Paranormal Activity 2

I once lived in a haunted house. There would be a strange tapping at the window - the upstairs window. And the alarm would sometimes go off all by itself, despite not being set. Creepy, eh? Except, of course, until you take into account that the tapping noise was probably water dripping and the alarm going off was probably caused by the fact that (a) it was really old and (b) the electrics were probably corroded by the fact that the whole house was sodden with damp. Then, when you combine the fact that these events took place over the course of nearly three years, you get to the truth that this "haunting" was the world's dullest one. At least until you watch Paranormal Activity 2.

For the first hour of the film, nothing really happens. In fact, the first half hour of the movie is mainly taken up with the conundrum of how a pool cleaner can exit a pool by itself. Lacking a pool cleaner, a pool, and any real empathy with the main characters, this all comes across to me as really rather tedious. Fortunately the ghost/demon ups the ante. By turning on and off lights, opening and closing doors, and doing other really rather boring stuff. The biggest scare in the first hour or so is cupboard doors opening. No, really. It is like the demon was having an off day, and actually couldn't be bothered. Or he/she/it was saving its best to last. Whatever the plan, Paranormal Activity 2 feels a little misleading. Paranormal Inactivity would be a better title.

Even when things gear up for the big finale the film still fails to get interesting. In fact, it seems at pains to reenact scenes from the first film. Woman dragged along the floor - check. Person thrown at camera - check. Yes, it has a higher budget, but that doesn't really make it look any more realistic. And the moment when a character gets his neck snapped is unintentionally comical.

However, this sequel is determined not just to be boring - it also wishes to piss all over its far more effective predecessor. The reason for the demonic haunting is explained away using sub-Faustian bollocks. Memo to film-makers - arbitrary evil is far more unnerving than evil with a cliched explanation behind it. We don't need to know why this is happening; in fact, not knowing makes it scarier. But no. We get exposition. Or shit a teenager read on da interwebs. We also get a deeply convoluted attempt to tie this story in with the continuity of the first film, meaning the whole story feels curiously tacked on to a much simpler - and much better - original. Quite why we couldn't have another random haunting is beyond me. Instead, though, we end up with a paranormal soap opera. The "twist" is only really clever if you care a lot about these characters. Unfortunately, the film doesn't do anything to make me care about them. In fact, it makes me care even less about the characters in the original.

And then there is the framing device, or rather the crude attempts to explain why all this is being filmed. Yep, I get that it is about security. But that is rather undermined when the person who had the cameras installed refuses to check them when strange stuff happens.

But the biggest flaw is in the editing of the film. The first film was quite taut, moving from exposition to scares with a certain fluidity. Not so here. The editing is absolutely abysmal. Clearly, the filmmakers decided that reality is best reflected through showing normality. And then more normality. And then more normality. And then something weird happening. Or not, as the case might be. Unfortunately, that isn't interesting. In fact, it is so boring that it breeds resentment. That scene when the guy gets his neck snapped? I'd spent so long watching the cunt lounging on a sofa prior to him buying it that I frankly wanted the dopey sod to die. Which I'm guessing was not what was intended.

So we have another tedious horror movie. Why get so worked up about this one? Because the first one - despite its flaws - was actually curiously effective. This one, however, not only killed the fledgling franchise for me, but also robbed that first film of much of what made it effective. Not so much a missed opportunity but a spectacular own goal.

Paranormal Activity 2 - don't bother.

The Toxic Labour Party

Here’s an interesting article about how Labour needs to detoxify its brand if it is to seriously stand any chance of winning at the next election. It is interesting because it accepts that Labour cannot simply coast to power, but I think its understanding of just how toxic Labour has become is limited.

Now, I don’t like any of the main parties, but Labour are the top of the pile when it comes to that dislike. When I think of the Tories, I feel a complete lack of enthusiasm combined with mild suspicion about their social conservatism. When I think of the Lib Dems, I get mildly amused by their ineptitude and amateur nature. But when I think of Labour, I feel rage and hate. I despise them for their continual raids on my wallet and the decimation of civil liberties during their long years in power. And I am enraged by their complacent arrogance, by their assumption that they should be in power, and that anyone who stands in the way of their project is in some way hindering progress. To my mind, none of the main parties have shown that they are capable of governing, but Labour have categorically shown themselves to be utterly incapable of treating the people of this country with any other than contempt. They have proven themselves to be utterly unsuitable for the task of governing.

And the fact that their party is now headed up by Miliband Minor and Balls – two of the most egregious minions of the worst Prime Minister we’ve had since Anthony Eden – show nothing more than absolute continuity with the Labour project of the last decade and a half. If they were in power, there’d be more of the same. Which would lead to a bankrupt country and far less freedom for its inhabitants.

So yeah, Labour needs to detoxify its brand. And it needs to start at the top, but finding a Leader of the Opposition and a Shadow Chancellor who are not synonymous with Nu Labour.

RIP Nicholas Courtney

Or, if you don't know who that is, Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart. And if you don't know who that is, go away and watch some more classic series Doctor Who.

