POLITICS: THE DAILY MAIL GETS THE KNIVES OUT

For whom, you may ask, as if you didn't already know. It's for this innocuous looking man.

Whose name is Ed Milliband, or Red Ed as the DM calls him, and he's just been elected leader of the Labour Party. 

The DM hates him for a number of reasons, not least of which being that he isn't his more moderate brother David who lost by 1.3% of the votes. Another is that he won because the majority of union votes went to him. He also quoted as saying that he would not condemn legal strike action by an union attempting to save jobs and that his view on any particular strike would be dictated by the circumstances surrounding the strike. Mind you, I can understand the DM's outrage at this; after all it's been at least 15 years since a Labour leader said that.

How absolutely outrageous!

And did you know that over 35,000 votes were declared invalid? Shame! Um, except that these were almost entirely union votes and the unions were the ones who preferred him anyway so if they had been counted he'd probably have had a larger majority. Sorry, DM, can't have your cake and eat it.

A majority of party activists and MP's preferred brother David; only the unions got Ed in. This may be true and it doesn't make any difference. The unions are the major source of funds for the Labour Party so it's only right that they have some say in voting for the leader. 

The voting system, in case you weren't aware of it goes like this: The ballot paper has a list of candidates and voting is by preference =1,2,3 etc. The candidate with the least votes has his second choices distributed appropriately among the remaining candidates, and this goes on until there are only two left and the one with over fifty per cent of the vote wins. This does mean that a candidate with less first choice votes could win over a candidate with more first but fewer second choices. In practice this means that a middle of the road candidate is more likely to win over someone who polarises the voters.

I've taken no interest in this election until the actual announcing of the results but I will be taking more now that it's over. All I can say, especially after the DM started sticking the knives in, is: Go, Red Ed!

TV: WATERLOO ROAD

A few months ago I discovered the pre-Watershed school drama series (which had been on the go for five years) and decided it was pretty good. The new series has just started and there are some new characters including a single parent who had, until recently been home-educating his two kids -a very bright girl and a 16 year old boy who just wants to be normal. New Head Amanda Burton has persuaded him to join the staff and this week's episode focussed on his first day as a new teacher. 

And something happened that disgusted me so much I almost stopped watching. First, however, is a photo. Our new teacher is  on the far left.

In an encounter with a parent, he spoke the following words:

"I didn't mean to infer that your son was stealing."

I'm sure you can imagine how I felt on hearing this. Remember that this is a highly educated man who is very ambitious for his two children and yet he actually spoke this sentence. Given what we know about this character it is as likely that he could say infer when he meant imply as it is that he'd stick his head up Amanda Burton's arse.

It also means that the writer should be put up against the wall and shot because s/he clearly doesn't know either.

Post script

Neither does it seem does the director, editor, any of the cast or anyone else who might have been involved in the production.

NEW AMAZON REVIEWS

An Amazon 4 star review.

Just what I always wanted-

which was an Ipod dock/speaker system. If you're reading this for the Iphone it won't be of any use to you.

On the other hand if you want it for your Ipod (mine is a 160Gb Classic) it seems pretty good. It's small and very portable, though I wouldn't carry it around with your Ipod plugged in. Once it's on a flat surface the connection seems pretty secure. I have tried with the case on and it does slot in but it's easier without it. I drive around a lot in a van for our local animal rescue charity which only has a cassette radio installed and I don't have any cassettes or listen to the radio much. This works fine on the seat and on the floor with the sound clear above the engine noise.

And it does sound pretty good to me, though I'm not one for subtleties and tend to play Rock a lot of the time. The bass sound in particular is very good. I have tried a couple of classical tracks and Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries will blast your head off as well as any guitar solo but you'll have to turn the volume up for quieter pieces, though I should tell you that I'm a little deaf. Can't give you any techie details I'm afraid but if you want something portable to play the music on your Ipod this seems fine to me. It's small enough to fit on most flat surfaces -I can see me listening to it while I soak in the bath- and loud enough for anything but the noisiest parties. I don't know how long the batteries last and it was a little fiddly getting them to work at first but that might have been me.

I've only had it just over a day but I like it a lot as it really is just what I wanted. Recommended for everyone except demanding music snobs. 

An Amazon 4-star review.

For serious film and fantasy enthusiasts, 

Let's make it absolutely clear what this book isn't.

It isn't for the novice and it isn't for the casual fan.

It isn't a comprehensive survey or intended as a reference book.

It isn't intended as any form of definitive statement on fantasy film.

It isn't a light read.

