They claim they sound like a cross between Michael Jackson and the Beatles and operate as an artistic collective. Get them! Hometown: Brooklyn and San Francisco. The lineup: Ben Bromley and Ross Simonini. The background: The three most hyped (or self-hyped in two cases) bands at the start of this year – Mona, Brother and the Vaccines – drew attention for their back-to-basics approach. They offered crude propositions and simple pleasures. But there are others daring to be different, making unusual connections, being anything but obvious. Last night, for example, we went to Heaven in London to watch Crystal Fighters , a three-piece creating a hybrid of Basque folk and techno out of indigenous instruments, dance rhythms and the poetry of a friend’s deceased, insane relative. It hinted at what a collaboration between Federico García Lorca and the Chemical Brothers might have been like: vivid and joyous, if a little crazed. NewVillager are equally determined to stand out from the crowd. They describe themselves as “an artist collective”. The core duo of Ben Bromley and Ross Simonini are complemented by “visual director” Ben Dickinson (LCD Soundsystem, the Rapture), plus live drums and a cast of thousands – well, maybe a dozen – whom they draft in as and when required to work on whatever ancillary drawings, animations, performances, films, lectures, books and writings are needed to augment the music. Wait – as Blue Oyster Cult once said – there’s more. Bromley and Simonini, recently hailed by NME as “pop shamans taking meticulous steps towards a mysterious, musical nirvana”, use the various media at their disposal to espouse their “NewVillager mythology”. This comprises a “10-part cycle exploring transformation, teenage-hood and the formation of new ideas”. As if that weren’t enough, their shows include various installations, “integrated events” and “immersive rituals” which “explore the concept of the boundaries between different communities”. Meanwhile, their forthcoming debut album, they have promised (or should that be threatened?), will be a “song cycle” based on “not so much a narrative but a lens or a model for looking at any kind of transformation – how does something change from one state to another state? What kind of a process is that? What are the perennial tensions in that process?” When they started going on about the “structural shifts, including the main shift from Cocoon House to Black Crow Boy to Light House” intended for the album, we got a little irritable and couldn’t help wondering: yes, but what about the tunes? See, every so often a band comes along with ideas about subverting the form (yer actual pop music) and adding multimedia facets to the otherwise rote ritual of release single, release album, tour. Remember Sudden Sway, the mid-80s clever-clogs who issued eight versions of one single, followed by an extravaganza by the name of Spacemate which included a double LP, a book, a poster, a set of cards and an instruction manual, all packaged together in a soap-box container, after which the plan was to devise a “soap opera musical” called ’76 Kids Forever? The conceptual carapace was inviting but by the time you got to the music it was a tad anti-climactic. Needless to say, their attempts to make the packaging of pop interesting failed to sell. NewVillager are a bit like a latter day American Sudden Sway. When they finally get to discussing their music, they call it “new pop” and claim it’s a cross between Michael Jackson and the Beatles. This is risibly wide of the mark. Lighthouse has chanty vocals and a quasi-religious feel. Overpass is also white gospel-ish, with churchy organ. Bad Past Gone Away is what happens when indie boys do soulful. Genghis On is Scissor Sisters-style retro-disco, while Rich Doors is hooky synth-funk that recalls Hall & Oates when they worked with Arthur Baker on their album Big Bam Boom. More than anyone, they remind us of Polyphonic Spree, another outfit intent on bringing a non-rock purity of spirit to pop who, having seemed at first to be rule-changing, eventually became Just Another Band. How soon it will be before NewVillager buckles depends on their mettle, and bank accounts (who’s funding all their auxiliary ventures?), but you’ve got to applaud their ambition even as you worry that their music is thus far a woeful mismatch for their ideas. The buzz: ” They weave mythology throughout their music and art. ” The truth: It’s easy to scoff and be cynical, but at least they’re Saying Stuff, even if we haven’t a clue what it all means. Most likely to: Be bicoastal. Least likely to: Go postal on us – they’re too joyous, man. What to buy: Their self-titled debut album will be released on 21 June by IAMSOUND. File next to: Sudden Sway, Hall & Oates, Polyphonic Spree, Crystal Fighters. Links: www.myspace.com/newvillager . Friday’s new band: Dom. Pop and rock Paul Lester guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Exiled former president on flight to Port-au-Prince accompanied by Hollywood actor and campaigner Danny Glover Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former