Doctor Who's story is full of heroes. Some of them are clear and easy to acknowledge. Pretty much anyone who played the Doctor becomes a hero, sometimes because they were just great at it, sometimes because the odds were stacked against them, and sometimes because they were great at it and the odds were stacked against them. Furthermore, some companions become legends. Other heroes are, at least outside of the introverted and sometimes strange world of Doctor Who fandom, are relatively unsung. The brilliant Nicholas Courtney would be one of those. Because his portrayal of the Brigadier - a regular of the series in the early 1970's and an occasionally recurring character (and general legend) through the rest of the series - was always entertaining, watchable and pitched perfectly, no matter what the script was like or how big or small his role was.

And if you still don't know why, I'll hand you over to Steven Moffat, Chief Writer and Executive Producer of one of Britain's most successful TV shows:

'I only met Nicholas Courtney once and very briefly - but he was as kind and generous and funny as his reputation suggests. And on screen, his perfectly pitched performance as the Brigadier carved a very special place in the history of Doctor Who. Not just because he could be grave and funny at the same time, and wise and silly in the same moment, and not just because you could still love him when he was clearly in the wrong, or because he could point a gun at you and still somehow twinkle - but because out of all the people the Doctor has met, in all of space and time, Nicholas Courtney's Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart was the only one who was ever his boss.

Somewhere out there, the Doctor just got a little lonelier.'

10 O'Clock Live

Or perhaps that title should be the problems with 10 O’ Clock Live. Because there is very little that is good about it.

In a sense, it seems to be a postmodern take on a current affairs programme. Rather than having reputable anchors and well-known journalists fronting the show, instead we have a collection of comedians poking fun at recent events. Which is the first problem with the show – it doesn’t have any comedians. Charlie Brooker writes scathing reviews and the occasional nasty comedy series, Lauren Laverne is a pop star turned presenter, David Mitchell is a comic actor and Jimmy Carr just isn’t, and never will, be funny. Tough task to make it a laugh riot with that line-up.

Which leads to the second problem – it isn’t funny. Arch self-awareness, faintly patronising presentations and mocking foreign leaders for having names that sound funny in the West is not funny. Unless, with regard to the last one, you happen to like Bernard Manning.

But of course, not everything in the news is actually meant to be funny. Making a joke about unrest in Tunisia is difficult to do successfully at the best of times; when people are dying, it may be best not to try to turn into a comedy sketch. There’s a reason why real news programmes tend to be po-faced when it comes to such stories – it is because laughing at them is not appropriate, and actually comes across as a completely crass. By all means poke fun at how those stories are reported by the mainstream media – something Brooker’s Newswipe does exceptionally well. But it is a very different think to poke fun at events where people are dying.

And the balance between having a comedy programme and having serious political debates also needs to be looked at. Take the debate headed up by Mitchell about banking bonuses – all serious debate is lost as Mitchell plays to the crowd, to get cheers for his points and boos for anyone who might want to defend some of those bonuses. And by the way, David, pointing to one banker who happens to agree that the taxpayer saved the whole system doesn’t make it a fact. Nor is it particularly edifying to see you ignoring the fact that Labour chose to do those bailouts; their complicity in the whole thing is a pretty big part of the whole story. And while we’re on the subject of Labour, you really need to think more about what that party is doing and has done than simply make sub-Guido quips about the state of Alan Johnson’s marriage. This isn't so much about balance as simply showing awareness of the world around you.

For some reason, Mitchell seems to have been set up as the show’s resident intellectual. I’ve no idea why; perhaps it’s because he plays a geek in Peepshow. Or because he writes a shrill, whiny column in The Guardian - a sort of sub Polly Toynbee effort, with laboured jokes in it. He’s certainly not very good as an intellectual, though. Witness his “debate” with David Willetts (who actually comes across very well). Willetts makes a strong case for raising the level of tuition fees. Sure, it’s a controversial case, but it has a ring of coherence to it – particularly when he points out that university education has never been free, but rather subsidised by the taxpayer who can often ill-afford someone else having three years studying at their expense. But Mitchell refuses to listen or respond to this point. He keeps on talking about free education until you want to reach into the TV and shake the little prig while shouting “BUT IT ISN’T FUCKING FREE! LISTEN, YOU STUPID COCKSTAIN!” Even later in the programme, when he’s summing up the debate, he seems to think he won simply because he believes university education was free, but isn’t anymore. Seriously, your average second year undergraduate has a better grasp of debating than this supposedly learned one shows.

Of course, I’ve only watched the first instalment, and things could have got radically better. But I doubt it somehow. This is lazy TV; predictable, tedious and – fatally, for a project like this one – not funny. The news may often be crap and insulting, but this sort of show falls if it decides to lower itself to the same standards. Which is precisely why 10 O’Clock Live just doesn’t work.

True Blood

See, the truth is that vampires are a bit shit. No, really, they are. They are the sort of horror adversaries that are favoured by feckless, emo kids. Whereas a zombie will bite your face off and a werewolf will undergo a radical change then bite your face off, a vampire will look ashen-faced, forlorn and them bite you as some sort of inadequate substitute for good, old fashioned humping.