What it does seem to me to be is both an introduction to fantasy film (and literature) for the intelligent novice and an opening of the debate of what exactly is a fantasy film. As such it is aimed at those with a serious interest in film such as students and academics rather than the general public. The opening chapters cover the history of fantasy (literature and film) and an analysis of what exactly fantasy as a genre is as opposed to its bedmates Science Fiction and Horror. It then continues with a critical analysis of ten fantasy films (including Spider-Man which I would argue is SF, unless you want to create a separate genre of comic-book movies). You'll probably have a job finding it on the shelves of most public but not university libraries.

The author, Katherine Fowkes, has read widely while researching the book and quotes liberally from numerous writers. As these writers often have different ideas on the nature of fantasy indicates clearly that she is interested in opening up the debate on the subject thus the book is most effective as a source-book of ideas. That it is so much about differing ideas is what gives the book its strength allowing the reader to do their own evaluating and on this level it's very stimulating albeit sometimes a little hard going.

For some reason, which I can't quote chapter and verse on, I have the feeling that she doesn't really get the written form of Science Fiction, at least not at its high end; she does have a grasp of. that hideous conflation, Sci-Fi which is generally applied to SF films, very much the low end of SF, though I'm displaying my own prejudices here.

For its target audience this is an excellent learned and thought-provoking book though, as its author I'm sure would be the first to admit, it's not by any means the final word on the subject.

These were picked  by me from the monthly freebie for review list from the Amazon Vine programme. This in no way influences my reviews. Actually most of my Vine reviews tend to be less enthusiastic than the stuff I buy as I would rarely have actually bought any of the stuff offered on Vine. Having said, I've been pipped at the post several times before for an Ipod docking station as I really wanted one as I said in the review; I just wasn't convinced they were actually worth it. They are.

A couple of months ago Viners were offered the remastered World At War tv series and many (including me) grabbed it and weren't we disappointed when it just turned out to be a sample single disc. The complaints were numerous. Me, I just reviewed the one disc on the basis it was just the one disc. Then suddenly, after we'd ordered from this month's list, it appeared again on our to review page. Two days later it arrived -all the discs but just in paper sleeves and some discs without a proper label. I imagine those few naughty people who like to sell stuff on (which is against Amazon's rules) were really disappointed.

GUEST POSTING FROM BARRY SPENCE

This is a response to an article in the Daily Mail (online edition), a (cough) newspaper neither Ian nor I rate very highly.

As usual, I am missing something.

This champion of the sacred institution of a free press seems to condemn as
bigotry spoken freedoms (or any communicated in any way other than the
press) by the rest of us. If anyone objects to the visit (for whatever
reasons) are they bigots for their reasons of for nothing more than daring
to object in itself?

He seems also to reckon that we welcomed without protest in the past many
blood-stained, butchering tyrants and terrorists, plus genocidal criminals,
mass rapists, mysoginists, homophobics and true religious and/or political
bigots. A far greater crime to him seems to be suppression of a free press! This
"non-objection policy" may be only generally correct due to our apathy, but quoting Ceausescu

and Zuma as examples was unwise - I clearly recall many objections to their

specific presences here. We actually have objected to many others, such as
Thatcher’s best pal Pinochet (the mass butcher of The Disappeared) as one notable example. But presuming he is right - that we never objected to anyone before

- his logic is that we are obliged to continue not objecting, that we lose

by default the right to invent the idea of objecting for this one more visitor.

"Two (or more) wrongs DO make a right", do they?

Ye and me - plus a surprisingly large number of growing moaners - object to
the visit, but we have taken no consideration of past visitors' track
records and how they were welcomed. We should not do so, as the objection is
only to HIM, NOW. Is there some mythical "bigger picture" that I'm missing,
or am I as bigoted as you?

"I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING...." (Clint Eastwood)

I actually object to the increasing abuse of the word "bigot" because it
became a precedent when applied to mind-reading by the gifted magician
Gordon Brown. He dismissed a woman as a bigot BEFORE she even brought up her
views on "immigrants from Eastern Europe" - views that WE never heard, so
could not judge her on. However, Gordy obviously knew the full contents of

her unspoken mind in order to be able to pass judgement. Some people are now branding
others as bigots, basing this on their PRESUMPTION of what the victim of
their supernatural probing thinks. Very dangerous..... I always thought a
bigoted (or not) person had to be judged solely on what thoughts they
EXPRESSED to others! Again, what am I missing?

Thought Police rule!

SOCIETY/RELIGION: THE POPE'S VISIT. WARNING: CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND STRONGER OPINIONS.

Here is a brief tongue in cheek exchange of emails between myself and my good friend Barry Spence. His is reprinted without his knowledge and I hope the phrase 'my good friend' continues to apply after this.