president of Haiti, is expected to end seven years of exile by touching down in Port-au-Prince on Friday, defying Barack Obama’s concerns that his return could jeopardise the country’s election. Aristide was due to leave his base in South Africa last night, accompanied by the Hollywood actor and campaigner Danny Glover, who is chairman of the TransAfrica social justice forum . Such are Obama’s misgivings that he called Jacob Zuma, the South African president, to discuss the matter, according to US National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor. “The United States, along with others in the international community, has deep concerns that president Aristide’s return to Haiti in the closing days of the election could be destabilising,” he said. “President Obama reiterated that view in a call with President Zuma the other day … along with his belief that the Haitian people deserve the chance to choose their government through peaceful, free, and fair elections March 20.” US State Department spokesman Mark Toner has acknowledged Aristide’s right to go back to Haiti, but said returning this week “can only be seen as a conscious choice to impact Haiti’s elections”. Aides say Aristide fears the election winner might reverse the long-awaited decision to allow his return – both are right-wing candidates long opposed to him. Aristide’s lawyer, Ira Kurzban, said: “He is genuinely concerned that a change in the Haitian government may result in his remaining in South Africa.” Kurzban claimed that even at the 11th hour the US was exerting pressure on South Africa to delay Aristide’s flight, scheduled to take-off on Thursday night from Johannesburg’s Lanseria airport. The former priest and liberation theologist’s diplomatic passport was delivered last month, and the South African cabinet minister Collins Chabane said the government cannot be held responsible for whether he stays or goes. “What I should stress is that we are not sending former president Aristide to Haiti,” Chabane said. “He was given the passport by the government of Haiti and we can’t hold him hostage if he wants to go.” Glover arrived in South Africa yesterday to escort the ousted leader home. He asked why the former dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier could return to Haiti unhindered – as he did in January following 25 years in exile – and yet not the twice democratically-elected Aristide. “People of good conscience cannot be idle while a former dictator is able to return unhindered while a democratic leader who peacefully handed over power to another elected president is restricted from returning to his country by external forces,” Glover wrote on the TransAfrica Forum website. Glover and nine others recently wrote to Zuma urging him to “assist the Aristides in making their transition as soon as possible” as “all the last remaining obstacles to the Aristides’ return have been removed”. Aristide, who emerged as a leading voice for Haiti’s poor in a popular revolt that forced an end to the Duvalier family’s 29-year dictatorship, remains hugely popular in the country. Some predict his return today will brings tens of thousands of supporters to the airport. He has said he will not be involved in politics in Haiti and wants to lead his foundation’s efforts to improve education in the impoverished Caribbean nation devastated by an earthquake last year. His political party has been excluded from running in the election, which many Haitians consider illegitimate. The two remaining candidates received just 10% of the first-round votes between them. This would be Aristide’s second return from exile. He was ousted by a military coup in 1991 but Bill Clinton, when he was president, returned him to power in 1994 following a US intervention that forced out the military regime. Aristide fled Haiti again in February 2004, leaving before dawn on a US plane as rebels approached the capital. He accused American diplomats of having kidnapped him, charges that Washington denied. He continues to have powerful enemies in Haiti. The same forces that made him leave in 2004 will consider his return to be a threat, and foreign powers that bankrolled the elections will also see him as a destabilising influence. The first round was marred by massive fraud, with voters unable to find their names on electoral rolls and polling stations closing early – or not opening at all. Voter turnout was at a 60-year low – only 22.9% of those registered actually cast ballots. In areas most affected by the earthquake the figure was half that, and it is not yet clear the situation will be vastly improved this time. Haiti South Africa Barack Obama United States US foreign policy Human rights Isabeau Doucet David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Security council resolution calls for states to protect Libyan civilians, with Britain, France and US confident bill will pass 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. A source at UN headquarters in New York said military forces could be deployed “within hours” of a new security council