Just Plain Lies

Readers of the NY Times give the staff a lesson in factual reporting

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/a-doctors-message-for-nick-kristof/

More on the fake story

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/quite-possibly-the-crappiest-nytimes-column-for-obamacare-ever/

Huckabee’s Deadly Mistake

More proof that Huckabee lacks a back bone, a truly tragic story

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/29/violent-felon-granted-clemency-by-huckabee-now-sought-in-lakewood-wa-police-ambush/

The State of the Revolution

The fight against liberalism in universities

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/11/30/the_state_of_the_revolution

Lieberman Digs In His Heels

From Wall Street Journal

Says “No” to Public Option under any circumstances

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Solving Whose Problem?

The true beneficiaries of government “assistance”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTEzYTIzYjhlZDQzZTJiYzI2OGRjNWI3OWJjYzZmMmM=

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

I hope the President sees this…

Americans Say “NO” to ObamaCare

Support drops to 38% !!!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Another Party

Obama plans yet another lavish party for the only people who still think he’s cool,  Hollywood libs

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/obama-thanks-hollywood-with-coveted-invites-to-his-first-white-house-state-dinner/

Today is a day of controversy what with my comments on why Copenhagen will fail and it being a Monday and all. I started off the day with a controversial fashion statement – thought I’d share that with you whilst I take a lunch break

Who do you see?

Hope you’re all having a great day!

Tommy

Don’t think of her as a politician. Think of her as a one-woman revolution – a hurricane in human form

Peter Oborne reports on a CCHQ note which states:

“The Conservatives have never won a General Election from a starting point as weak as they face now …  To become Prime Minister, David Cameron must surpass the electoral achievements of both Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.”

The vogue for presenting David Cameron as the PM in waiting has made it far easier than it should be to forget how big a mountain he has to climb. James Macintyre reports of private polling commissioned by Number Ten that shows Labour ahead of the Conservatives. This would mean that Cameron hasn’t even left base camp, never mind virtually ascended to the summit, but Iain Dale suspects the hand of Labour spinners in the Macintyre report.

Even if Dale is right to do so, this explanation cannot be attached to the positive polling for Labour in yesterday’s Observer, which is more than enough to make the “PM in waiting” very nervous, not least given the cracks in Tory discipline and Labour’s renewed resolve to be fighters, not quitters.

9. November hadde jeg en kronikk på trykk i Hamar Arbeiderblad, med tittelen “De fiktive kjønnsforskjellene“. Dagen etter fikk jeg svar fra medlem av Stange SV; Irmelin Sander. Svar på innlegget ble skrevet mens jeg satt på fly til Georgia og sendt inn til avisen samme dag, men først i dag kom den altså på trykk i avisen. Siden HA, har passordbegrensninger på sine sider, har jeg lagt inn Irmelins svarinnlegg under kommentarfeltet på mitt forrige innlegg. Mitt svarinnlegg i dagens avis kan leses her:

Det må være trist å være sosialist!

Tirsdag 10. november svarer Irmelin Sander på mitt innlegg om likelønn: «De fiktive kjønnsforskjellene». Innlegget handlet egentlig om likelønn, men Sander henger seg i stedet opp i et gammelt Thatcher-sitat om sosialistenes tenkemåte som jeg trakk frem i en sammenligning: «So long as the gap is smaller they’d rather the poor were poorer».

Irmelin forsøker ikke engang å benekte sannheten i Thatchers sitat. Hun understreker tvert imot at hun egentlig er helt enig. Så lenge elendigheten er begrenset, kan vi godt ha det ganske dårlig alle sammen. Så lenge lidelsen er lik er allting godt. Det lyser misunnelighet lang vei, og hun forsøker ikke engang å benekte det: «Jeg har aldri levd i nød, selv om jeg som jentunge husker at vi bare hadde brød, smør og sennep ved noen anledninger. Det går, – det går i en overgang, og det er lettere å leve med når ikke naboen går forbi med et glinsende helt grønt eple i hånda, eller slikker på en diger softis!», skriver hun.

Jeg beklager å si det Irmelin, men jeg synes virkelig det er trist at du har et slikt syn på samfunnet rundt deg. Jeg synes det er trist at du ikke evner å glede deg over den velstanden vi har i dagens Norge. Jeg vil anbefale deg å sette deg ned, trekke pusten, se deg rundt, se hvor bra du har det, og tenke over hvem som virkelig er bakstreversk. Hvem er det egentlig som vil skru klokka -og vår sivilisasjon tilbake? Det er ikke meg!

God oppvekst?
Jeg fatter ikke hvorfor jeg skal unnskylde og skamme meg over vestlig sivilisasjons suverenitet. Ja, Irmelin har helt rett i at jeg er priviligert. Jeg har aldri forsøkt å legge skjul på at jeg er vokst opp i et møblert hjem, med tilgang til bøker og annen kultur. I store deler av min oppvekst har jeg også vanket i ganske radikale teatermiljøer, som Irmelin kjenner godt, der jeg har fått kulturell input som jeg er takknemlig for den dag i dag. Forskjellen på meg og Irmelin er at jeg ikke har tenkt å skamme meg over at jeg er priviligert. Jeg har ikke tenkt å gå rundt å være flau over velstanden vi har i vår del av verden, eller beklage høylydt at jeg var så heldig å ha et trygt barndomshjem og foreldre som stilte opp. Jeg er tvert imot stolt over det. Jeg er stolt av min familie, jeg er stolt av oppveksten min, jeg er stolt av Norge, og jeg er stolt av vårt frie, velstående og demokratiske samfunn. Jeg skulle ønske Irmelin også ville klare å være det, både for politikkens del, og hennes egen del.

Menneskesyn
Jeg må si jeg priser meg lykkelig over å ikke ha samme menneskesyn og verdensoppfatning som Sander. Det må være utrolig trist å aldri kunne glede seg fullt og helt over lykkelige hendelser i livet. Når man tror at det ideelle er likhet, og at verden er et nulsumspill, må hver eneste glede i livet ha en fryktelig vond bismak. Det kan jo ikke være spesielt hyggelig å innbille seg at hvert gode man tilegner seg kommer på bekostning av noen andre. En viss grad av misunnelighet finnes riktignok i oss alle på en eller annen måte. Jeg kan også ta meg selv i føle dette iblant. Av og til er det ting jeg skulle ønske jeg hadde råd til, men det faller meg aldri inn å tenke noe så irrasjonelt som at andres velstand er på bekostning av min!

