness ahead of its gross domestic product in terms of important measures, and has used…
Continue reading …Jamie Dimon had a pretty decent year: The JPMorgan CEO, who steered his bank through Wall Street’s meltdown and saw it emerge as arguably the healthiest US bank, took home $20.8 million last year. That’s up roughly 1500% over his $1.3 million compensation package the year before, notes…
Continue reading …Footage leaked to the Observer shows Welsh Assembly candidate setting fire to Islamic holy book in his garden A senior member of the BNP who burned a copy of the Qur’an in his garden has been arrested following an investigation by the Observer . Footage of the burning shows Sion Owens, 40, from south Wales and a candidate for the forthcoming Welsh Assembly elections, soaking the Qur’an in kerosene and setting fire to it. A video clip of the act, leaked to the Observer and passed immediately to South Wales police, last night provoked fierce criticism from the government. A statement from the Home Office said: “The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur’an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society. “We equally condemn any attempts to create divisions between communities and are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to live their lives free from fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, such as religion.” Owens, who has previously stood for a council seat, was last Tuesday unveiled by the BNP as a candidate for next month’s assembly elections. Several photographs place him alongside party leader Nick Griffin, including one showing the pair embracing during a party conference. The footage comes at a time of heightened tensions. Internationally, protests continued in Afghanistan last week against the recent Qur’an burning by the US pastor Terry Jones in his Florida church. Jones’s act triggered a wave of global violence that nine days ago led to protesters storming a UN Afghan compound, killing three UN staff members and four Nepalese guards. Police had feared that far-right British extremists might attempt to stir tensions here by replicating Jones’s stunt. Superintendent Phil Davies of South Wales police, who led the investigation, said: “We always adopt an extremely robust approach to allegations of this sort and find this sort of intolerance unacceptable in our society.” Owens was arrested within hours of police receiving the video. A second person, believed to have filmed the Qur’an burning, is also in police custody. It is unclear when the incident took place, but the five-minute footage is already understood to have been circulated to extremists. There is no evidence that Griffin was aware of the film. When Jones went ahead with his “punishment” of the Qur’an on 20 March it was initially largely ignored until it was streamed on the internet and preserved on YouTube. The footage of the burning in Britain clearly identifies Owens, who is wearing a “Whitelaw No Surrender” T-shirt. The film starts with the Qur’an lying in a Quality Street tin before Owens begins dousing the holy book in flammable liquid and then setting fire to it. The camera zooms in as the Qur’an burns. Saqed Mueen of the international security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute, described the act as proof of the “globalisation of outrageous stunts”. Concern over Islamophobic provocation among far-right elements is epitomised by the rise of the English Defence League, which was founded in 2009 and claims to have thousands of members in scores of regional branches. The EDL’s rise coincides with the decline of the BNP as a political force, evident during last year’s poor general election performance. Although Griffin’s party had 338 candidates in the parliamentary elections, a record number for a far-right party in Britain, its share of the vote in key seats fell. The BNP fared little better in the council elections, failing in its concerted attempt to win control of Barking and Dagenham council and losing all but two of its 28 wards. The news that a senior BNP figure has been arrested after a film showing him burning the Qur’an will only discredit the party further, according to anti-fascist campaigners. Photographs show Owens at a Welsh Defence League demonstration with a group of alleged Nazis including Wayne Baldwin, who has been pictured posing in front of a swastika flag. The Observer has also been passed images that show Owens’s face apparently superimposed on Hitler’s body. Owens was officially announced last week as the BNP’s number three candidate for the South Wales West constituency of the Welsh assembly. In 2008 he stood for the BNP in council elections, polling almost a fifth of votes in his ward but finishing last out of three candidates. His campaign posters at the time show him standing on a ticket against “mass immigration, enforced multiculturalism, political correctness”. Although the BNP announced a record number of candidates for the Welsh assembly elections last week, anti-fascist groups maintain the party is a fading force, claiming that it has struggled to field candidates in the forthcoming local elections in areas that used to be target seats. BNP Islam Religion Wales Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …