Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

September 14, 2005
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on 112668687075015801

112668687075015801

I thought he was joking, but it seems some fuckwit internet dicks have been causing genuine trouble, and threatening to take it into the real world to fuck up good old John B’s career (simply because he was trusting enough to openly include his CV on another part of his site).

So farewell Shot by Both Sides – there’s now one less piece of entertainment in a bleak and boring world, and one more example of how cunting arseholish people can be even when they’ve never met you. My pseudonym, which I was again thinking of dropping, therefore remains in place.

In other “the internet is shit” news, I think I’ve finally sorted out the template of this place so it looks good in Internet Explorer. Although if you use Internet Explorer, you are (in the nicest possible way) an idiot. Any niggling formatting issues, let me know. All text should be left-aligned except the Channel 4 News quote above, and there should be three columns with slight gaps between them. All there? Good.

Update: For the first time ever I agree wholeheartedly with a post at Harry’s Place

September 13, 2005
by Nosemonkey
4 Comments

I despise Charles Clarke

Charles Clarke (paraphrased): “From what we can tell some, if not all, of the 7th and 21st July bombers may have been descended from people who were not British nationals and may occasionally have spoken to some foreigners. Or possibly not. At the same time there may or may not be lots of people planning to do nasty things, we don’t really know – and anyway, what exactly do you mean by ‘planning’? It all depends on your definitions. How do I know that when you look at something and say it’s ‘red’ and I look at the exact same thing and also think that it’s ‘red’ that we are in fact seeing the same colour? It’s all a matter of, like, perception, man… And anyway, perception’s, like, knowledge but not knowledge, you know? I mean, you can be intelligent but not know anything, right? You can have been educated to the highest level and still be stupid, or you can have an incredibly high IQ but be lacking in education and so unable to read – you know? I mean, Sir Paul McCartney can’t write sheet music, but he can write songs, you know what I mean?”

Charles Clarke (not paraphrased): “There is no doubt of a series of international relationships that were engaged in. The extent to which there was some kind of command and control we don’t know at the moment, but we are trying to find out precisely what that relationship is… The word plotting is an interesting word. There are certainly hundreds of people who we believe need to be very closely surveyed because of the threat they offer… Intelligence is not knowledge, it is an effort to understand the threats we face by a variety of different techniques … We didn’t know, but we try and acquire the best possible knowledge that we can.”

Charles Clarke (translated): “We didn’t know anything before. We don’t know anything now. We’re going to try and avoid any outright lies so we can maintain plausible deniability and claim that we were misrepresented when the shit comes crashing down, but in the meantime we’re going to rely on implication and nose-tapping as if we know more than we do. But that wouldn’t be hard because we don’t know anything. We do, however, need to be seen to be doing something – we’ve all seen how much trouble our mate George got into when people thought he wasn’t doing stuff, and we’re not going to make the same mistake…”

What a fucking dick.

September 13, 2005
by Nosemonkey
4 Comments

Hot Kilroy action!

Yay! The new European Parliament site’s up already (and I can access it – at the moment). So here’s a bit of Kilroy, and here’s a bit of Kilroy speech. Looks like he hasn’t made one since December last year, and hasn’t asked any questions since November (his last, bizarrely, being about Welsh mountain ponies, which hardly fall under his Eat Midlands constituency remit, I’d have thought…)

This may seem nothing remarkable, but under the old system, this information would have taken a good half hour to track down – and, let’s face it, few people could be bothered to do that. As such, MEPs could get away with far more.

It’s very hard to overstate the potential for good that making their actions and words more accessible could provide. Now that any random passer-by can get at what they’re up to with very little fuss, they’re going to have to pay more attention to what they’re doing. Rather than them simply being an amorphous mass of faceless MEPs (with only the occasional lone voice trying to spread the word to an uncaring public), we’ll be able to track down individual opinions.

As far as the European Parliament is concerned, today is like the first day parliamentary debates were published (in 1771) and the launch of They Work For You all at once. Hurrah!