Frykt for mangfoldet
Et annet aspekt som både forundrer meg og skremmer meg litt er Irmelins frykt for mangfoldet. Det er ikke så viktig hvordan vi har det, men at vi har det så likt som mulig. Jeg synes det er rart at Irmelin, som jeg ellers personlig kjenner som et åpent, varmt og inkluderende menneske, kan ha slike oppfatninger. Er det noe jeg virkelig har lært igjennom det kulturelle miljøet i suttung-bevegelsen, ungdomsteateret, kulturskolen og musikkinja på Stange Vgs så er det nettopp respekten for,- og gleden ved mangfoldet. Jeg har alltid undret meg over at så mange i disse miljøene trekker til den radikale venstresiden i politikken. Det er jo nettopp i de mest venstreradikale samfunn at respekten for det flerkulturelle har vært aller minst. Mangfold er nemlig også aksepten for at mennesker har ulik bakgrunn, talent, oppvekst og utgangspunkt. Målet må jo være å skape et samfunn der alle har like muligheter, ikke et samfunn der det er mest mulig likhet. Det gjør meg intenting om naboen min kjøper champagne til 20.000 kr, og kjører rundt i en Lexus, så lenge alle har de formelle mulighetene til dette hvis de jobber hardt og bruker sine talenter.

Nullsumspill
I skrivende stund sitter jeg på et fly til Georgia. Der skal jeg møte Unge Høyres søsterparti i landet, Young Rights. De er i opposisjon til det sittende regimet og jobber for grunnleggende menneskerettigheter og et objektivt rettsvesen. Velstandsnivået der er et ganske annet enn vårt. Jeg drar imidlertig ikke dit for å unnskylde velstanden jeg lever i, men for å dele av våre erfaringer i Norge. Jeg er glad jeg kan se alle menneskene der i øynene, og føle at jeg gjør det jeg kan for å jobbe for at de også skal kunne bli et fritt, velstående demokratisk samfunn en gang. Jeg er glad jeg slipper å tenke at jeg har det bra på bekostning av dem. Verden er nemlig ikke et nullsumspill. Verdens rikdom har mangedoblet seg i løpet av bare de siste 50 årene. Vi kan alle få det bedre. Derfor må det være så utrolig trist å tenke som Sander. Det må være trist å være sosialist!

The following is an interesting article and I wonder how long Dr. Hunt can remain at NIH once the powers that be get wind of this article.

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist.  He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Another Failed Presidency
An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.  In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ.  Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party.  Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing.  Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.  Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months?  His poll ratings are in free fall.  In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage.  This truly is unbelievable.  What’s going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative.  No, not a narrative about himself.  He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else.  But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us.  He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.  All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are.  Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task–all contributory of course.  It’s that he’s not one of us.  And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper.  Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job.  Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize.  For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive.  An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year.  With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.  The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

“When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus

“A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” – Unknown

Decía Jacques Delors -según todos los entendidos, en la abstracta asignatura Construcción Europea, el último gran dirigente en Bruselas- que la abolición de aduanas y fronteras en el interior de la Unión, es decir la puesta en marcha del Mercado Único Europeo el uno de enero de 1993, no abría informativos con grandes masas aplaudiendo el fin de las fronteras interiores, porque tal evento no entusiasmaba a la gente tanto como la toma de la Bastilla, por ejemplo.
Bronislaw Geremek un polaco apasionado por Europa, un patriota europeo me atrevería a decir, afirmaba “que la falta de catarsis revolucionaria” era una del los grandes fallos de la construcción de Europa.
A la Unión Europea, antigua Comunidad Europea, conviene juzgarla mirando hacia atrás sin ira. Observando que, en el mejor de los casos, la fundación de la CECA celebrará sus sesenta aniversario en trece meses, nada en la Historia de la Humanidad, nada. Y, sin embargo, muchísimo en la Historia de la desangrada, en miles de guerras, Europa. La generación nacida en los años cuarenta en Alemania o en Francia o en España será la primera en la Historia del viejo continente que no haga monumentos a caídos, que no ponga flores a su soldado desconocido y eso gracias al proyecto de Europa Unida nacido en la Conferencia de la Haya en 1948 o quizá verbalizado por Wiston Churchil en Zurich dos años antes. Visto en perspectiva y con realismo es mucho e importante el camino recorrido. Nunca la vieja Europa ha vivido un período de paz tan largo.

JEAN MONNET

La Unión Europea – tal y como hoy la denominamos y ordena se llame el Tratado de Lisboa- en opinión de sus padres fundadores, fundamentalmente Jean Monnet, debe construirse paso a paso; él dado por los líderes de los veintisiete el pasado 19.11.09 nombrando, sin necesidad de prolongar la reunión hasta la madrugada, Presidente de la Unión y Jefa de la Diplomacia es trascendental y marcará un hito en la Historia de Europa, pese al pesimismo medioambiental por el perfil de los dos designados: Herman Van Rompuy y Catherine Ashton.
Michel Rocard, socialista y ex primer ministro de Francia, solía decir que estábamos construyendo algo no previsto ni por John Locke, ni por Charles Montesquieu y decía verdad Michel Rocard.
La construcción de la Unión Europea se hace a partir de Estados Nación consolidados, algunos tan antiguos como Portugal, España, Francia o Gran Bretaña y otros tan modernos como Eslovaquia o Eslovenia. Dato que es bueno no olvidar, cuando el pesimismo nos invade porque nadie haya tenido que votar nunca por la baronesa Ashton.
En la construcción del imaginario nacional hay dioses que engendran reyes: Roma. Hay, o se lo inventa Johan Gottfried Herder, el volkgeist el genio o el espíritu del pueblo que tanto hizo por la unificación de Alemania bajo del predominio de Prusia en el siglo XIX o se hace algo nuevo como los Estados Unidos, sin embargo la Unión Europea carece de semejantes fundamentos, es algo tan racional que suena más a René Descartes o Immanuel Kant, pero muy poco, por no escribir que nada, a revolución de la claveles o a caída del muro de Berlín. Esto de hacer Europa es mucho más aburrido y más prosaico, pero si no existiera la Política Agraria Común, no habría agricultura, ni ganadería en la vieja Europa que pudiera aguantar la llegada de productos de los países terceros. No es bueno caer en el llanto y en el crujir de dientes, porque sea Herman Van Rompuy quien dirija las sesiones del Consejo de Ministros que reúne a los jefes de la diplomacia de los veintisiete y no Miguel Ángel Moratinos desde enero de 2010.

