Today, I went to one of the monthly LGBT networking events. (I won't say which, as I know the person who runs it.) I spent the whole day agonizing about it: Why pay £10 to drink and meet gays when I can do that for free (plus the cost of the drinks) every weekend in the gay bars? I kept thinking I could buy that new Gary Shteyngart novel, Super Sad True Love Story, for the same amount I would pay for admission and drinks.
At the last minute, I concluded I already have five or six books on my reading list, and probably should stop buying books on impulse. So I went networking. And how did it go? Let's just say that after about half an hour, I was seriously considering running to Foyle's and buying the damn book anyway. For some reason, I just become timid and resentful at these things. I'm much less comfortable at them than I am at gay bars. And yet I keep going, because something in me cannot bear the idea of people having fun without me.
So now that we've established that I'm a sack of neuroses with a Blogger account, on to the news.
Silvio Berlusconi has won a vote of confidence from the Italian Chamber of Deputies (342-275, for those of you as numerically obsessed as moi). To which I say: WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE THROW GRANDPA FROM THE TRAIN!!! The man's continued success is a belated confirmation of every 19th-century aristocratic argument against extending suffrage. He spends most of his time in office trying to change the criminal code, the rules of judicial procedure or the laws around officeholders' immunity to keep himself from going to prison. The prime minister should not be constantly and publicly assaulting the rule of law - not to mention common morality - to avoid jail and protect his bloated business empire.
Berlusconi told Parliament that there is "no alternative" to his government. I'm not entirely sure why this is. Italy has a large center-left party, the Democratic Party, a catch-all collection of left-wing groups modeled on the American party of the same name. The Italian Democrats' problem? Well, I'm not totally sure.
I think part of it has to do with the history of the Italian left - for most of the postwar era, the largest party of the Italian left was the huge Italian Communist Party, which was never permitted to enter government during the Cold War. This legacy of excluding the left may weaken it within the institutional framework of Italian politics. (I feel like I'm half-remembering something I read on the subject.)
As for the Labour conference, I think everything will work out fine for Labour. My theory is that David Miliband will at least be theoretically on hand to assume the leadership should Ed implode. If they both fail, Yvette Cooper can take over. And should all three fail, enough time will have passed so that Chuka Umunna will be ready to take over. He's already been proclaimed the British Obama, so he should magically solve all the party's problems.
There's a flaw in that logic somewhere, but I don't really feel like examining it.
On to lighter matters: Glee. What can I say? They did Britney Spears. And it was pretty good, though I don't think the critics on Television Without Pity agreed with me. Glee is mainly a series of comic set-pieces, half-decent dramatic interludes and, of course, musical numbers of wildly variable quality. This week, we got excellent dancing from Heather Morris (Britney), who's comic skills are equal to anyone in the cast; an excellent turn from Sue Sylvester, ably (and shamelessly) assisted by Jacob Ben Israel; and a very funny "sex riot" scene. Kurt, Santana and Emma Pillsbury also got in a few good moments. The main downside is that Lea Michele's numbers feel increasingly tacked on - her character isn't particularly interesting any more, but she's a big enough star, and a talented enough singer, that she has to get the big solos.
Oh, and John Stamos and Matthew Morrison need to get it on.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
September 28th, 2010
It's been a long time since I maintained a blog. I did it for a while in 2006, during the last time I lived in New York. The main upshot of that experiment was a moving tribute to my dog, Leah, who died that spring, and an angry post about a boy I liked that, I later learned, popped up whenever his name was entered into Google's search engine. In any case, I stopped keeping up with the blog when I moved to London.
But I've got some time on my hands, and my friend Phil suggested I start a blog. And it would allow someone other than the stuffed animals on my couch to appreciate my insights, so I figured, what the hell? I mean, sure, future employers will probably use my posts against me, but let's face it - those who know me know that I'd say something impolitic at work sooner or later. Might as well get it out of the way.
I like to talk about public affairs, so I'm going to throw a few thoughts out here on Ed Miliband to start with, and see where we go in the following posts.
Ed Miliband is electable. Or at least, we've seen little evidence to suggest he isn't. He was elected by the unions, they say. So what? Are the 200,000 union members who voted in the leadership election a more or less representative sample of the British people than the 200,000 Tories who voted in that party's leadership election five years ago?
