Only in Italy
The utterly mindblowing aspect of this story is not betrayed by its headline, which reveals that the Vatican has appointed an "official" Da Vinci Code debunker, but rather that the archbishop in question, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone is "a former football commentator."
Amid the Terri Schiavo-based hullabaloo, one commentary one would not expect to be coming from the American Left suggests that Million Dollar Baby is all a product of Clint Eastwood's disability prejudice, and is helping corrupt society. Abandoning my usual "no enemies to the left" policy, I'm inclined to agree with the comments the author quotes from decidedly moderate New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. I didn't think it was a particularly good film, and as I said previously, don't think it deserved any Oscars, but I certainly didn't find it offensive. Perhaps that reveals sub-concious prejudices I hold towards those with disabilities, but I don't think so; I don't approve of anyone shooting people, or taking heroin, but I'm not offended by Pulp Fiction, and don't feel the story should have been changed to indicate any reluctance on Vincent Vega's (John Travolta's) part to engage in these activities, or to have him suffering from the consequences of engaging in them (he does get shot, but the lesson conveyed by this development is as much "don't leave your handgun on the side in the kitchen while you go to the toilet" as "a life of crime doesn't pay"). To be fair to Davis, at least he isn't trying to censor Million Dollar Baby.
I don't suppose it will come as any great surprise, but I feel I must register my absolute disgust at the fact that the general election campaign is being fought over racial issues this week, with the Tories on the march against Gypsies. We might take comfort from the thought that an election strategy consisting of threats to overturn the Human Rights Act is unlikely to be successful; but by politicising racial issues (especially Gypsies and immigration) the Tories make it politically more risky for the Labour government to address these issues sensibly. Further, when the main opposition party starts off on such rants, racist extremism in political discourse becomes normalised - something which should worry everyone.
And finally, further vindication of my assertions that Iran won't be getting attacked by the hegemon and its junior partner, or even its regional lackey any time soon; Iran, then Syria, now North Korea again. Such incoherent attacks only indicate that the Bush administration isn't sure quite who to hate at the moment. Sanctions will likely have a similar effect as they did in Iraq - strengthen a brutal dictator's hold on power whilst impoverishing an already suffering population. Things don't look bright for the North Koreans, but war does not seem to loom on the horizon either.
Amid the Terri Schiavo-based hullabaloo, one commentary one would not expect to be coming from the American Left suggests that Million Dollar Baby is all a product of Clint Eastwood's disability prejudice, and is helping corrupt society. Abandoning my usual "no enemies to the left" policy, I'm inclined to agree with the comments the author quotes from decidedly moderate New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. I didn't think it was a particularly good film, and as I said previously, don't think it deserved any Oscars, but I certainly didn't find it offensive. Perhaps that reveals sub-concious prejudices I hold towards those with disabilities, but I don't think so; I don't approve of anyone shooting people, or taking heroin, but I'm not offended by Pulp Fiction, and don't feel the story should have been changed to indicate any reluctance on Vincent Vega's (John Travolta's) part to engage in these activities, or to have him suffering from the consequences of engaging in them (he does get shot, but the lesson conveyed by this development is as much "don't leave your handgun on the side in the kitchen while you go to the toilet" as "a life of crime doesn't pay"). To be fair to Davis, at least he isn't trying to censor Million Dollar Baby.
I don't suppose it will come as any great surprise, but I feel I must register my absolute disgust at the fact that the general election campaign is being fought over racial issues this week, with the Tories on the march against Gypsies. We might take comfort from the thought that an election strategy consisting of threats to overturn the Human Rights Act is unlikely to be successful; but by politicising racial issues (especially Gypsies and immigration) the Tories make it politically more risky for the Labour government to address these issues sensibly. Further, when the main opposition party starts off on such rants, racist extremism in political discourse becomes normalised - something which should worry everyone.
And finally, further vindication of my assertions that Iran won't be getting attacked by the hegemon and its junior partner, or even its regional lackey any time soon; Iran, then Syria, now North Korea again. Such incoherent attacks only indicate that the Bush administration isn't sure quite who to hate at the moment. Sanctions will likely have a similar effect as they did in Iraq - strengthen a brutal dictator's hold on power whilst impoverishing an already suffering population. Things don't look bright for the North Koreans, but war does not seem to loom on the horizon either.
posted by UK plc at 10:11 PM
2 Comments:
Yikes, sounds like things in the UK right now are a little crazy with the talk about immigration. We here similar stuff here in the states.
I have to take issue with your evasion of the true issues behind the immigration debate. Firstly, Labour simply do not have an immigration policy. Far from stopping them debating the issue sensibly, the Tories have highlgighted that wherever you stand on the openness of borders, it is unsustainable not to have a policy to process claims. Secondly, the recent series of court cases pertaining to Gypsy land claims have evrything to do with the Human Rights act and nothing to do with human rights. By asserting that they support recent court rulings which reinforce the state's role as protector of private property, over and above claims under the human rights act, the Tories are suggesting that there is a more sensible middle ground than Labour's chaotic no-policy. If the emphasis is placed on local authorities to provide suitable sites to accomodate the Human Rights act lifestyle claims of travellers, there should be no court allowing Gypsies simply to occupy through trespass. An orchard in Cottenham which was colonised by a group of travellers was destroyed. Rather than assist in evicting the travellers, the local council demanded that the landowner return the orchard to its origional state, despite the fact that a Gypsy camp was by then firmly established on the site of the destroyed orchard. That state of affairs is bonkers.
Post a Comment
<< Home