MIEMBRO DEL CLUB

Herman Van Rompuy, como todos los nombramientos importantes producidos después de la salida de Jacques Delors de la presidencia de la Comisión en 1995, es primer ministro de un país miembro, es decir forma parte del club más selecto: el Consejo Europeo. Un invento de Valery Giscard y Helmut Schmidt, quienes también inventaron la moneda única, eso que hoy llamamos Euro y el G-7. Consejo Europeo, que sólo desde la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, es una institución de la Unión al nivel del Parlamento, el Consejo, la Comisión, el Tribunal de Justicia y el Tribunal de Cuentas.
Esta nueva institución, pero en funciones desde los años setenta del siglo XX, elige para los puestos sólo a miembros del club que forman los Jefes de Estado o Gobierno: Jacques Santer, Romano Prodi, José Manuel Durao Barroso, por cierto primer ministro en ejercicio a la hora de su designación, como Van Rompuy o el actual secretario general de la OTAN Anders Rasmussen. Los líderes quieren a uno de ellos, ya no arriesgan con gente como el primer presidente de la Comisión el alemán Walter Hallstein o Jacques Delors.
Por cierto el Tratado de Lisboa dota de personalidad Jurídica a la Unión, que hasta la fecha no la tenía.
Se anda lento en la Unión, pero no es posible de otra manera. Saltos en el vacío como la Comunidad Europea de la Defensa o Constitución Europea se han enfrentado al no, esencialmente de Francia, aunque no sólo.
Recuérdese, a la hora de analizar desde el pesimismo los nombramientos de Van Rompuy y Catherine Ashton.
Lo primordial, lo esencial, lo importante es que ha nacido una figura nueva a caballo entre el Consejo órgano legislativo de la Unión junto al Parlamento Europeo y el ejecutivo la Comisión. Como en la UE se hace, tal y como afirma Antonio Machado, camino al andar, veremos en cinco años como es eso de tener dos gorros sobre una sola cabeza. Es, en todo caso, un esencial paso adelante.
Lo menos bueno de este momento de la Unión es que la Comisión pierde fuerza, esa que tuvo hasta la caída del muro de Berlín y la llegada del miedo escénico. La frase es de Margaret Thatcher pronunciada en Roma 1990 cuando se abrió la conferencia intergubernamental que daría paso al Tratado de Maastricht :“Señores y si esto sale adelante ¿qué hacemos con la Reina de Inglaterra?”. La respuesta es obvia, por eso es tan lento el proceso, pero tan lógica y razonablemente lento. En consecuencia los dos nombramientos son los posibles en este punto del tiempo y del espacio.

PAIS PEQUEÑO, PAIS GRANDE

El nuevo presidente de la Unión pertenece a un país pequeño, Bélgica, uno de los fundadores de la Unión en los años cincuenta del siglo XX. Bélgica es un Estado confederal algo semejante a lo que pretende ser la UE. Los políticos del país de Herman Van Rompuy han hecho famoso el método belga de convivencia. Herman Van Rompuy es un democráta cristiano familia política esencial en la construcción de Europa desde Robert Schuman. No es, pues, tan malo su nombramiento, por mucho que carezca del halo de Felipe González, demasiado federalista o de Tony Blair demasiado atlantista y ambos con demasiado peso específico. Es el hombre oportuno en este instante de la historia de la Unión. Y ha sido elegido rápido, lo que no deja de ser un hito en una Europa de 27. Por cierto una Europa toda ella demócrata desde hace sólo veinte años. Conviene tenerlo en la memoria.
La nueva Jefa de la Diplomacia de la Unión y vicepresidenta de la Comisión, pertenece a uno de los grandes, Reino Unido. Lógico. En Europa desde 1945 y con permiso de Charles De Gaulle se hace la política exterior que quieren los Estado Unidos, o sea ninguna novedad. Eso hacia imposible el nombramiento de Miguel Ángel Moratinos. Javier Solana Madariaga, sobrino nieto de uno de los ideólogos de la UE, Salvador de Madariaga, es – junto a su cualidad innegable de fantástico animal político- un hombre de los Estados Unidos, sin cuyo apoyo jamás habría sido secretario general de la OTAN, ni habría sido el primer jefe de la diplomacia de la Unión. Justo es decir, por tanto, que nada más lógico y coherente que la jefa de la diplomacia sea británica ¿quién mejor que un británico para saber lo que quiere la antigua colonia? La baronesa Ashton es la persona posible, puede que no parezca adecuada, pero demos tiempo, tiene cinco años por delante. Es mujer, lo que era justo y necesario, que la UE tiene muchos padres, pero madres, la verdad, no le sobran. Por último es miembro de la familia socialista que con sólo seis primeros ministros entre veintisiete – también es bueno recordarlo- logra un alto cargo.
El 19.11.09 será una fecha a destacar en la difícil historia de la Unión Europea, antes Comunidad Europea, término que resulta más cálido que Unión dicho sea de paso.
Ahora toca con permiso del Consejo Europeo, que Van Rompuy y Durao Barroso no se peguen por salir en la foto y qué la presidencia española sepa poner la vías del nuevo camino. Está complicado. Piénsese en el protocolo del recibimiento a Barak Obama en la cumbre Unión Europea Estados Unidos en Madrid, el día del choque de galaxias Leire Pajín dixit. ¿Será José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero quién haga los honores o será el presidente del Unión, Herman Van Rompuy?. Nicolás Martínez Fresno que sabe mucho de protocolo y está en la organización de la presidencia española, sabrá resolverlo. Seguro.

On November 22:

1574 Discovery of the Juan Fernández Islands off Chile.

1718 Pirate Edward Teach (best known as “Blackbeard“) was killed in battle with a boarding party led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.

1808  Thomas Cook, British travel entrepreneur, was born.

1819  George Eliot, (Mary Ann Evans) British novelist, was born.

1859  Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species was first offered for sale, in London.

1899 Hoagy Carmichael, American composer, was born.

1890 Charles de Gaulle, President of France (, was born.

1913 Benjamin Britten, British composer, was born.

1914 Peter Townsend, British Equerry and air pilot, was born.

1919 – Máire Drumm, Irish civil rights activist, was born.

1928 The premier performance of Ravel’s Boléro took place in Paris.

1943  Lebanon gained independence from France.

1958  Jamie Lee Curtis, American actress, was born.

1963  US President John F. Kennedy was killed and Texas Governor John B. Connally is seriously wounded by Lee Harvey Oswald.