resolution calling for states to protect civilians by halting attacks by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces by air, land and sea. The resolution would impose a no-fly zone over Libya – but a no-fly zone was no longer enough, the source said. “The resolution authorises air strikes against tank columns advancing on Benghazi or engaging naval ships bombarding Benghazi,” he said. Britain, France and Lebanon sponsored the new resolution, which provides the moral and legal basis for military action. British and French forces are understood to have been placed on standby after the US said it was prepared to support the measure if Arab countries agreed to take an active role. The security council was scheduled to vote on the new resolution this evening, and its backers expressed confidence it would pass after hours of negotiation. In London, William Hague, the foreign secretary, indicated to MPs that military preparations to protect Benghazi were at an advanced stage. The no-fly zone would be imposed from land, and not from aircraft carriers. “No, it is not the case that carrier-borne aircraft are necessary to do such a thing,” Hague said. “In the contingency plans of all the nations, none of them involve an aircraft carrier.” The increase in military preparations came as Gaddafi announced that his forces would invade Benghazi tonight and would show no mercy on fighters who resisted them. “No more fear, no more hesitation, the moment of truth has come,” he declared. “There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Residents and a rebel spokesman reported three air strikes on the outskirts of the city, including at the airport, and another air raid further south. There was also heavy fighting in residential areas of nearby Ajdabiyah, where around 30 people were killed, Al Arabiya reported. Libyan authorities also warned that all maritime traffic in the Mediterranean would be in danger if it was targeted by foreign forces. In a statement broadcast on Libyan television, the defence ministry said: “Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger, and civilian and military [facilities] will become targets of Libya’s counterattack,” the statement said. “The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term.” The UN resolution, which calls for “all necessary measures short of an occupation force” to protect civilians, needs the support of a further six further members of the security council to pass – and to avoid vetoes from Russia and China. A Downing Street spokesman said: “The prime minister has been making a series of calls on Libya. He has spoken to a number of Arab and African leaders. We can now confirm that he has also spoken to several European leaders. “In all his calls, the prime minister has made the case for strong action by the UN security council, to increase the pressure on Gaddafi and put a stop to the campaign he is waging against the Libyan people. The prime minister will be making further calls this evening.” The move marks a last-gasp attempt to keep the Libyan uprising alive. It has been relatively rare in recent years for the UN to give the go-ahead for military action – the security council, for example, refused to support the Iraq invasion. The resolution reflects the extent of despair felt in Britain, France, the US and parts of the Arab world at the prospect of total victory by Gaddafi and fears of a massacre in Benghazi. After weeks of prevarication by the US, Washington backed the resolution. The Obama administration was stalled by a split between the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who favoured a no-fly zone, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who was opposed. The White House, caught in the middle, dithered. Gates redeployed US naval vessels close to the Libyan coast and told Barack Obama that, though heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military was capable of fighting on a third front. The US, crucially, insisted it would only act if there was Arab support, in order to avoid it being seen as a western intervention. Several Arab countries have promised to provide planes, but insisted upon their identity being withheld until the resolution was passed. Speculation as to which countries would participate include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. There is no plan to send in ground troops, other than for isolated incidents such as rescuing downed pilots. Supporters of the resolution, speaking before the vote, said they were confident of achieving the necessary nine votes in the 15-member chamber. A source who was present at the talks said that China and Russia have vetoes that could scupper the resolution, but indicated they would abstain. Brazil, Germany and India expressed scepticism over military action, but their votes were not needed to secure a majority. John Kerry, the chairman of the US Senate foreign affairs committee, said: “The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as the Libyan people’s quest for democratic reform is met with violence … Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond immediately.” Libya United Nations Foreign policy William Hague Middle East Nicholas Watt Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …When House Republicans began efforts to repeal Obamacare, they did so with much fanfare. Not so for their efforts to repeal another major Obama effort: the financial reform Dodd-Frank law. Republicans quietly took the first step toward repeal yesterday, introducing the first five bills targeting Dodd-Frank at a lightly attended…