I sent him the following email:

Hi,

Does the Spence agree that the government should spend an estimated £100,000,000.00 of taxpayer's money on the visit of a cult leader who is responsible for:
the increase in AIDS cases,
the increase in the number of unwanted children,
maintaining prejudice against and repressing the moral right of homosexuals to engage with society as full members, and
covering up the crimes of large numbers of paedophiles solely because they belong to a select group?
Does the Spence even agree that this person should even be allowed into this country when so many of its taxpayers emphatically disagree with the actions of this member of the Hitler Youth?

--
Ian

To which Barry replied:

The Spence sees a current economic situation where the downtrodden peasants (= anyone whose income is less than that of an MP) have been ordered by the wise and experienced Cameron and his 100% millionaire cabinet to sacrifice some of their already low income to fund an attempt to correct the damage done by previous governments and bankers. Said MPs tell the peasants they must cough up to avoid national bankruptcy. Many projects (such as hospitals and schools that would benefit the peasants in the long run) worth less than £100 million have been cancelled.

Therefore, squandering what (according to the above) we cannot afford is a wasteful one-off short-term project that will help nobody long-term but inspire current resentment in a fair number of thinking, sacrificing citizens -but not a majority. If this visit is so important, shouldn’t the Church of Rome pay the bills? They have much more wealth than a near bankrupt minor European Hellhole!

To clearly separate his past from his present – current policies concern AIDS, unwanted children, homophobia and – sorry folks, I don’t believe it suddenly stopped – paedophilia and cover ups. Past sins include paedophilia cover ups and Hitler Youth, but you forget about 1940s apathy towards The Final Solution and a large organization in bed with the 1970s Mafia.

On PAST issues, we shouldn’t refuse this person entry on a visit – if we were to do that, over half the world’s leaders would never get in! We also have home-grown leaders (past and current) with pasts just as bad.

On CURRENT issues alone, over ongoing Church of Rome policies, we SHOULD refuse entry to he who represents it and takes full and final responsibility.

Since when did the opinions of the taxpayers (who provided the £100 million) matter a toss to those in power?

 The Spence

 PS

I need an explanation from The Roman Catholic Church based on your words below:

maintaining prejudice against and repressing the moral right of homosexuals to engage with society as full members

How come this is ongoing official policy, yet that same outfit permits (some claim they encourage) paedophile activity by its employees (not all homosexual, just the majority) and then covers it up, skilfully using a complex network of power abuse? Is this “One law for us – another for you” - or can I just dismiss it as raging hypocrisy?

Me again.

Just so you know exactly who we're talking about here's his picture.

Sorry, that was below the belt. Here's the real photo.

Hmm. Spooky.

Just in case anyone thinks I've got it in for the old Nazi supporter, I should make it clear that I hate all organised religions. The worst mistake Man ever made (Women have more sense) was to invent God. Christianity and Islam just made it much worse.

As for the Pope, fuck the old bastard.

Post script.

It appears that the Pope's visit will only cost the taxpayer £12million not 100 as I stated. As far as I'm concerned, his anachronistic paedophile-ridden hypocritical church should pay  for it and one penny of taxpayer's money is too much.

SCIENCE FICTION: SFX MAGAZINE

I've been reading SFX since around issue 50 and started subscribing about twenty issues later. Round about issue 150 a certain person who shall be nameless wanted me to cut down on my spending so I didn't renew my sub and only bought the occasional issue which became even more infrequent when the better Deathray, with its more intelligent approach, came out. Sadly, Deathray didn't last and so when I found myself with a little spare cash, subscribed to SFX again. The sweetener which sealed the deal was a freebie Stanley Kubrick DVD box set.

And I waited for it to arrive.

And waited.

After about six weeks I emailed the subscription dept and received an automated reply telling me I'd be contacted by a human being.

And I waited. For two weeks and sent off another email and received an automated reply.

And I waited. For ten days and sent off another email and received an automated reply. And a couple of days later promising that all would be sorted.

And I waited. And nothing happened so I sent off another email threatening to cancel my sub and demand a full refund and received an automated reply. Followed by an apologetic letter saying SFX would be in the post very quickly and although they'd run out of the Kubrick box set, if I rang a certain number I would be given a choice of whatever was available.

And within a couple of days I received the previous two issues of SFX, neither of them subscribers copies without all the words on the front but at least I got them and then a week later the latest issue (see above) a subscribers copy. I was too apathetic to phone the number and also annoyed that I'd have to spend money to claim a freebie.

In that issue one of the regular staff writers wrote the Soapbox feature about what a good idea it was to subscribe....

So I wrote in agreeing with him, in theory, but...

A couple of days later I received a very apologetic email from the editor himself telling me that they'd recently changed their subscription company to avoid things like that and that he'd look into it. In my reply thanking him I asked if it would be possible to email me a list of the freebies so I could make a considered choice rather than a hurried one over the phone.

This happened and I picked Smallville Season 8 (I'll write about this series some other time) which I received last week and I'm currently watching. Then today I received a large box which I wasn't expecting. It contained three of their expensive specials and five books, three of them hardbacks, by way of an apology. This is a very gracious gesture which of course I'll reply to and thank them.

Nice one.

NEW REVIEWS: MUSIC & MOVIES

So I've been playing classical music for the last two weeks and enjoying it but I'm suddenly in the mood for getting down and dirty again.

Wait!

What's this packet on my doormat?

Why it's Ten Years After Live At The Fillmore East 1970.

Two hours of rock'n'roll, white boy blues, and lo---ooo---ong guitar solos featuring Alvin Lee on vocals and guitar. Lee was never rock's greatest vocalist or guitar stylist but he and the band can hold an audience even when playing some really long songs. And there are some really long tracks on this 2-CD set. Willie Dixon's modest Help Me (a rip-off, with added lyrics, of Green Onions that he gave to the second Sonny Boy Williamson) stretches out to 16 minutes. I'm Going Home, the number which electrified Woodstock audiences with its intensity, comes in at just under 12. Spoonful which closes the album is a relatively modest 8 minutes. But the standout is the medley Skoobly-oobly-doobob/I can't keep from crying sometimes/Extension on one chord extends to 19.30 and, astonishingly, it's the best track. 

The reason these long tracks work is because of dynamics and structure. Lee and the band throw in acknowledgements to their heroes. In Skoobly, Lee, apart from simply varying the pace and tone of his solos, plays tributes to his guitar heroes and includes classic rock'n'roll tributes. In Going Home, we get an Elvis medley. Great stuff and a terrific live album. Well, apart from the 11 minute drum solo track The Hobbit. Only the twin drumming/percussion maestros of The Grateful Dead, Bill Kreutzman and Mickey Hart  can ever get away with that.

It's hard being a dedicated Rolling Stones fan (which I'm not) because much of their early catalogue exists in different versions -UK and USA- in terms of albums and singles in that tracks are different or different versions or even an album (the UK e.p. 5*5 became an album in the States with extra tracks). Now while I'm not a dedicated Rolling Stones fan, I do like the band. In the 60's you either preferred The Beatles or The Stones which itself became a paradigm of an individual's musical tastes. As I'm writing about the latter you guess where I fall. I've got the best of collection Forty Licks, the classic Exile on Main Street (not long before the extended version appeared; bugger!), and a download of the extended Get Yer Ya-yas Out which was over £30.00 cheaper than the box set. But 40 Licks doesn't cover all their best and is notably weak on very early stuff. The Rolled Gold collection, while partly making amends for that, has too much of an overlap to make it worth gettting.  However, just a few days ago, I found this on Amazon for £8.99.

Which collects all thing singles issued from 1963-68 including the different b-sides from the UK and US singles. When generally getting rave reviews on Amazon -if the single was in mono then it's mono here- there is some carping by serious fans in that it's a bit inconsistent. Most of it's carping and the only valid criticism is that it doesn't include the contents of 3 EPs which it would be nice to have been included. If you're interested you can check out the reviews themselves. As far as I'm concerned, while I'm still missing out on the odd track I'd like, this 3-CD, three hour set pretty much fills in most of the gaps that I wanted filling in my modest Stones collection and the informative booklet is excellent, especially as their keyboard player Ian Stewart is finally credited as a member of the band as he always should have been.

Like District 9, I was a bit late coming to this one and, like District 9, I'm glad I finally did catch up. This is probably the most light-hearted and entertaining zombie movie since Shaun of the Dead. Our hero is a gauche, awkward student who should have been played by Michael Cera and I'm sure that in a few years time when someone who's seen the movie thinks about it they'll swear that Michael Cera was the lead. But he isn't, it's Jesse Eisenberg.

By accident he pals up with redneck gun-totin' zombie-killin' Woody Harrelson who seizes his role with enormous cheerful gusto and there's good support by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as sisters who don't trust anyone. And that, apart from two cameos, is the entire cast -I'm not counting the various stunt persons who play zombies. Great fun and very funny. Must watch again soon.

This isn't a movie and it isn't a tv show. Originally a web series it's now on DVD with lots of extras and there is one important name missing from the cover -Joss Whedon who scripted, composed the songs (it's a musical), and directed it. Nathan Filion plays smug and self-satisfied like no-one else can and Neil Patrick Harris is just superb as the wannabe supervillain who just doesn't have it in his heart to be evil. It's barely 42 minutes long but never mind the length feel the quality.