1975 Juan Carlos was declared King of Spain following the death of Francisco Franco.

1977 British Airways inaugurated a regular London to New York City supersonic Concorde service.

1998  British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher withdrew from the Conservative Party leadership election, confirming the end of her premiership.

1995 Toy Story was released as the first feature-length film created completely using computer-generated imagery.

2005 Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany.

Sourced from NZ History Online & Wikipedia.

Bland andra Dagens Nyheter och Svenska Dagbladet rapporterar nya rekordsiffror för Sverigedemokraterna i färska opinionsundersökningar. 7,2 procent sägs partiet få om det vore val idag.

Detta är inte alls speciellt märkvärdigt eller konstigt. Såhär har det varit sedan den Westfaliska freden och efterföljande gränsdragning som skedde år 361 år sedan. Sedan nationalstaten blev definitiv har uppmålandet av ett vi och ett dem spelat en helt avgörande roll i politiken.

Appliceringen på fallet Sverigedemokraterna är mycket enkel. Vid kriser och vid krig ökar nationalismen. Då ökar också stödet till nationalistiska partier.

Det bästa sättet att ena ett land är att starta ett krig. Och det värsta är om man försöker, men inte lyckas, nyttja ett fientligt grannlands splittringar vid krigsföring för då kommer man bara hjälpa till att ena dem. Fråga bara Saddam Hussein.

Ekonomiska kriser påverkar nationalismen på ett lite annorlunda sätt. Hotet mot viet är inte lika tydligt; det är föga lika konkret för den stora massan att bekämpa en lågkonjunktur genom att hålla konsumtionen uppe, som att bekämpa ryssen genom att kasta brandbomber på ryska pansarvagnar (tänk Molotov cocktails).

Å andra sidan innebär finanskris såväl som krig brist på resurser och en stor påfrestning på den offentliga servicen. Alla som inte tillhör viet kan därför ses som skadliga för samhället eftersom det då finns ännu mindre mat, vård och utbildning för de som landet “egentligen” tillhör. Louis De Geer är såklart ett viktigt undantag, men bilden av historien pekar ändå entydigt åt samma håll: dåliga tider spär på nationalistiska krafter – vilket inom politiken generellt sett har inneburit fler röster på konservativa högerpartier, men kanske framförallt på de som inte sitter vid makten.

Falklandskriget ökade den brittiska nationalismen i mycket hög utsträckning, men eftersom Margaret Thatcher drev kriget ställde sig nationalisterna inte bakom Conservatives utan beblandade sig istället med högerextremister som rekryterade otroligt framgångsrikt i tiotusental, framförallt unga män.

Sammanfattningen och avslutningen på detta inlägg blir således att den djupa finanskris som vi nu befinner oss i har lett till ökad arbetslöshet och utslagning bland i synnerhet lågutbildade. Samtidigt verkar allt fler vantrivas på jobbet, särskilt inom offentlig sektor. Och arbetsförmedlingen brister. Detta har lett till ökad nationalism och ökad skepticism mot nuvarande makthavare, vilket gjort att väljare strömmat till Sverigedemokraterna.

Hur den ekonomiska utvecklingen ser ut under nästa år kommer således spela en ovanligt stor roll i valet 2010. Om Fredrik Reinfeldt kan få väljarna att tycka att han sköter Sveriges ekonomi bra och att människor upplever att politikerna gör något för att förbättra framförallt deras situation på jobbet – då kan strömmarna vända åt andra hållet (notera att det som avgör är vad som väljarna tycker och tror, inte vad som är de faktiska politiska åtgärderna även om regering och riksdag, såklart, vill tro något annat).

Om Reinfeldt inte lyckas med detta är faktiskt sannolikheten faktiskt hyfsat stor att Sverigedemokraterna klarar fyraprocentsspärren redan nästa år.

Simon Hedlin Larsson

 Entre las altas esferas en la política inglesa existe una serie de personajes que debido a sus acciones o a la polémica que suscitan se encuentran en boca de toda la sociedad, estos son o han sido los más importantes en la actualidad:

Gordon Brown

GORDON BROWN
Nacido el 20 de febrero de 1951 en Glasgow, James Gordon Brown, de 56 años, asumió el control del partido laborista el 27 de junio de 2007 después de 13 años ejerciendo el papel de Ministro de Hacienda a la sombra de Tony Blair, el ex presidente de Inglaterra, con quien siempre mantuvo cierta amistad y rivalidad. Este Primer Ministro, que se ha negado a llevar el uniforme oficial, actualmente en el poder, tuvo un avance vertiginoso desde que entró a formar parte en las filas del Partido Laborista.

“Es tiempo para Europa y Estados Unidos para negociar sus diferencias”.

—

Tony Blair

TONY BLAIR
Nacido en Edimburgo en 1953, permaneció en el gobierno de 1997 a 2007, cuando abandonó en 2007 tras 13 años en el Partido Laborista y 10 como Primer Ministro, dejando en el poder a su amigo Gordon Brown. Pese a ser el líder de mayor éxito en la historia del laborismo, su imagen fue viéndose desgastada por el envío de tropas británicas a Irak y Afganistán junto a las tropas norteamericanas, acción que fue duramente cuestionada y que empeoró cuando salieron a la luz escándalos que se produjeron para justificar la invasión a Irak. Finalmente, tras 3 legislaturas, anuncia el 27 de junio de 2007 su dimisión ante la Reina Elisabeth II.

“Puede que me esté equivocando, pero creo firmemente que es lo que hay que hacer”

—

Margaret Thatcher

MARGARET THATCHER
Primera Ministra británica durante más de once años (1979-90), Margaret Thatcher, apodada “Dama de hierro” consiguió permanecer en el poder durante 3 legislaturas, hasta que cesó en 1990 habiendo logrado un gran prestigio a lo largo de la década de los ochenta y el respeto de sus más decididos críticos. En 1983, decidió recuperar las Islas de las Malvinas, ocupadas por Argentina, con un éxito que le otorgó la cima de su popularidad. Margaret Thatcher, a día de hoy, sigue siendo una figura inmensamente polémica en el Reino Unido.

“El problema con el socialismo es que eventualmente agotas el dinero de otra gente”.