Continue reading …Forget the corned beef and green beer; if you really want to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, why not make yourself a nice bowl of gruel? Because that was probably a major part of St. Patrick’s diet, according to culinary historians at the University College of Cork. Other things the famed…
Continue reading …With a siege in Benghazi looking like a distinct possibility, the White House is suddenly looking to use some muscle in Libya. After weeks of discussion, the administration has concluded that a no-fly zone would likely be “too little, too late” to save the rebels, the New York Times reports,…
Continue reading …
So a woman has failed the theory test 90 times. The true indicator of driving ability is not the ability to click a mouse button One thing’s for sure, she’s not scoring one for us women. You can picture the tabloid editor beaming already. Woman! Failed! Theory test! 90 times! Thanks to a freedom of information request, the worst driving student in the UK has indeed been unveiled: she is 26, lives in Southwark, and spent an astonishing £2,790 on driving theory test exams. Call it confirmation bias, but the opinion currently held by Neanderthals about females behind a steering wheel will only be strengthened by the story. One has to ask, though: how can someone fail a multiple choice test so many times? There are only 50 questions, followed by four answers each. Candidates have to get at least 43 answers right – not an issue if one studies hard – and then face the gruelling hazard perception test (more on that later). I know those details because yesterday morning found I and a dozen others wiping metaphorical sweat from our brows as we sat in a south London test centre, waiting to make good use of the knowledge accumulated in the past few weeks. Or in my case, days; I’m lucky to be gifted at last-minute cramming and passed. 45/50, if you must ask. I won’t lie – the test isn’t that easy. The current pass rate for the theory test is 62.9% ; people in the US are said to be horrified at our UK process. And while a lot of the expected answers are solidly rooted in common sense (“Q: You are invited to a pub lunch. You know that you will have to drive in the evening. What is your best course of action?” A. Avoid mixing your alcoholic drinks B. Not drink any alcohol at all C. Have some milk before drinking alcohol D. Eat a hot meal with your alcoholic drinks), others were more pointed (“How long will a statutory off road notification last for?”). Some, on the other hand, were downright stupid (“When should you take a call on your mobile phone while travelling?”). The first written examination was introduced for wannabe drivers in 1996, before being replaced by the computer test in 2000. But is it a truly essential part of the learning process? Talking to my colleagues about the unlucky student who failed so many times this morning, many of them recalled the “good old days” during which you would just be asked a few questions by your driving examiner before passing your driving test: do you know what that sign is? Yes? What about this one ? Good, all right then. Now show us how you park. Take the dreaded hazard perception test – a glorious example of a terribly explained task which many people who did not train for the test with a DVD find impossible to understand. On paper, this sounds relatively straightforward : “Examinees watch 14 one-minute clips filmed from the perspective of a car driver and have to indicate, usually by clicking a mouse button or touching the screen, when they observe a developing hazard.” Because we’re told that each clip is supposed to contain one hazard (with one exception, which contains two), many viewers decide to react only once, when they should instead click every time they suspect they see a developing hazard (which can be anything, from a far-away pedestrian to an incoming truck). Surely such skills would be better assessed by an instructor during actual driving lessons? The same applies to the multiple choice part of test, where it is easy to “luck out” or take educated guesses (which I did on occasion during mine). Truly, I couldn’t be convinced of the utility of the theory test. It did provide me with some basic knowledge, but it is nothing I wouldn’t have learned on the ground. The hard work lies ahead, in the hours during which I will drive the vehicle accompanied. I truly feel that practice, much like making a good damson pie, cycling or learning to tie laces, is the only way to learn. Perhaps the woman who failed so many times should just be given a free pass. Transport Road transport Jessica Reed guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