And this goes right back to Dracula - the one of the first and the most famous of vampire stories. For much of the novel, the "action" centres on forlorn Victorian types chasitely lusting after each other, with Dracula in the background adhering to the cliche of the rapey foreigner. It is telling that the most effective episodes in the novel - the voyage of the Demeter and the Bloofer Lady - both contain nothing of the main human characters of the novel and only oblique references to Dracula. Compare Dracula to Frankenstein - the latter has a compelling, demented and terrifying monster. Dracula sadly lacks that, and ends up being a collection of letters pertaining to a crappy antagonist.

This, I believe, is why the more successful vampire stories make it clear that their bloodsuckers are proper monsters. Take Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot - to my mind, the most successful vampire tale of all time. The vampires are set up to be utterly inhuman - or, to quote the text, "unspeakable" - long before they properly turn up in the story through the murder of the child. And Let The Right One In has a vampire who is a predatory, manipulative sociopath whose gender is unknown (at least in the film version), but used to manipulate those it wishes to work with. It is a being of such power that it can make one of it's servants drink acid - and is preying on a teenage boy. These are real monsters, and they are a long way from Dracula.

Of course, the vampires in True Blood are neither the gothic Dracula, nor the plague-esque monsters that came to 'Salem's Lot, or the emos of the Twilight series. They aren't that interesting. In fact, they are just pretty shit. They are crudely drawn "alternative" types, with nothing genuinely interesting or unique about them. The vampire "hero" looks like an aging, Boy Band reject whose main reason for winning this starring role seems to be his constant ability to look meaningful and moody in the general direction of the camera. And he's the best of them - the best of a very bad (as in crap, rather than evil) bunch.

But then again, that's fair enough, given the human characters (or at least the humans and the human/dog shapeshifty thing) are beyond bland too. They drink, they take drugs, they fuck, they argue - all without ever being interesting. They never really come across as real - which is a bit of a problem, given the basic series needs something to ground it in reality. Actually, scratch that. They need someone to make it interesting. Which, sadly, neither the humans nor the vampires can do.

The scripts don't help, though. Long and poorly paced, the early episodes of season one feel like weak eighties Doctor Who - elongated padding before someone central gets into trouble. But even as the plot progresses and we learn more about the killings, it still fails to take off. It takes a truly special (and not in the good way) series to make serial killing boring; True Blood is that series.

I have no idea why this programme is so highly acclaimed. While watching it, I turned to my wife and said "I wrote this. When I was thirteen". It got the biggest laugh - and was also the most interesting moment - of that series. True Blood? True bollocks, more like.

UK Uncut Cretins

From UK Uncut - a group that seems determined to make student politics seem credible and forward thinking by comparison - I give you the concept of a bail-in. What is a bail-in, you might ask. You really don't want to know, I'd reply. But I'll tell you anyway:

Our next wave of actions will be even more exciting. A Bail-In means marching into our broken banks and building something better. Make your silent, sterile Barclays branch sing, dance, explode with life! Reclaim the space and make it into something thrilling, something that shows how much creativity the anti-cuts movement has. Let’s smash austerity with a smile on our faces. We are Cameron’s nightmare, a real big society with the vision and bravery to transform the institutions at the rotten heart of our system.

Right. So... a broken bank is what, then? One with a leaky roof or a run-down cash machine outside? Or is it one that we had to bail out? Because if it is, then you shouldn't be heading to Barclays because, as Jackart points out, they found other ways to keep going. I guess we're back at the idiot's equation when it comes to banks. The (il)logic runs something like this: I don't like bankers therefore bankers must be bad and therefore banks must be broken. It is audacious in its breathtaking stupidity.

This idea of making banks thrilling through singing and dancing also seems curious. To me, banks aren't cold and sterile - they are trying to project an image of being professional places where you can do business and where you can safely store your money. There is a reason why they don't normally have singing and dancing, my people. It's because it would be a fucking stupid idea for a bank.

And while we're on the subject, the talk of "reclaiming" a bank is also pretty stupid - at least until you realise that what we're talking about here is people invading the private property of others. Then it becomes downright malign. Think about how you would feel, Mr and Mrs UK Uncut, if I came round to your house and invaded your front room because I happen to think you are total dickheads disagree with you on this one. Wouldn't be fun, would it? But that's exactly what your bail-ins are about.

Oh, and by the way, you are not Cameron's nightmare. You are a minor irritant - like a mosquito bite on the butt cheek. If Cameron ignores you for long enough, you'll vanish. You're not going to change any institutions, rotten or otherwise, with your bland, anodyne and pathetic protests. All that will happen is that you'll look like cocks on Saturdays until you find something better to do at the weekend.

Which is rather the point. Far be it from me to champion Cameron's Big Society, but I dare say his response to this sort of guff would be "if you genuinely want to make a difference, stop interrupting businesses and do some constructive, voluntary work in your spare time". But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? To do something that might actually be constructive. But that wouldn't get the media's attention.