—

Príncipe Carlos

PRÍNCIPE CARLOS DE INGLATERRA
El primogénito de la Reina Isabel II, nacido en Londres hace 60 años,  es una de las personalidades más controvertidas de la monarquía inglesa. Quien aspira a ser un día Rey de Inglaterra (es apodado “eterno candidato al trono), comenzó hace unos años a ser más reconocido por sus noticias amarillistas que por sus labores políticas y gubernamentales. La controversia le persiguió cuando se casó con la fallecida Diana de Gales y le persigue con su actual esposa, Camilla Parker-Bowles.

“Todo el tiempo siento que tengo que justificar mi existencia”.

—

Lady Di

DIANA DE GALES
Cada día, cientos de personas se acercan a llevar flores a la residencia de Kensignton (Londres) donde residía. Tras su fallecimiento hace 13 años, Lady Di sigue siendo uno de esas personas “intocables” para la sociedad inglesa. Nacía un 1 de julio de 1961 en Sandringham, Norfolk, y ya en 1981 se convertía en la mujer más famosa de Inglaterra cuando contrajo matrimonio con el Príncipe Carlos, un polémica relación que acabó en divorcio, pero lejos de ser repudiada por la sociedad inglesa, seguía siendo un icono.  En 1997 moría en un aparatoso accidente en París junto a su actual pareja Dodi Al Fayed.

“Donde vea sufrimiento, es donde quiero estar, haciendo lo que pueda”

—

Duquesa de Cornualles

CAMILLA PARKER-BOWLES
Camilla Rosemary Shand, nacida en Londres el 17 de julio de 1947, fue presentada en círculos cercanos a la monarquía en 1965, cuando conoció al Príncipe Carlos; su amistad permanecería desde ese momento. A pesar de casarse en matrimonios diferentes, años más tarde, El Príncipe Carlos reconocería que cometió adulterio con Camilla durante su matrimonio con Lady Di. Finalmente, el 8 de abril de 2005 Carlos y Camilla contrajeron matrimonio, adaptando ella el título de “Duquesa de Cornualles”. Sin embargo, Camilla arrastra la piedra de no haber conseguido ganarse a la sociedad británica, pues cuatro de cada cinco ciudadanos rechazan la idea de que se convierta en su reina.

“Estoy bajando a la Tierra” (cuando anunció su compromiso con el Príncipe Carlos)

It is carers who are building society

I’m reading The Origins of Virtue, which describes how communities are built upon reciprocity. This does not mean that people only do things for others if they get something back in return, but that my act of giving will prompt you to show kindness to me at a later date. The willingness to give as well as take creates trust and builds relationships.

If people worry that this act of giving is absent from our society then they should look to carers. 6 million people give tremendous amounts of care to friends and relatives who may have a disability or serious illness.

These are people who give without taking, but what do we give in return..?

The answer is not much. Indeed, it is so little that carers who have spent years giving without any support find themselves without anything left to give, facing a mental or emotional breakdown.

We cannot talk about building society when we take from carers and give little in return.

To celebrate the act of giving, we should be holding up what carers do and showing what we give to support them (kind words and sentiments is not enough).

Our society needs to be stronger and we can achieve this by supporting those who are already developing such bonds by giving so much. Carers must receive support to enable them to continue giving or we risk losing the very people who can inspire us to give more.

Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg – it is carers who are building society.

Take care,

Gordon

PS. Quick update, we’ve just published our ‘Crediting Carers: Building Society to Care’ report. Give it a read and let us know what you think to the proposals…

For any of you who absolutely love those drama-documentaries that the BBC are so good at, along the lines of The Day Britain Stopped and the If dramatisations, you need to watch Margaret. One of the most highly charged programmes I’ve had the pleasure to watch, this tale of political intrigue and treachery cuts right to the political heart of what was happening in those fateful November days in 1990.

It’s a drama charting Margaret Thatcher’s astonishing fall from power; one of the most extraordinary stories of political assassination the world has seen. It took only eleven days for Thatcher to go from being the most powerful woman in the world to the tearful figure in the back of the car. A major tragedy in the true Shakespearean sense, in Margaret we watch a woman lose the one thing she really cares about – power – changing from leader to victim before our eyes.

12th November 1990: As Thatcher prepares for her speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet at the Guildhall, Geoffrey Howe, her quietly-spoken former foreign secretary and chancellor, pens the resignation speech that will stun the country and seal her fate. The next day Howe makes his lethal speech in the Houses of Parliament and the final ten days of Margaret Thatcher’s reign begin.

MT: They’ve all got together like frightened little school-boys behind matron’s back. Charles was right – I should have seen them together. How has it come to this? HOW?

MT: These men would be nothing without me. This party, NOTHING! They can’t do this – the country elected me as Prime Minister, I should carry on as Prime Minister. Damn the party! I could do that… I could carry on as Prime Minister and damn them. Why should they destroy me? I-could I do that? Could I?

Aide: Call an election?

MT: NO! I don’t NEED an election. I’ve BEEN elected. I mean, carry on as Prime Minister of this country and let them get whoever they want to lead their damned party.

Awesome – she’s positively insane

Tommy

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

Maggie Thatcher's death was almost announced by the Canadian Prime Minister!

It came as quite a shock when this came into my email inbox today, and as you can imagine I clicked to see quite what the story entailed.

The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was on the verge of speaking to the nation following the receipt of the following text message from his Transport Minister, John Baird; 

‘Thatcher is Dead!’

Maggie Thatcher it was confirmed, following a swift call to Number 10, was alive and well, but Moggy Thatcher, the Transport Minister’s beloved cat had died. She was named after the transport minister’s political heroine.

The Prime Minister’s staff had drafted a statement and was preparing to speak to the nation when the error was discovered.

Although the announcement was prevented it didn’t prevent it spoiling a 1,700 strong VIP dinner in Toronto that the Prime Minister was attending.

More in The Evening Standard here.

‘Thatcher dead’ text sparks fears

Not this Thatcher... (BBC News)

Transport Minister John Baird sent a message reading: “Thatcher has died”.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was soon informed that 84-year-old former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had passed away.

But it was actually Mr Baird’s beloved cat, named after his political heroine, who had died.

BBC News

Newsflash: Thatcher is dead.

No, not the former British Prime Minister. The Canadian Transport Minister’s cat.

Unfortunately, Minister John Baird forgot to specify that he meant the feline Thatcher when he sent a message about it. Hijinks promptly ensued within the Canadian government.

Greg Gutfeld, who is a regular contributor for the nutty far-right Big Hollywood Web site, has another crime against literature and common sense up on what amounts to an Internet rash. Gutfeld, as he is so apt to do, launches into another foolish attack on President Obama that ends with a childish line that is akin to his boilerplate message.