Oh, and for more Kilroy – look, Tories with a sense of humour! (Sort of, at least…)

Update: Hmmm… The report of the recent debate about blogs and the EU doesn’t sound like it’s too promising: “Major concerns were the accountability of “bloggers” and the protection of privacy – or rather the lack of both.” And, as if to undermine my own repost even before I’ve made it, Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, enters my shit list for bringing up kiddie porn in a discussion about political blogging (because the internet’s eeeevil and full of terrorists, probably) and regurgitating the “a lot of weblogs are tripe” non-argument. After all, I think we can all agree that a lot of books are tripe – but then you’ll get a Ulyssees; a lot of television’s tripe – but then you’ll get a Twin Peaks; a lot of movies are tripe – but then you’ll get a Citizen Kane. and so on ad infinitum. Just because 99% of blogs are a load of bollocks (probably pretty much true) doesn’t mean that the one percent that are decent should be ignored, surely?

So, they’ve got a fair way to go over there… The new website is certainly a long-overdue step in the right direction though.

September 13, 2005
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on Morning warning

Morning warning

Due to a workplace “efficiency drive” my access to the internet is, in places, becoming very restricted – and thanks to Telewest being shit I currently have no web access at home. I am currently looking into ways around these rather excessively pissfucking irritating problems, just in case normal service gets interrupted.

Meanwhile, today is the launch of the new European Parliament website – long-awaited after year upon year of labyrinthine confusion, hideousness and lack of usability. It’ll be worth checking out later in the day – no matter what your opinion of the EU it should be a handy new resource, finally enabling us to find out what the hell our MEPs get up to a bit more – both through dedicated sections where we can look up their details (according to the press release we can look up “their mandates within the Parliament and the work they have done, such as questions they have put to the Commission and Council, resolutions and reports they have drawn up and speeches they have made during plenary sessions… In the archives this information is available as far back as 1979”) and through live streaming video of EP debates…

Fingers crossed for something good, eh?

September 12, 2005
by Nosemonkey
6 Comments

The new-look Guardian

Well, it’s certainly a more convenient size, even if – thanks to still being folded in half on the shelves despite being half as big – it was rather hard to spot in the newsagent’s. I’m not a fan of the new title font, yet the body text seems somehow more readable – although that may just be a misconception based on the novelty rather than any alteration in point size, spacing etc.

They do, however, seem to end up with rather more hyphenations at the end of lines than before – and it’s good to see a missing full-stop (and distinct lack of paragraph breaks) in the second article on the front page – the Grauniad’s reputation for attentive subs and proof-readers seems to be continuing unabated. Is it thanks to the size of the columns? They seem a tad wider than before – again though, that could merely be the novelty. And there are far fewer glaring errors of formatting with this relaunch than there were on the first days of the tabloid Indy and Times.

Inside, and page 2 shows how modern and up-to-the-minute this relaunch is going to be: a section devoted to online articles (including a blog) about the 9/11 anniversary, a run-down of popular pages on the Guardian’s website, a big advert for BT Broadband and a chunky Sudoku puzzle. Turn the page again, however, and it’s like a mini-Telegraph – a big picture of Prince Charles looking dapper on page 4 and an attractive female model showing a fair bit of pert bosom on page 5. It’s also round about now that the impact of the much-hyped “colour on every page” kicks in – breasts in colour always seem to have more appeal, I find…

But this may be coincidence. Page 6 shows little has changed as Mark Lawson romps ahead with one of those typically under-researched articles which he does so well, the first sentence of which unnecessarily evokes Orwell in a typically cliched piece on passport facial recognition technology which somehow gets him onto discussing Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman. Unlike the Torygraph, however, the Guardian has managed to avoid big pouting pictures of the two Hollywood hotties (although there is a big close-up on Marilyn Monroe’s mouth – does that count?)

So far, so predictable – appeals to a wider, younger, hipper, more lecherous audience in a bid to boost circulation. Thanks in part to the page size, the articles also seem shorter and so more accessible – but there are also lots of 1-200 word mini pieces on lesser stories, an improvement on the old single sentence news summaries the broadsheet version seemed to use merely a space-filler. Minor stories thus appear to be getting more prominence, which I always reckon is a good thing.

But of the genuine news stories in the first 10 pages or so, there seems little logic – a full page on goings on at the Tate on page 9? Shouldn’t that be the Arts section and further to the back? Alleged war criminals failing to be arrested would be international, surely? Pieces on Rupert Murdoch’s plans to dominate the internet and the EU’s bid to break Sky’s monopoly on Premier League matches would surely both be better suited to the Media section, especially as this is a Monday and they’re written in a fairly easy, number-light style, yet they come under “Financial”. Lawson’s piece would be better suited to the old G2, while I can’t envisage any circumstances in the old Guardian where an interview with Prince Charles on lightweight Sunday evening Christian show Songs of Praise would merit any coverage whatsoever – let alone half a page on page 4.

It would seem Simon Hoggart’s page 11 review of Andrew Marr’s new Sunday morning politics show could be describing the Guardian’s revamp: “full of stuff, for no apparent reason” – after all, what’s the point in the double page, full-colour photograph of soldiers dealing with the current riots in Belfast which greets us on the centre pages? It’s not that compelling or powerful an image, there’s no indication of where in the paper the related story can be found, and it must have cost a packet.

The most confusing, though, is the extended Comment & Analysis pages. Does anyone really care about newspaper comment sections any more? I’m doubtless preaching to the converted here as you’re reading a blog, but the interweb generally provides far better comment via innumerable blogs than any of the national newspapers do these days. Roy Hattersley’s pointless nonsense about atheism is irrelvant and ill-argued, Madeline Bunting slagging off the “liberal” idea of civilisations clashes and the current level of debate on the situation without once mentioning Edward Said shows little more than a 6th form level of understanding, Jackie Ashley crops up with one of those perennial “where for Labour after Blair?” pieces which could have been written at any point in the last five years and so on. The only one moderately worth reading is Chris Patten on why Ken Clarke is the Tories’ best hope for the future. Yet, including the page full of Leader articles, there are now four whole pages of opinion – five if you include Lawson’s piece earlier on. These writers get paid more than any others, yet generally have far less of interest to say – do we really need this much space devoted to them?

It seems odd that the Guardian, despite generally being the most web-savvy British newspaper (and having a claim to having the best web presence of any paper full stop), has failed to notice the gradual death of in-depth print comment. Why read the likes of Bunting and Ashley when there are so many far more interesting, far more readable writers online?

Unless this is the start of their attempt to revitalise the old art of opinion piece writing in the British press, that is. Over the last couple of years the Guardian’s Comment pages have increasingly become filled with mindless pap, an illogical mix of opinion ranging from near apologists for terror to hard right Tories, the increasingly barking Polly Toynbee to any number of people you’ve never heard of blathering on about why they’re so much cleverer than everyone else. Much as some of us Britbloggers have been trying to do at The Sharpener, is the Guardian making a conscious effort to provide a genuine range of perspectives on its comment pages? That could be properly worthwhile – but they need to make more of an effort to get the balance right. Three pages of comment – left, right and centre – could be a truly interesting approach. At the moment, though, it still seems like we’ll have the odd token Tory and little more.

In short, it’s hard to tell what the plan is for this new Guardian – the news section is too confusing, the comment section too big. Maybe they’ll sort it out and these are just teething troubles, it’s hard to tell. But considering how long they’ve been planning this you’d think they’d have done something both more logical and more radical with the content. The only startling thing I’ve found is the apparent complete lack of a sport section – although that may simply be the copy I picked up, as there’s also no G2.