Anyway targeting businesses like Barclays - which has done nothing more than trying to avoid (not evade) tax - is targeting the wrong people. Any tax bill has to be agreed with HMRC - if you don't agree with that tax bill, go bellyache to them. Furthermore, by damaging the trade of banks such as Barclays through these tedious sit-ins, you will potentially damage their future revenue and therefore decrease the amounts they will have to pay in tax in future. Which is the final irony - with behaviour like this, UK Uncut may actually be making future cuts more likely.

Absolute wankers.

Jamie Oliver - The Smoking Gun?

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, I think that fat-tongued prick is an utter arsehole who shouldn't be allowed near a TV camera - let alone being given blanket coverage by the media when he chooses to say something.

Yet many disagree. Because, for a celebrity chef, Oliver seems to have a genuinely philanthropic streak. Not for Oliver the Gordon Ramsay approach to career management - traveling the world slagging off failing restaurant owners is not for the often tearful and misunderstood Oliver. No, he wants to change things and, unlike so many others in our society, actually does something about it other than flap his (fat) lips a bit.

So we come to the latest Oliver project - his Dream School. Aside from sounding a little bit like an unmade sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, the concept of a Dream School sounds like a lot like the chance for various celebrities to play at being teachers. Then again, the education system is in the need of urgent, radical reform. So why not let Jamie and his posse undertake it?

The answer is in this paragraph - see if you can spot what it is:

He assembled an impressive staff room: the drama teacher was Simon Callow, politics was taught by Alastair Campbell, art by Rolf Harris, history by David Starkey, maths by Alvin Hall and sport by Daley Thompson; other figures such as Cherie Blair, Tinchy Stryder, Andrew Motion and Rankin also pitched in with lessons. The teachers were advised by award-winning secondary headmaster John D'Abbro.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I cheated. I highlighted the relevant section. But I'm sorry - the concept of Alastair Campbell teaching politics is surely the death knell for any school. Alastair Campbell is what many would rightly call a terrible cunt: he is the Machiavellian administrator who allowed Tony Blair to achieve power, go into a damaging nonsensical war and then propped up Blair in power just as most people realised how ghastly Blair was/is. He's a crucial henchman to an abhorrent PM. He did so much to destroy political discourse in this country. In fact, I can't talk anymore about Campbell without resorting to very creative swearing, so I'll hand you over to Michael Howard:

And that man - Alastair Cunting Campbell - is the politics teacher at Jamie's Dream School. It's a bit like making Sarah Palin your teacher for evolution - a dumb fucking idea.

Of course, Oliver needs to find some celebrities in order to attract attention to his project. Choosing Mr Smith at Tooting Bec Comp wouldn't have quite the same impact as choosing the man who facilitated the British involvement in Iraq. But then again, there are other political figures - far less tainted political figures - who could have done just as well. Why not use one of those? Why not use someone less compromised than Campbell? After all, that covers off pretty much political figure barring Tony Blair.

Because that's too difficult. And that's the problem with Oliver - the Smoking Gun or final proof of his idiocy, if you will. He wants to do the right thing, but he is so naive and so unthinking that he will pretty much say anything and engage with anyone in order to achieve whatever philanthropic intentions he might have. To misquote a famous saying, the road to Alastair Campbell is paved with good intentions...

On Revolution

As Libya goes up in flames, and people around the world (well, on Twitter and on various websites) cheer on the fall of the terrible regime there, I'd like - in my curmudgeonly, doom-mongering way - to sound another word of caution. There can be no doubt that Gaddafi is an utter cunt who is ripe for being turfed out of the corridors of power. However, this truth does not automatically mean that the regime that follows him will be any better (assuming he does actually fall). After all, Iran had a revolution against a despot in 1979 - and we haven't stopped having problems with Iran since.

Which is my point, in a nutshell: a revolution against a despot may be welcome, but that doesn't mean that whatever follows will automatically be better than said despot.

Bus Etiquette

Now, I can understand why people might not want other people to eat really smelly food, or to listen to music too loudly on their headphones, or to have outrageously loud conversations on their mobiles while they are on a bus. But there is a reason why, personally, I end up listening to my headphones while I am enduring a bus ride. It’s this: I cannot bear the loud, endless and tedious conversations about nothing of other people. You might think your life is so important that you have to let not only your friend/relative know about it, but you’d be wrong. Your life is dull. It is tedious. And the very fact that you seem to find it so interesting that you have to inflict it on your fellow bus travellers is further proof of what a boring, self-absorbed shite you are.

So I’ll do a deal with you: I’ll not listen to music if you, my slack-jawed bus brethren, learn to shut the fuck up. Otherwise, I’ll be listening to Primal Scream et al at a loud enough volume to drown your tedium out. Because, quite frankly, it is the only thing stopping me from ripping out your super strength, endlessly flapping tongue and beating you to death with it.