So a woman has failed the theory test 90 times. The true indicator of driving ability is not the ability to click a mouse button One thing’s for sure, she’s not scoring one for us women. You can picture the tabloid editor beaming already. Woman! Failed! Theory test! 90 times! Thanks to a freedom of information request, the worst driving student in the UK has indeed been unveiled: she is 26, lives in Southwark, and spent an astonishing £2,790 on driving theory test exams. Call it confirmation bias, but the opinion currently held by Neanderthals about females behind a steering wheel will only be strengthened by the story. One has to ask, though: how can someone fail a multiple choice test so many times? There are only 50 questions, followed by four answers each. Candidates have to get at least 43 answers right – not an issue if one studies hard – and then face the gruelling hazard perception test (more on that later). I know those details because yesterday morning found I and a dozen others wiping metaphorical sweat from our brows as we sat in a south London test centre, waiting to make good use of the knowledge accumulated in the past few weeks. Or in my case, days; I’m lucky to be gifted at last-minute cramming and passed. 45/50, if you must ask. I won’t lie – the test isn’t that easy. The current pass rate for the theory test is 62.9% ; people in the US are said to be horrified at our UK process. And while a lot of the expected answers are solidly rooted in common sense (“Q: You are invited to a pub lunch. You know that you will have to drive in the evening. What is your best course of action?” A. Avoid mixing your alcoholic drinks B. Not drink any alcohol at all C. Have some milk before drinking alcohol D. Eat a hot meal with your alcoholic drinks), others were more pointed (“How long will a statutory off road notification last for?”). Some, on the other hand, were downright stupid (“When should you take a call on your mobile phone while travelling?”). The first written examination was introduced for wannabe drivers in 1996, before being replaced by the computer test in 2000. But is it a truly essential part of the learning process? Talking to my colleagues about the unlucky student who failed so many times this morning, many of them recalled the “good old days” during which you would just be asked a few questions by your driving examiner before passing your driving test: do you know what that sign is? Yes? What about this one ? Good, all right then. Now show us how you park. Take the dreaded hazard perception test – a glorious example of a terribly explained task which many people who did not train for the test with a DVD find impossible to understand. On paper, this sounds relatively straightforward : “Examinees watch 14 one-minute clips filmed from the perspective of a car driver and have to indicate, usually by clicking a mouse button or touching the screen, when they observe a developing hazard.” Because we’re told that each clip is supposed to contain one hazard (with one exception, which contains two), many viewers decide to react only once, when they should instead click every time they suspect they see a developing hazard (which can be anything, from a far-away pedestrian to an incoming truck). Surely such skills would be better assessed by an instructor during actual driving lessons? The same applies to the multiple choice part of test, where it is easy to “luck out” or take educated guesses (which I did on occasion during mine). Truly, I couldn’t be convinced of the utility of the theory test. It did provide me with some basic knowledge, but it is nothing I wouldn’t have learned on the ground. The hard work lies ahead, in the hours during which I will drive the vehicle accompanied. I truly feel that practice, much like making a good damson pie, cycling or learning to tie laces, is the only way to learn. Perhaps the woman who failed so many times should just be given a free pass. Transport Road transport Jessica Reed guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
So a woman has failed the theory test 90 times. The true indicator of driving ability is not the ability to click a mouse button One thing’s for sure, she’s not scoring one for us women. You can picture the tabloid editor beaming already. Woman! Failed! Theory test! 90 times! Thanks to a freedom of information request, the worst driving student in the UK has indeed been unveiled: she is 26, lives in Southwark, and spent an astonishing £2,790 on driving theory test exams. Call it confirmation bias, but the opinion currently held by Neanderthals about females behind a steering wheel will only be strengthened by the story. One has to ask, though: how can someone fail a multiple choice test so many times? There are only 50 questions, followed by four answers each. Candidates have to get at least 43 answers right – not an issue if one studies hard – and then face the gruelling hazard perception test (more on that later). I know those details because yesterday morning found I and a dozen others wiping metaphorical sweat from our brows as we sat in a south London test centre, waiting to make good use of the knowledge accumulated in the past few weeks. Or in my case, days; I’m lucky to be gifted at last-minute cramming and passed. 