First, lets start with this chunk:

So President Obama says he’d like to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki – something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. Of course, there’s a reason they haven’t: it could be seen as criticism of a painful decision that ended the bloodiest war in history.

Now, I don’t mind if Obama wants to go, and it’s probably presumptuous of me to criticize him for what he might say there, since he hasn’t gone yet.

But if I didn’t, then I wouldn’t have a Gregalogue, and that’s not fair to me, or to those delightful unicorn voices in my head.

And besides, I can pretty much go by what I’ve seen of Obama already. Fact is, whenever he’s overseas, he tends to translate American success into past arrogance. Plus, I don’t think he’ll go to Hiroshima and say, “We did it to save lives,” because that undermines his whole point about nuclear weapons being evil.

And look at the fall of the Berlin Wall – the most important positive event in our lifetimes – unleashing a march of countries toward freedom. Obama didn’t even go to that shindig. Instead, he offered a video – the kind of thing Britney Spears does when she can’t accept the trophy for best U.T.I. at the MTV awards.

Still, Obama’s speech wasn’t bad. He championed freedom and stuff.

He says of President Obama: “He championed freedom and stuff.” Is that to say that “freedom and stuff” are not that significant to Gutfeld? Gutfeld does not seem to worked up about “freedom and stuff” as much as he is about what he saw as an opening to again attack President Obama. But, it hardly seems like any piece written by Greg Gutfeld (and is about or includes President Obama) would be incomplete without some kind of irrational cheap shot.

But then, he couldn’t resist:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.”

So, President Obama praises the progress and greatness of the United States of America and of Germany and somehow Gutfeld decides to take a shot at him for it.

Then, Gutfeld wraps it up with this:

So, no mention of Reagan or Thatcher – yet he brings up himself?

Maybe staying home isn’t so bad.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist!

No, Greg, if a person disagrees with you it’s probably because they have a brain and/or because a person is not a far-right freak.

Look, we know that conservatives worship Ronald Reagan (I actually liked Reagan in one or two ways), but we don’t have to kiss his ass at every turn.

So, Gutfeld ends it by essentially saying maybe President Obama should have kept his black ass home since he didn’t suck up to Reagan like Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks.

WARNING: If you like Ronald Reagan then stop the video after about 30 seconds.

Meadows and his Free Photographic Omnibus

An interview with photographer

Daniel Meadows…

Ask Daniel Meadows where he is from and he will reply, “I really don’t know. Except that I am English.” His work as a photographer over the years has documented England at its most real, whether it was touring the country on a Double Decker bus in the 70s and taking portraits of the people he saw, or photographing Ian Curtis and Joy Division in 80s Manchester during their rise to fame…

Meadows was born in Gloucestershire in 1952. He studied at photography at Manchester Polytechnic from 1970-73. Interesting projects from that time include The Shop On Greame Street in 1972  as well as collaborations with renowned observational photographer Martin Parr with Butlin’s By The Sea in Yorkshire in 1972 and June Street in Salford in 1973.

In 1973 and ‘74 Meadows, a self-confessed hippy, started his Free Photographic Omnibus. As Meadows puts it himself, “Once upon a time I lived in a double-decker bus, reg. JRR 404, better known as the Free Photographic Omnibus. She was my home, my travelling darkroom and gallery. We were an unlikely couple; she with her crash gear box and temperamental ways, me with my bushy hair and homemade flares. But we got along okay and, during 1973 and ‘74, we travelled about making a national portrait of the English. We covered 10,000 miles shooting pictures and giving them away.”

Some of Meadows' Photobus portraits in 1973 & '74

The free spirit of the 1970s meant that Meadows didn’t take a record of who he was photographing; no name, no age, no location. Just a photograph for them, and a photograph for his own archive. Which was unproblematic until 25 years later when Meadows decided he wanted to find his previous subjects and re-photograph them for his book The Bus.

Famous for not only taking photographs for Joy Division’s album artwork, Meadows has also been celebrated for taking a rare, albeit accidental, shot of Margaret Thatcher’s handbag and untidy office at No. 10 in the 80s. Yet these days, Meadows says that he no longer takes any photographs. His work now lies in the world of research, with particular focus on the ways of exploring the depth and range of his photography archive through storytelling using multimedia. He was awarded his PhD in 2005 for his innovative work with photography and participatory media.

Meadows was the creative director of the BBC’s Capture Wales Digital Storytelling project from 2001 until 2006, a project which has been described as “the most ambitious of all the BBC’s user generated content offerings”. Not only is the method of Digital Storytelling a brilliant way for Meadows to showcase his archive of photographs, it also allows access to a more personal world where photographs can take on a new life and meaning.

A photograph that was used Meadow's exhibition There's No Such Thing As Society...

When Meadows gave his lecture on Digital Storytelling last week, I knew I wanted to interview him within the first 5 minutes when he showed a video featuring a beautiful Rolleiflex camera. Considering that Meadows is an award-winning documentarist and photographer, and has hung out with some of England’s finest musical talent, he seemed completely humble and, well normal. He says that he enjoys looking at other peoples’ photographs more than his own, quotes Bob Dylan in an American drawl, and was not at all patronizing when I had to take a photograph of him, with my far inferior camera skills. In fact he seemed genuinely interested in my Polaroid camera, and wanted to watch the photograph spring to life. As you’d expect, his office is wall-to-wall with photographs (some his own, some not) and photography books, and during the interview he was constantly moving from shelf to shelf to illustrate his answers with photographic evidence. He even has the souvenir books that he bought at a Bill Brandt exhibition in 1970 when he was just 18 and beginning his interest in photography…

10am Wednesday 11, 2009.

H: I’ll start at the beginning. What attracted you to photography in the first place, and was it something that you always wanted to do?

Daniel Meadows today...