The Problems With Tax

To me, there’s no question about it: taxes should be reduced, and the tax system fundamentally changed. Yet we live in an age where people listen to the likes of Richard Murphy when they talk (apparently without irony) about The Joy of Tax, and where people attempt to damage the productivity of businesses that carry out perfectly legal tax avoidance actions. So at this point it is probably worth offering a personal perspective on why I think tax is bad; or, at the very least, tax is not a de facto “good”.

Let’s start by looking at the counter-argument to any claim that an individual might not want to pay tax: we pay for any number of different goods through choice, so why not choose to pay tax which offers both the individual and others clear benefits?

Now, it is true that I choose to spend money on various things. These are both things that offer a tangible benefit to me (such as paying for my various postgraduate studies) and things I just enjoy (books, DVDs etc). I also pay for essentials even if I would rather not – like rent and food.

And I have no issue with paying for essentials through the tax system. The first problem comes, however, with the level of tax I am expected to pay for those essentials. Take rent: before moving in somewhere, I shop around to get value for money. Not so with the tax system. I am forced to contribute money to the NHS, for example, even though when I try to use those services I am required to wait for ages and am generally seen by someone who frankly mocks the title of “medical professional” through their incompetence and disinterest. There’s no shopping around with tax; you pay the rate you are told to pay by the government. In fact, unless you are self-employed, you don’t so much pay that money as have it taken from you on a monthly basis without ever really seeing it for yourself. Therefore, the first reason why I resent paying taxes is because I resent seeing my money wasted in the way the British public sector wastes it, year in, year out.

The second problem comes with what the money is spent on. Now, I might choose to walk into HMV, and once there, I might choose to buy some products. Of course, I’m only going to buy stuff I have no ethical objection to: I might buy a DVD boxed set of a TV series I want to see. I’m not, however, going to buy anything associated with The X Factor, since I believe that show is partially responsible for the nosedive in the intellectual capability of people in this country. The same is not true of tax; quite simply, I pay for things of which I simply do not approve. I have no problem with paying for police officers to investigate crimes; I do have an issue with paying for thug-like riot police who possess no concept of proportionality. Likewise, I’ve no objection with my money being spent on armed forces to give this country a defensive capability, but I do resent the money I earn being spent on wars of aggression in Afghanistan and, in particular, Iraq. In short, I can’t choose what my money is spent on, regardless of my own ethical considerations.

And the problem of choice – which underpins this whole post – is also at the centre of my final objection. I walk into HMV and there is no-one compelling me to make a purchase. I can turn around, walk out and go somewhere else or simply not spend any money at all. The same is absolutely not true of tax. I pay tax or I go to prison. There is no choice with taxation; it is extracted from the population under duress using menaces. Furthermore, there is no opt-out. Even if I choose never to use a single public service and therefore cost this nation nothing, I still have to pay tax. There is no way of choosing not to participate in the tax system, just as there is no way of choosing not to have my money spent on things with which I just cannot agree or a way of choosing not to have my money wasted on bureaucracy and ineptitude in the public sector. In short, the tax system we have in this country is illiberal and almost seems set up to provoke the genuinely intellectually engaged into resenting it.

Of course, it could be very different. Show me my taxes aren’t being wasted, and I’ll feel happier about having it taken from me. Give me an opt-out in areas which I would rather fund myself, or over tax money spent on illiberal domestic policies and aggressive foreign policies, and I’ll start to feel comfortable about the government taking so much of my income. But until that happens, I’m going to see tax as a problem and anyone who avoids tax as not immoral or wrong, but rather someone attempting to maximise their own freedom in the face of draconian legislation and inept, government led waste.

Peace Kipkalya has sent a message to my blogging e-mail account entitled THIS MESSAGE IS RESPECTFULLY YOURS. Clearly, he/she/it has a way to go before he/she/it becomes a decent spam artist...

Since I'm lacking both the time and the inspiration to write anything worth reading, I'll instead direct you to the Liberty Cabal where Chris Snowdon is looking at the curious case of a philosopher who wants to make us free by restricting both what businesses can do and consequently what we can see and interact with. Well worth reading. And it is also persuaded me that I need to read the book Nudge, since my understanding of it is clearly at odds with what the authors intended (no doubt my view has been corrupted by paternalist politicians trying to nudge us in crude and illiberal ways...)

The Last Exorcism

In many respects, an anti-climatic film is much worse than a purely poor one. With a shit film you know it isn’t going to get any better. With an anti-climatic one, you end up expecting great things, only to be bitterly disappointed by the denouement. And that’s precisely what happens with The Last Exorcism.

It stars, as so many found footage movies do, with a bit of scene-setting. The protagonist – whose name escapes me despite only having seen the film less than 24 hours ago – is a priest who has done a lot of fake exorcisms. He is making a documentary to show how he fakes them, since he has lost his faith and wants to warn others about the dangers of exorcisms. So he duly selects one supposed victim of possession, and goes off to make his film.