The major trouble is that newspapers as a whole are having a tough time – why bother with the morning paper, based on the news as it stood twelve hours before, when you can nip online and get the lastest, most up to date info with a couple of clicks of the mouse? Why hope that the Guardian’s four/five pages of comment has something interesting and worthwhile when you can hop on Bloglines or some RSS aggregator and skim hundreds of blogs in a matter of minutes, arranged by politics, interest or whatever?

To survive in the face of 24 hour news channels and the umpteen thousand alternate sources of news and opinion the internet provides, the old style news providers vitally need to do something radical to maintain an audience. Simply changing the size of your paper and fiddling with the font is not enough. You need to convince people that it’s worth parting with 60p to buy the damn thing rather than simply go on the interweb. As of yet, I remain unconvinced. (But then I would say that – I’m a blogger; if I only read one newspaper I’d be screwed, and if I bought hard copies of everything I look at I’d be broke…)

The Guardian is a good paper with – outside the comment pages – largely high standards of writing and fact-checking. It has always been more readable and reliable than it’s main rival, the Independent, but the two have also usually been looking towards subtly different readerships (Guardian – relatively intellectual lefties who largely know what they’re talking about; Indy – 6th formers and social workers).

This re-vamp, however, seems almost wholly cosmetic, and aimed less at a constructive effort to build a wider readership through better content than a destructive attempt to cull the Indy’s tabloid sized advantage, leeching back their centre-left readers to the only other serious centre-left paper – and so wiping out the already under-performing opposition. Cosmetic changes are all very well and good, but is the Guardian doing it to make itself better or merely more accessible? They are not the same thing – and nor is actively trying to steal another paper’s readership the same as building a wider, more loyal base. Because all the Indy will then have to do is start a desperate price war, and both publications will likely end up bankrupt. Which would hardly be a good thing for the future of British public debate.

Update: Ah – sports section mystery solved. It would appear that they’ve had shipping problems. Another chap in the office didn’t have a Media section in with his, but did get Sport and G2, while I had Media by not G2 or Sport. After a quick glance, I don’t think much of the new, A4 G2. But then again, I never did think much of the G2 – too much Tim Dowling, too little of any actual interest or entertainment value…

September 12, 2005
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

German elections: less than a week

German elections: Less than a week to go, and Schr�der seems to be making a last minute comeback. There’s a good overview of the complexities of the German voting system at European Tribune, explaining the potential coalitions (also discussed – in a bite-sized, easy-to-understand post – at Fistful), while Der Spiegel looks at Schr�der’s chances. Meanwhile Deutsche Welle looks at whether Dresden could tit everything up thanks to the death of a Nazi delaying the vote – just as indications that there could be a fair few disputes over the count increase by the day.

September 12, 2005
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

112651679239944215

The latest Britblog roundup is packed with goodness as per. Have a gander while I try and get my act in gear this morning.

I’ve just had another fiddle with the site’s template as even after a tweak by someone who knows more about this stuff than me it apparently still wasn’t right. Looks OK in Firefox and Safari on Mac OSx, but haven’t been able to test it with anything else yet – let me know if I’ve cocked it up again. Ta etc.

September 10, 2005
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

112634614480980139

Spyblog on Charles Clarke’s apparent misunderstandings of the nature of the EU, biometrics, cross-border police work and civil liberties.

Clarkie boy has also started using massively pointed truisms: “All European parliamentarians … should face up to the fact that the people who elected them want the European Union to have a strong package of measures to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime.” – well yes, yes they probably do, Charles. Just not the ones you’re putting forward, you fat fuck.

Oh, and the head of MI5 is being used as political back-up “We also, of course, and I repeat in both our countries and within the EU value civil liberties and wish to do nothing to damage these hard-fought for rights. But the world has changed and there needs to be a debate on whether some erosion of what we all value may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives.”

Yay – let’s let the terrorists win just a teensy bit, and see if that works shall we?