D: “It wasn’t something I always wanted to do. There were two really big events I think.  Well there were three actually. One was that I was crap at everything at school. And if you were crap you were allowed to do art. You know, our education system is so bad that instead of encouraging you to be creative from the moment you enter school, they discourage it. So creativity was the idiots’ class. So when I failed exams they ended up putting me in the art class. Then they discovered I couldn’t paint, so they said why don’t you try photography, cos it’s kind of easy. The second thing was I saw a wonderful little film, a BBC Omnibus in 1968 called Beautiful Beautiful and there was a New York photographer called Bruce Davidson, he’s on Magnum photography, and he did a project called East 100 Street which is in Harlem. And we’d all been led to believe that Harlem was big, bad and dangerous, and, you know, full of black people. And here was this white middle-class Jewish man, with a huge view camera, play camera, photographing people in their homes. And he made beautiful pictures, and he said something that stuck in my head, which is, ‘I poise, not pose, people… People have an innate dignity and they will set themselves before the camera in a dignified way. And they will choose what they will give.’ I remember thinking, ‘Ah this is a different way of working. I like this.’  And the third thing, there was a very famous British photographer called Bill Brandt, who’s dead now, who’d been brought up in Germany but lived in England. He is one of the greats. And there was a big retrospective exhibition of his work in 1970 at the Haywood gallery, and I went there on a school outing when I was 18. And I remember thinking ‘Wow photography’s wonderful.’ He made these wonderful documentary pictures around Great Britain from the 30s onwards. What was lovely about Brandt was that he did documentary pictures which I loved very much, but he also did portraits. He did nudes; I thought that was pretty exciting. If you take photographs you get a passport to do all sorts of things, you meet famous people, women take their clothes off for you, and you get to study the world we live in and for me at 18 that seemed pretty exciting.”

H: Was it Bill Brandt then who inspired you to do the Photobus project then? The fact that he’d gone around documenting Great Britain?

D: “Well the inspiration for the Photobus was more Cliff Richard, I hate to say. How tacky is that? There was a film, probably the first film I ever saw, Cliff Richard, 1960 Actually it wasn’t the first film I saw, the first film was Snow White. But one of the first films I saw was Cliff Richard in Summer Holiday. It was 1961 and I was nine. Or it could have been 63 when I was 11. And he lived on a Double Decker bus. So I guess it was a mixture of that, of Cliff and Brandt and Bruce Davidson. But also the other missing connection there is this guy called Sir John Benjamin Stone who was a Tory MP in the Edwardian era who travelled England and tried to make a record of the English. He travelled about and he did lots of portraits, cos he was an MP he had an ‘in’ to photographing famous people. He was photographing major events. But his real enthusiasm was for dying, fading, disappearing, rustic festivals and so on, and there’s this picture Harvest Home Kern Baby of 1901. You could look at this picture for a million years and you’d never fathom what it is about. One of the things I really, really love about photography is that it describes things perfectly and it explains nothing. And that’s what I love about photography. There’s always some mystery. And so for me those two things are the things I learnt from Stone.”

Then and Now... Meadows re-photographed his Photobus subjects once he found them 25 years later...

H: Do you think you’d still be able to do something like the Photobus today?

D: “No. The Criminal Justice Act in, was it 1980? The one that the Tories brought in to beat the Crusties, makes it almost impossible. I mean the gypsies and travelers are given a very hard time. I mean it was hard enough living in a bus, parking up and so on in 1973 and 74. You wouldn’t be able to do that now.  It’s not possible in the modern world.”

H: Did it take you a long time to embrace digital photography?

D: “I was a very early adopter of digital storytelling. I ran a digital storytelling class here for undergraduates in the mid to late 90s and people thought it was pretty wacky. And when I first started teaching you lot, you know, mainstream journalists, about the coming of the digital age, we were very unpopular. I mean you were all very welcoming last week, but 10 years ago I used to get, you know, people used to complain, ‘Why are we having to learn all this rubbish?’ I was a very early adopter of all of that stuff. But, for me, the digital age is ultimately not about technology. Photography has always changed; every five minutes there are new innovations and there have been throughout the history of photography. So photographers are used to embracing innovation, which I guess it why I was kind of into it a bit early. But it actually wasn’t the photographic side of things that excited me, so much as the fact that we had some new tools that looked like opening out media to become a much more democratic activity. So that was, for me, the thing that I really liked about it, that you could tell your own stories and publish them and didn’t have to go through the filter of patronizing big media professionals who basically were setting themselves up as gatekeepers. And I would still argue that that is the case. We have too many commissioning editors and people in the way between good ideas and good television.”

Ian Cutis photographed by Meadows in Manchester, January 1980.

H: What’s been your favourite photography project of your own over the years?

D: “I did love doing digital storytelling at the BBC. Every time you ran a workshop, people would bring their photographs in, you had such a window onto other peoples lives, and for me that was kind of humbling, but also very exciting and intriguing. And I began to enjoy looking at other peoples’ pictures more than I enjoyed making new pictures myself. There are pictures that are a fantastic trigger to memory; you can learn to listen to people. A photograph is a great place to begin listening to people. If that doesn’t sound bizarre!

H: Has there been anyone in particular who has been your favourite to photograph?

D: “No, but I can think of some people I really hated photographing!  The problem with doing anything out on a limb is that you have to finance it. And whilst in the early days I did manage to get a bit of funding from the Arts Council when I did my bus project, most the projects I’ve done, I’ve just gone and done them, and then tried to sell them to get some money.  Throughout the 70s I was thinking up stories like the mental hospital story, and going and doing them and then selling them to magazines. But when I started having children and I needed more stable income I had a long period working in the film industry as a stills man, taking pictures in the film industry. And there were some actors who were just bizarre. They’d stand and pose in front of the video cameras all day, then when I’d come on, I’d be sent off the set. They’d do silly things, like when they were rehearsing, which is when you could get your pictures if you were intelligent and you’d work with the actor rather than against them. You could say to them, ‘Well I think we could probably get the stills during the rehearsal, but make certain you’re wearing the right costumes.’ And then John Thaw- Inspector Morse- I did some stills for him, he would come out carrying a newspaper and rehearse with a newspaper in his pocket, or he’d put a hat on that wasn’t in character, just because he couldn’t stand the stills man. And Alec Guinness always had me sent off the set when I worked on the film of Little Dorrit in the 80s. I’d always rather liked Alec Guinness’ acting but I have to say he was a very difficult person to work with.”

Joy Division photographed by Meadows in Manchester, January 1980.

H: Would you mind telling me about your experiences in the Factory Records days?