From that point, the film does a great deal of good work slowly building up the tension. It refuses to commit to whether the possessed girl is actually harbouring a demon or having a psychotic breakdown. Furthermore, it hints at incest and parental abuse, further muddying the waters about the cause of this possession. Despite his best efforts, the ersatz exorcist finds himself caught up in the mystery.

Sure, it isn’t flawless – it certainly falls foul of the “why don’t you just call the police?” objection, particularly after the face-cutting/pregnancy revelation. Furthermore, the cat killing scene doesn’t work, and the way it is realised comes across as pretty amateurish. But the film has a carefully crafted ambiguity to it, and a strong central performance for the actor playing the “possessed” girl. It holds your interest – which is no mean feat for a modern horror movie.

Until the end, when it takes all that has been good about this film and spunks it away with an ending that combines The Blair Witch Project, The Wicker Man and Cannibal Holocaust without capturing any of the magic of any of those film endings. Seriously, it is like they just gave up. And as a result, it renders the whole film a spectacular waste of time. Unless, of course, you don’t watch, say, the final 10 minutes of the film.

And actually that’s probably my advice to anyone wanting to watch this film – if you do so, turn off after about one hour fifteen minutes and write your own ending. Seriously, it can’t be any worse than the ones the film-makers came up with...

Big Society, Big Government

Cameron's been defending his Big Society programme in The Guardian (of all places). It is, much like its author, anodyne and pretty bland. The only people it could truly work up are those who believe, like some sort of tedious cultists, that cuts are bad. To everyone else, it is a bland repetition of a case that already isn't convincing anyone.

For me, though, it is all about looking for those telling little signs that Cameron isn't actually all about smaller government. And you have to sift through pretty much the whole article to get to the crucial point. But, just so you don't have to, here it is:

But we understand that while the opportunity lies in the future the local authority cuts are happening now. So this week we are launching a transition fund to help charities prepare to bid for these contracts and a big society bank to provide some working capital when they're awarded them.

Or, to translate from Cameronspeak, the government will still fund various organisations, and make those organisations vie for funds. The difference between what has been happening and what will happen under the Big Society is a little lost on me: the government still takes money from its people and redistributes it to organisations of which it approves. Which is not so much Big Society as Big Government.

Which is the big problem; this isn't about reducing government control over society, it is about redefining government control. Paternalism rather than centralisation seems to be the order of the day. Which is fine if you are a paternalist; any true liberal, though, should be feel pretty despairing when faced with the Cameron vision of a Big Society.

I don't doubt some will latch onto the word "transition" in quote above, and argue that this is all a stepping stone to a genuine redistribution of power between government and society. They may yet be shown to be right, but at the moment that requires a leap of faith that I just can't make. The Big Society is still an exercise in central government control - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

*Retches*

Quote of the Day

Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.

Sir Karl Popper, 1902-1994.

Richard Murphy on Neoliberalism

Via Bobski, I see that Richard Murphy is being utterly hypocritical again, this time on the subject of neoliberalism:

Neoliberals to the core, all of them, and utterly indifferent to a) reasoning b) rationality c) the reality of the economy d) the needs of real people e) the reality of democratic politics.

As Bobski points out, the descriptions in that sentence might remind one of someone other than "neoliberals":

I thought that a-e were a bit rich considering the source, I'd consider them most apt descriptions of Mr. Murphy.

Which is spot on, frankly.

But it is worth pausing for a further moment on Murphy's words. First up, there is something slightly bigoted in what Richard Murphy is saying. Somehow - and don't ask me how - he knows every neoliberal and also knows what they think and how they act. Short of divine omniscience - which I am pretty damned sure Murphy does not possess - I'm guessing that he is using the bigot methodology of using personal prejudices to make sweeping generalisations. Hardly the sort of thing a progressive should be doing, surely?

Still, I think you can argue the claim that there some neoliberals who warrant some of Murphy's insults. But they are the dogmatic neoliberals, who have turned neoliberalism into some sort of blueprint for all people at all times. Those who treat neoliberalism almost as a secular religion, or as a form of absolute truth that will broach no criticism and that those who do not adhere to this credo are in some way stupid, and perhaps even need to be silenced.

Of course, the problem with Murphy making this point is he behaves in exactly the same way about his own political beliefs. He is just as dogmatic as many neoliberals, just about different ideas.

And here's the nub of the matter - Murphy hasn't just revealed himself as a hypocrite, but as a dogmatic bigot. Good going, for just one sentence in one blogpost...

Now, I'm no expert on the situation in Egypt, as I've already said. I can see how the demise of Mubarak is a good thing, and I can see how those involved in the protests want to feel some pride in the fact that their nemesis has fallen. But, having watched the events relatively closely over the past 48 hours, I'd have to strike a note of caution here. I'm not so sure that Mubarak went because of the power of the people, but rather because the military decided he was a lost cause. And that's something for the people to bear in mind as they move forward - the military is clearly crucial to the change happening in that country, but I'd be surprised if they don't play a big part in Egypt's future...

Bears, Woods, etc.