September 9, 2005
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

112626193515589312

Ukraine update: Auntie has a good overview of the current crisis, while the New York Times worries that if Ukraine’s post-revolution government fails to shape up quickly it could dim the hopes of democratic reformers in other ex-Soviet states. Leopolis reckons it could take months. Orange Ukraine has good info and some handy links to further reading in the comments, while Scott at Foreign Notes comes through again with some top-notch analysis, and Neeka points out that this current split has been a long time coming.

September 9, 2005
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

Poor Charles Clarke!

Awwww! Poor Charles Clarke! His massively intrusive plans for poking into every aspect of our insignificant lives seem to have run into a bit of opposition: the European Telecommunications Network Operators’s Association has branded Charlie’s data retention plans illegal, dubbed their effectiveness unproved, and estimated the cost to be prohibitive (see, e.g., The Guardian). Meanwhile MEPs have accused the Blair government of “exploiting the fear factor” and dishing out “summary justice”. Blair has been dubbed Big Brother by one French newspaper (and no, that sadly doesn’t mean he’s going to get his flabby mantits out and shove a wine bottle up his jacksy), while Germany, France and Denmark are all lined up in opposition. Good.

Still, no one yet seems to have picked up on Clarke’s comments about ID cards – that’s where this is really heading…

September 9, 2005
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

Is Jack Straw justifying terrorism?

“By welcoming Turkey we will demonstrate that Western and Islamic cultures can thrive together as partners in the modern world – the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.”

Sounds like a suggestion of potential violence to me, Jacky boy, coming as it does after a week of dangerous anti-terrorism bullshit being spouted by various cabinet ministers.

Sounds rather like you’re trying to imply that if the EU doesn’t progress with Turkish entry talks the Islamic world will end up divided further from the West and thus increase the cultural hostility which has led to the current wave of fundamentalist terrorism.

Which is quite possibly true.

But it does go somewhat against your government’s stock answer that terrorism is going to happen anyway and that what many people see as contributing factors (the Iraq war and its aftermath being prime) cannot be used as excuses for terrorism.

Even though nobody other than the terrorists has ever said that the Iraq war excuses or justifies the slaughter of innocent civilians.

And even though by that logic you may as well not bother launching wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, or in introducing biometric ID, detention without trial, suspending the human rights act, upping the number of police on the street, giving the police the right to shoot us all on a whim, or indeed checking passports, screening baggage or looking out for suspicious types at the airport – because terrorism’s going to happen anyway, so why bother trying to do anything to stop it?

Could this tacit admission that there’s such a thing as secondary, almost passive contributing factors in the process of radicalisation which can lead to people blowing themselves up on the tube be a new step in the government’s incredibly slow progress down the path of realising that the world is a complicated place which can’t simply be divided into “good”, “evil” and “the French”?

Why do I have little faith that this pretence to be in favour of Turkish EU entry as a matter of principle – as if this government even knows what that word means any more – is little more than another stupidly obvious childish tactic to try and get publicity?

More on Britain, Straw, the EU and Turkey at EU Observer, The International Herald Tribune (good overview) and The Guardian. And views from Turkey and Cyprus (the somewhat anti-Turkey Greek bit).

September 8, 2005
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

German elections roundup

German elections: North Sea Diaries on the “shadowy, chimeric thing” that is German conservatism, Jerome a Paris on yet another glimmer of hope for Schr�der as Bloomberg and others report on a poll which sees his popularity rise – and Merkel predicted to be unable to gain a majority. Meanwhile the International Herald Tribune ponders what’s in store for US-German relations if Merkel forms a government? Oh, and fxstreet.com has very good overview of the issues in the upcoming German, Norwegian and Japanese elections – a good place to start if you have no idea about any of those countries’ politics.

September 8, 2005
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

112618753425624934

Thoughtcrime in Newcastle:

“The campaigners, who were going to wear orange boiler suits and bar codes on their foreheads, had created a massive ID card to highlight what they see as an increasing restriction on civil liberties.”

And – would you Adam and Eve it? Before they can even begin their protest they ended up arrested. Silly fools – of COURSE their civil liberties aren’t being restricted