D: “Factory Records! Well, for a period in the 70s I worked as a researcher in television and even then, it’s quite interesting now when I look back at the experiments with photographs. There’s a little film I made where I work as a kind of TV reporter reporting on my own photographs as events, which is very like a digital story. Anyway, so I went to work as a researcher at Grenada TV and, you know, I learned a lot about how television was made, which was later extremely useful when I came to doing digital storytelling. Grenada had big open plan offices and for a whole, well one long summer I shared a desk with Tony Wilson. Well I mean the desk had about 13 or 15 people all around it and Tony Wilson was one of the people around that desk. He was then a presenter on Granada Reports, and I was working on an arts program called Celebration. And it’s difficult for you lot to imagine it, but television was just as difficult to get into in those days, but it was incredibly over-manned. You could sit around all week doing very little, then suddenly the bit you had to do you’d have to do it very well. There were far too many people, and the unions were very, very strong, and as we well know there’s a whole trade union history of what happened with that. And so there were times when Wilson and I were sitting around twiddling our thumbs and he knew about my ventures on the bus and stuff and knew I was a photographer. In fact I carried a camera around with me all the time, or camera bag all the time with several cameras in it. And he just used to say ‘Come on Daniel, I’ve got a new band or a new act’ or this or that, you know, and the arts program I was working on made a little film about the Factory shortly after it opened, Factory Nights Down In Hulme. So I went and photographed and made a documentary about John Cooper Clarke. I loved John Cooper Clarke. I still love him. And then Joy Division were getting going and he needed some pictures for Joy Division and stuff… “

H: You did some of their album artwork as well didn’t you?

D: “It’s difficult for your generation to imagine how kind of crap it all was. You know, you live in an age of digital artwork and stuff, with things produced to a very high standard, but at that time Wilson had really good ambitions for the style of Factory Records, that they should be well designed. And he used this young guy called Peter Saville to do all the design. But Wilson was also hugely informed by the Situationists, the French avant-garde movement. And one of his bands was called Durutti Column, whose name came from a Situationist group. The original Situationists, they were kind of radical freedom fighters in the Spanish civil war who basically went around killing the bourgeoisie. I mean they weren’t very pleasant! Anyway, there was a sweet little guitar player called Vini Reilly who was in Durutti Column, and he wasn’t very well, he had some depressive illness and he was physically very unwell. But he played this sweet, kind of angelic guitar, and Wilson thought it would be amusing to have a sandpaper record sleeve.  I went down to Wilbraham Road, Wilson’s partner in Factory had a flat down there, and I went to photograph Vini Reilly, for I think it was Sounds magazine, when the return of the Durutti Column album came out. I photographed him mainly downstairs, in the garden and in the porch by the house, and then upstairs were several of the members of Joy Division sitting around gluing together these sandpaper albums.  The Situationists produced not only a book but also a magazine that had sandpaper covers. And the idea was that it would destroy everything around it, so they made an album with sandpaper covers. I still have mine somewhere. But I actually glued one or two together that afternoon. But you know we were just young people sitting around, making things. And it became quite a legendary album, a) because it was a good album, and b) it talked about what Wilson was trying to do with Factory. I photographed Joy Division in the studio, and photographed them at a gig in Oldham, so yeah it was an interesting time.”

Joy Division producer Martin Hannett, photographed by Meadows in Manchester, January 1980.

H: Have you found that observing people and places through photography has taught you anything about people and places that ordinary people wouldn’t necessarily see?

D: “Well, as Dylan used to say ‘It depends what you mean by all those terms, man.’  Ordinary!” (Laughs a lot)

H: Ha, Sorry I know ordinary is a bad choice of word…

D: (More laughter) “No it’s not a bad choice of word. It’s a very good choice of word, I’ve been guilty myself of using the word ‘ordinary’. So it depends what you mean by all those terms, man. But obviously I’ve learnt a lot. I think the thing I’ve learnt most is how bad we are at listening to people. Journalists from big media tend to make their mind up what the story’s about before they go and shoot it and that’s a sadness to me because what it doesn’t allow for is serendipity, and surprise and wonder. The more I spend time with ordinary people, man, the more I realise how wonderful we are, and watching television today makes me think how crap we are. And in that gap is the place where I do my work. You know, I have such an intolerance for reality-based television, I mean it’s shite with a capital S. And it’s as though we can’t do anything now on TV without it having a reality element. And it’s shite cos it’s cruel, its fundamentally based on a cruelty that people are set against each other. It’s like the entertainment of the playground, we’re all gathering around to watch an execution that can be picked over by a media that’s gradually losing credibility. You know fewer people are watching television programmes. Like if a television programme gets five million viewers, the makers go ‘Hey we had five million viewers’. But I say wait a minute, we live in a country of 60 million people, that means 55 million people had the intelligence not to watch your crap programme… “

To find out more about Daniel Meadows, have a look at his website www.photobus.co.uk or his Cardiff University profile…

All photographs have been used courtesy of Daniel Meadows…

Service marks lost WWI generation

Westminster Abbey is to hold a special Armistice Day service following the deaths this year of the three remaining World War I veterans living in the UK.

The Queen will lead the country in observing a two-minute silence at 1100 GMT for the “passing of a generation”.

Bill Stone died at 108 in January followed by both Henry Allingham, 113, and Harry Patch, 111, in July.

The monarch will lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior and Mr Stone’s daughter will give a reading.

Gordon Brown will also attend along with former prime ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher, although Tony Blair will be in the Middle East in his capacity as a special envoy.

Actor Jeremy Irons will read Last Post by the Poet Laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, during the service to recognise military and civilian contributions to the conflict.

The silence, to be observed around the UK at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, marks the moment four years of war ended with the signing of the Armistice Treaty by Germany and the Allies.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8353405.stm

Published: 2009/11/11 01:06:04 GMT

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Last Post by Carol Ann Duffy

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If poetry could tell it backwards, true, begin

that moment shrapnel scythed you to the stinking mud …

but you get up, amazed, watch bled bad blood

run upwards from the slime into its wounds;

see lines and lines of British boys rewind

back to their trenches, kiss the photographs from home -

mothers, sweethearts, sisters, younger brothers

not entering the story now

to die and die and die.

Dulce – No – Decorum – No – Pro patria mori.

You walk away.

You walk away; drop your gun (fixed bayonet)

like all your mates do too -

Harry, Tommy, Wilfred, Edward, Bert -

and light a cigarette.

There’s coffee in the square,

warm French bread

and all those thousands dead

are shaking dried mud from their hair

and queuing up for home. Freshly alive,

a lad plays Tipperary to the crowd, released

from History; the glistening, healthy horses fit for heroes, kings.

You lean against a wall,

your several million lives still possible

and crammed with love, work, children, talent, English beer, good food.

You see the poet tuck away his pocket-book and smile.

If poetry could truly tell it backwards,

then it would.