From the BBC:

More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

In other news, bears definitely defecate in the woods and the Pope is of a Catholic persuasion.

Seems almost tedious to point out that a substantial part of the funding that keeps the Labour Party afloat comes from the unions. It also seems tedious to point out that the unions are an interest group, just like those organisations that exist in the City of London. And it seems beyond boring to suggest that just because a political party takes money from a certain area of British society doesn't mean that they are beholden to every misconceived whim of said area of British society.

Instead, I'd just like to point out that anyone who finds this news surprising or, indeed, new, is fucking stupid.

Joy Division, Playmobil Style

Watch Out!

Your tweets could be published by newspapers.

God knows who would want to publish them, though. In my experience of Twitter, the average Tweet is either "NGGGGH really h8 the Tories and traitorz in Lib DUMS!" or "Just had a really nice sandwich". Occasionally, the calibre sinks even lower to something like "Just did a big shit. Really stank." No doubt many will question whether this constitutes a further invasion of our privacy; I'll use it as a chance to ruminate once more on just how little of what is said on Twatter is actually worth reading...

Crippling the Big Society

I'm starting to read a lot that the spending cuts will undermine Cameron's Big Society. This is, of course, utter bollocks. In as much as we can define Cameron's Big Society, it seems to be asking the people of this country to do what the state can no longer afford to do. Therefore, the Big Society is not undermined by spending cuts; rather, it is (at least in part) created by those spending cuts. The more Cameron's government cuts spending (or, rather, cuts the growth in government spending) the more the Big Society will be called on to plug the gaps.

But I'll tell you what will kill off the Big Society - a failure to cut taxes. It is all very well expecting people to volunteer to work for and to donate money to their local communities; it is another thing entirely to expect them to do so while paying the same exorbitant tax rates for fewer services from the government. There's nothing wrong, as far as I am concerned, with expecting individuals and their community to take more responsibility for their own communities. There is something naive about expecting them to do so while still giving such a high percentage of their incomes to the government.

Spending cuts won't kill the Big Society; taxes will.

David Cameron on Multiculturalism

David Cameron finally has an opinion, and it is against multiculturalism. Now, this is hardly a novel position, but it almost immediately makes me feel uncomfortable. After all, what is multiculturalism? Fortunately, Cameron is on-hand to clarify - he's against "state multiculturalism". Which makes some sense to me - any state-led attempt to graft some sort of blueprint onto society doesn't tend to end well. The irony that this is the same David Cameron who is attempting to nudge us into his Big Society is not lost on me, though.

But why doesn't David Cameron think state multiculturalism is working? Well, he's against extremism; which, I suppose, is a logical position for a conservative. Of course, he's particularly against Muslim extremism, and seems to be doing little to tackle other forms of extremism - like the luddite reactionary racism of the EDL and the BNP. Furthermore, there seems to be little said about tackling the sort of extremists who march in the streets of London, demanding revolution before lobbing fire extinguishers off rooftops at police officers. Then again, the latter cant be grafted onto his narrative about the failure of multiculturalism. And that, of course, is a crushing blow to Cameron's case; extremism is not just about multiculturalism. It can occur whenever there is disagreement which - given we are a diverse society - is inevitable. And while extremism is often a cause for concern, disagreement and diversity shouldn't be. And anyone who, as Cameron seems to be doing in this speech, calls for some sort of collective identity to overcome such disagreement and diversity is being grossly illiberal.

Which is ironic, since Cameron is calling for a "much more active, muscular liberalism". The language immediately makes me feel faintly nauseous; Cameron here (deliberately or otherwise) sounds like one of those US Libertarians who speak in non-sequiturs like "in order to have a free country we must have a strong state". But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he means by this vision of liberalism:

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations."

Ah, now this is more like it - vintage Cameron. Talking purely in meaningless platitudes. Let's look at some of these terms he's bandying around. First up, "universal human rights". Quite simply, these do not exist. There are no human rights that every state - let alone every person - is prepared to agree on. Pointing to North Korea is an easy way to demonstrate this, but we could also look at the US - our partners with whom we have a "special relationship". Their version of human rights does not match our one; not only do they execute people, but they are prepared to execute children. Universal human rights do not exist; how can anyone pass a test based on what does not exist?

And what of democracy? Cameron makes much of Islamic extremism. Yet look at a state often seen to embody Islamic extremism: Iran. Iran - like it or not - is a democracy, in that an elite choose candidates who stand for election. Sure, you can say that isn't particularly democratic - but then again, an elite choosing which candidates can stand in an election is a pretty good description of the dominant party politics of the UK. Furthermore, this sort of rhetoric falls foul of the fallacy that democracy is an end in itself; it isn't. It can help to bring freedom, diversity and a better life for many; but there is no guarantee that democracy can do it alone. Besides, democracy does not necessarily bring you the results you want. Again, look at the response to the last Iranian presidential election in the West. Still, at least this is a test many can pass: extremists can like democracy too.

And encouraging integration rather than separation - let's skip over the spectre of conformism inherent in the idea of integration for a moment and instead think about those who encourage separation. There are many people in this country who stand opposed to further integration into Europe - including in Cameron's own party. There are those who advocate separation from the EU. Are these extremists? Is UKIP really a challenge to the fabric of British society? Should Cameron refuse to stand next to those members of his Cabinet who have a Eurosceptic voting record? No, of course not. But the sort of terms that Cameron uses are so broad that they can be interpreted in any number of different ways. They are meaningless; yet they are the terms he will use to discover who the extremists are. In other words, the definition of an extremist is entirely at his discretion.

Multiculturalism may not have worked; but conformism is not then, ipso facto, the answer. Nor is it realistic; as soon as you try to force people to become what they are not, and believe in what they cannot, you run the risk of radicalising people. That's another irony of Cameron's plans; in fighting extremists, he runs the risk of creating more extremists. If multiculturalism is the problem, then Cameron still doesn't have the solution.

And is there a solution? Possibly, but it isn't an easy one. It involves understanding, and embracing, the fact of value-pluralism in humans at the same time as being guided by something like the harm principle. Or, to put it another way, you can believe what you like and cannot be forced to conform to the belief systems of anyone else - even the Prime Minister - just so long as your actions do not encroach on the freedoms of others. Yeah, it's not perfect and yeah, in a country where conformity is seen by many as something to aspire to, it isn't going to be easy. But it is perhaps the best we have to offer when people aren't going to agree, no matter how David Cameron might want them to.

Good. One piece of control-freak, illiberal legislation down, about a billion to go.

More like this, please, Con-Dems. A lot more like this. And quickly.

The Simple World of Laurie Penny

In a nauseatingly self-congratulatory post, Laurie “THE CELEBRITY” Penny writes this:

If I ever lose perspective, or start praising George Osborne, or just turn into a massive wanker, I’m counting on the people whose opinions I’ve always valued to take me to task.

Sorry all, but it is just too easy to say that Penny has never had a sense of perspective, or that she has ever been anything other than a massive wanker. Those cheap shots you should make elsewhere. As, if you are so inclined, no doubt you will.

No, it is the bit about praising George Osborne that gets to me, because it reveals so much about Penny’s mindset. She deals in absolutes, see. And here the absolute is that GEORGE OSBORNE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING SHE CAN SEE AS GOOD. Which completely ignores one of the most fundamental facets of life – change. Penny might, in future years, move away from the clichéd left (‘growing up’ I believe is the actual term) and realise that people like Osborne can offer valid opinions and policies, even if you disagree with the broad parameters of what they stand for. Furthermore, she also denies the idea that Osborne himself could change; maybe on day, in one area, Osborne will position himself on the tedious left. Doesn’t seem likely, but it is not an impossibility either. Unfortunately, Penny’s naïve worldview is simply too narrow to encompass any such possibilities.

Of course, you could argue that her statement was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyone who has read Penny’s blog knows that (a) it is exactly how she feels about Osborne and (b) it is typical of the way she looks at the world.

There may be some intelligent statists and socialists out there – those who understand the contingent nature of political identity and political reality. Judging by this and pretty much the rest of her output, we can rest assured that Laurie Penny is not one of them.

On the situation in Egypt.

Well, I don't know. What are you looking at me for? I don't know anything about Egyptian politics. From what I've read change is probably a good thing, but that is always dependent on what change actually looks like. After all, the change from Tsarist government to a Marxist-Leninist government was hardly triumphant now, was it? Then again, I don't know whether that comparison stands. Because I have no real understanding of Egyptian politics.

But, unlike so many others currently blathering away like they have no control over their slack jaws, I'm prepared to admit to that. Controversial, I know...

Ed Miliband: Loser

Far be it from me to call Ed Miliband a dweeb, but...:

Labour leader Ed Miliband has revealed he was a "bit square" as a youth, eschewing drugs and under-age drinking.

Rock 'n' roll Miliband Minor, then. Although one does wonder what he did with his youth:

In a GQ magazine interview with Piers Morgan, he said his greatest talent was being "good at the Rubik's Cube".

Now I can believe that Ed Miliband's greatest talent is fiddling with the Rubik's Cube, but that is mainly because he displays no other talents whatsoever. And I suppose I should insert a quip about Asperger Syndrome here, but it just seems too easy.

Asked if he had ever been in a fight, he said: "Well, I may have been hit a few times. I went to a tough school."

So what do you want? A fucking hug?

Of course, I shouldn't care about the fact that Ed Miliband is a total dweeb. In the same way that I shouldn't care about Gordon Brown crying on TV, or Nick Clegg claiming to be some sort of puffy faced Mr Lover Man. Indeed, William Hague's claim to drink massive amounts in his youth should also be irrelevant. But when these fuckers parade themselves in front of the public like shameless publicity whores then I'm forced to care. See, it isn't that Ed Miliband is a faintly autistic Rubik's Cube obsessive that bothers me. It is the fact that he is so devoid of ideological substance that he feels the need to reveal this irrelevant toss that really, really fucks me off.