Is opposing the Con Dem plan for cuts really political suicide? I doubt it. It's been 75 years since Keynes - you can't argue there's a scholarly or learned consensus around cutting spending in a recession unless you kill all the Keynesians and burn all his books. More to the point, the Irish government already enacted plans similar to the coalition's, and their economy has now returned to recession. The only people who say the coalition's spending plans are indisputable, indubitable common sense are people who work for the coalition. (And the IMF, which is not a sacred and infallible oracle.)
What radical policies is Miliband pushing? A commission on high pay? That would only hurt Labour if people suddenly start loving bankers and their bonuses. A concern with income inequality? Hardly radical, or foreign to the coalition (or at least the Lib Dems). To rephrase my earlier point - the only people who think Ed Miliband is unelectable are those who have a vested interest in convincing the public of that fact. Take The Times. Today, it published an article saying Ed Miliband was a disaster for Labour because more people preferred David as a potential prime minister. Leaving aside the fact that most people barely know who Ed Miliband is yet, how does The Times explain the findings of the Guardian/ICM poll that gave Labour a 40-39 lead over the Tories? They can argue the bounce is down to publicity surrounding the conference, but that publicity would skew the Times poll as well.
One last thing: In my many, often depressing, years of watching American politics, I've discovered that the electorate generally disliked being told that they can't elect somebody, and then go on to elect precisely that person. That's why Scott Brown is in the U.S. Senate.
I'm also obsessed with Mad Men, and will blog about that often (and I download the episodes from the US, so spoiler warning). For this week, I've got to say: Don, fucking your latest secretary will not help you avoid prosecution for deserting the Army. Fucking a lawyer? Maybe.
But I've got some time on my hands, and my friend Phil suggested I start a blog. And it would allow someone other than the stuffed animals on my couch to appreciate my insights, so I figured, what the hell? I mean, sure, future employers will probably use my posts against me, but let's face it - those who know me know that I'd say something impolitic at work sooner or later. Might as well get it out of the way.
I like to talk about public affairs, so I'm going to throw a few thoughts out here on Ed Miliband to start with, and see where we go in the following posts.
Ed Miliband is electable. Or at least, we've seen little evidence to suggest he isn't. He was elected by the unions, they say. So what? Are the 200,000 union members who voted in the leadership election a more or less representative sample of the British people than the 200,000 Tories who voted in that party's leadership election five years ago?
Is opposing the Con Dem plan for cuts really political suicide? I doubt it. It's been 75 years since Keynes - you can't argue there's a scholarly or learned consensus around cutting spending in a recession unless you kill all the Keynesians and burn all his books. More to the point, the Irish government already enacted plans similar to the coalition's, and their economy has now returned to recession. The only people who say the coalition's spending plans are indisputable, indubitable common sense are people who work for the coalition. (And the IMF, which is not a sacred and infallible oracle.)
What radical policies is Miliband pushing? A commission on high pay? That would only hurt Labour if people suddenly start loving bankers and their bonuses. A concern with income inequality? Hardly radical, or foreign to the coalition (or at least the Lib Dems). To rephrase my earlier point - the only people who think Ed Miliband is unelectable are those who have a vested interest in convincing the public of that fact. Take The Times. Today, it published an article saying Ed Miliband was a disaster for Labour because more people preferred David as a potential prime minister. Leaving aside the fact that most people barely know who Ed Miliband is yet, how does The Times explain the findings of the Guardian/ICM poll that gave Labour a 40-39 lead over the Tories? They can argue the bounce is down to publicity surrounding the conference, but that publicity would skew the Times poll as well.
One last thing: In my many, often depressing, years of watching American politics, I've discovered that the electorate generally disliked being told that they can't elect somebody, and then go on to elect precisely that person. That's why Scott Brown is in the U.S. Senate.
I'm also obsessed with Mad Men, and will blog about that often (and I download the episodes from the US, so spoiler warning). For this week, I've got to say: Don, fucking your latest secretary will not help you avoid prosecution for deserting the Army. Fucking a lawyer? Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)