45/50, if you must ask. I won’t lie – the test isn’t that easy. The current pass rate for the theory test is 62.9% ; people in the US are said to be horrified at our UK process. And while a lot of the expected answers are solidly rooted in common sense (“Q: You are invited to a pub lunch. You know that you will have to drive in the evening. What is your best course of action?” A. Avoid mixing your alcoholic drinks B. Not drink any alcohol at all C. Have some milk before drinking alcohol D. Eat a hot meal with your alcoholic drinks), others were more pointed (“How long will a statutory off road notification last for?”). Some, on the other hand, were downright stupid (“When should you take a call on your mobile phone while travelling?”). The first written examination was introduced for wannabe drivers in 1996, before being replaced by the computer test in 2000. But is it a truly essential part of the learning process? Talking to my colleagues about the unlucky student who failed so many times this morning, many of them recalled the “good old days” during which you would just be asked a few questions by your driving examiner before passing your driving test: do you know what that sign is? Yes? What about this one ? Good, all right then. Now show us how you park. Take the dreaded hazard perception test – a glorious example of a terribly explained task which many people who did not train for the test with a DVD find impossible to understand. On paper, this sounds relatively straightforward : “Examinees watch 14 one-minute clips filmed from the perspective of a car driver and have to indicate, usually by clicking a mouse button or touching the screen, when they observe a developing hazard.” Because we’re told that each clip is supposed to contain one hazard (with one exception, which contains two), many viewers decide to react only once, when they should instead click every time they suspect they see a developing hazard (which can be anything, from a far-away pedestrian to an incoming truck). Surely such skills would be better assessed by an instructor during actual driving lessons? The same applies to the multiple choice part of test, where it is easy to “luck out” or take educated guesses (which I did on occasion during mine). Truly, I couldn’t be convinced of the utility of the theory test. It did provide me with some basic knowledge, but it is nothing I wouldn’t have learned on the ground. The hard work lies ahead, in the hours during which I will drive the vehicle accompanied. I truly feel that practice, much like making a good damson pie, cycling or learning to tie laces, is the only way to learn. Perhaps the woman who failed so many times should just be given a free pass. Transport Road transport Jessica Reed guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Black and white terrier mix is up for adoption after coming back to life, wagging its tail The animal shelter in Sulphur, Oklahoma, suffers from the under-funding and overcrowding all-too familiar in small town America. So when five scrawny puppies were abandoned outside its door last month it took the regrettable but inevitable decision to put them all to sleep. They were given injections in the limbs and heart, tested with a stethoscope to check they were dead, and then their bodies put out for disposal in the shelter’s rubbish bin. But the following morning something astonishing happened. An animal control officer who inspected the bin found that one of the puppies had apparently come back to life and was jumping around the container, tail wagging. News of the “resurrected puppy” began to spread locally. A girl dubbed the black and white terrier mix Wall-E after the animated robot from the film of the same name who was also a last survivor. A veterinarian technician, Amanda Kloski, arranged to care for the dog and arrange for his adoption. When she posted the details on Facebook, interest went crazy. The shelter, which normally has to battle against indifference towards abandoned animals, found its phonelines clogged with 3,000 callers begging to be allowed to give Wall-E a home. It has also had to make clear it will neuter Wall-E before the adoption is made to discourage unscrupulous dealers who plan to breed from him and market his offspring as the progeny of the “miracle dog”. More than $1,000 (£620) has been donated from across the country to the cash-starved shelter, and the puppy has been flown to New York to star on Good Morning America. “In Sulphur we never had the problem, or blessing, of more than one family wishing to adopt a dog so we are new to this concept,” the shelter said on a Petfinder page . “Most of our dogs do not get this chance or opportunity even once it is amazing!” United States Animal welfare Animals Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …