The Filter^

Ian Johnston is a moron

Evan Davis understands the concept of risk better than any other journalist I'm aware of. This morning he ran rings around the Ian Johnston, President of the Police Superintendents' Association on the Today show... listen here (3m50s).

Help Quinn

Is a double dose of adrenaline and bigotry a popular way for people to begin their day?

The great thing about blogging is the possibility of solving challenges like the one set by Quinn.

That Chris Rock Moment

Gordon Brown:

we have issued instructions that we should support a ban on all cluster bombs, including those currently in service by the UK.

Anton Vowl:

You're not *supposed* to kill, maim and destroy innocent citizens. You're not *supposed* to create ordnance that is attractive to children to pick up. Don't you fucking dare try and take credit for not doing that any more

Why Politics?

I know it's easy for a non-partisan pundit to point score, but now that we've got television again I watched a couple of interviews with Gordon Brown this morning (firstly with Andrew Marr, then with Adam Boulton). I also saw interviews with Alan Duncan and Chris Hughn. What i'd really like is to meet someone who (a) isn't a libertarian; and (b) intelligent enough to realise that Labour, the Tories, and Lib Dems are comprised of egits willing to lie in order to appear to be what they deem as being popular. I'm frustrated because The Filter^ is frequented by people who fit into both categories, so please help me out...

I won't pretend that I have a quick-fix solution to rising food prices, but I know that the Competition Commission's investigation into the UK grocery market has nothing to do with it. The fact that Gordon Brown used it as an example of how he's solving the "silent tsunami" is ludicrous. Following the local election results the PM said that he'd "listen and lead". A journalist asked if he'd have a cabinet reshuffle. Brown repeated "i'll listen and lead". If only the journo had enough nous to say "will you have cabinet reshuffle?" to which Brown would answer "I'll listen and lead"...

I'll pause. And alliterate.

I've been challenged recently about my claim that Central Bank Independence is a highly politicised matter, and yet Brown defended his record on the economy by saying that "we've cut interest rates and injected liquidity". Who is "we"??

In the US John McCain's economic advisers are reassuring supporters that despite his public rhetoric he's in favour of lower taxes. The Tories here are similar, "we'll say what needs to be said to get elected, but rest assured when in office we're on your side". Even if you trust politicians who are willing to lie to get office, how can you support the democratic system that requires them to do so?

It'd be lovely if we could all agree to disagree, but the BBC won't let me. Even though I try my utmost never to watch their channels, if I wish to utilise the services of their competitors I am forced by law to pay for the BBC. Well at some point the level of service gets so frustrating, so bad that I'm willing to fork out for the BBC and their rivals. It's like buying a Dell laptop just for the right to then also pay for a MacBook.

Today I'm annoyed by all intelligent non-libertarians, because it's due to my deep and genuine desire to believe that government provision of fundamental services is right that has meant that I continue to subscribe to them. But any person unfortunate enough to rely upon those services knows that central planning is riddled with information and incentive calamities. I'm ashamed that I've been so willing to settle for the best that socialism can provide, and will in future work hard to ensue that I can buy MacBooks. I know full well that those who can't afford MacBooks will be left with inhumane service, but I no longer see the point of sitting at 3am in the waiting room of a crumbling building alongside them. Rest assured, your waiting lines will be quicker because I'll be elsewhere. Rest assured, i'll be arguing for economic freedom for all.

Income inequality is a contentious issue, but as someone who's relied on public services I am grateful that many people are wealthy enough to afford to opt out. It's precisely because of those who remain in the clutches of socialism that motivates me to make the case of economic freedom, because when I do opt out I want as many pragmatic people as possible to join me. Socialism should be for ideologues, not the poor,.

Who Cares About Heathrow's T5?

I don't, but the media seem to. Why? The coverage is similar to the passport backlog, but notice one key difference - it's possible to travel by plane without suffering from the T5 calamity. I was supposed to be traveling to Vegas on Friday, but far from panicking about whether I'll get there (and if my Rimowa Topas will join me) if I was still going I'd be relaxed. Why? Because I bought a ticket with Virgin. So why do we care about T5? Is it purely because it's the previously nationalised airline, who still retain their "Britishness" in their name? Is it because of the state-fueled racket run by BAA that's turned our airports into disgusting shopping centers? Seriously, should I - as an Englishman - be feeling embarrassed?

Holden on Potts: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

A slice of ITV cultural debate caught my attention on Saturday night - a profile of the talent-contest-winning singer Paul Potts, in which music critic Rupert Christiansen was invited to give his opinion on Potts' vocal qualities, only to be shot down by that well-known music critic, Amanda Holden.

Holden's point was that the opera world is too pretentious to embrace and accept Potts' talents. Yes, the opera world is often depressingly snobbish and un-embracing, but the problem here is that Potts genuinely has no talent. It's not about snobbishness, it's about a very poor voice and a seeming inability to exercise informed critical judgement on behalf of so many in the entertainment business - all these are rife in the 'crossover' recording market. 

I respect Amanda Holden as an actress and as an entertainer. None of her performances on screen have provided me with any reason to believe she is anything other than a talented performer. I'm no TV/theatre critic, so I wouldn't trust that judgement to hold forth on it in front of the nation, but I doubt she's got where she is without talent, understanding of her art form, and commitment.

I don't often agree with Rupert Christiansen's operatic critiques, but on Paul Potts he hit the nail on the head. The voice is ugly and has no sense of colour or dramatic direction, whilst Potts' performances are almost entirely lacking in musicality. Singing opera is a tough business, even tougher than stage and screen acting Amanda. Wonder into the Leeds Grand and ask any Opera North chorus member to sing Nessun Dorma and you'll get a far superior account to that of Potts. These people sing and act their behinds off for three hours a night, after over ten years of training, and earn a modest salary for it. They combine quality voices with dramatic principles of communication; their business is singing opera on stage, in costume, with no amplification and communicating it to whoever is sitting in the audience with no less than 100% commitment. I wouldn't mind inviting Potts to try this for a week or two. He wouldn't pass the chorus audition of course, but I fear that would be the least of his trials. 

Holden claims that Potts is educating the people about opera. I wish that were true. He's actually lining the pockets of a record label. If you want to educate people about opera, pick a young, enthusiastic, non-upper-class trainee opera singer from any UK music college. They'll teach you about drama, music, communication, vocal technique and the art of performance. I wouldn't mind betting they'd be unpretentious and likeable in the process - which from what I hear, are two qualities that Potts can't boast either.   

Front page of the week

This front page image from the Daily Mail almost made me buy the paper. Almost. An incredible image.

Everything's really pissing me off!

Anthony keeps badgering me to post something on The Filter. It's quite nice of him really. And, you know, I've always thought it important that The Filter doesn't become a ranting board, descending to the level of a tabloid editorial where some moneyed right-winger moans about a hotel receptionist who couldn't speak English to them. The Filter is about expert opinion, considered scholarship and rational thought - and with that in mind, here's a list of things that are just really pissing me off:

1) So, you can't go to Sainsbury's Local anymore without inane pop music being played at you over speakers in between audio-adverts. It's cultural totalitarianism through the seemingly unavoidable, capitalist, 'inoffensive' art form that is shit commercial pop. I'm very offended.

2) I've been failed by the system and can prove it - my grammar is crap.

3) BBC Breakfast is now beyond a joke. It's become an on-screen Closer magazine, with regular surrepticiously placed slots for fashion, celebrity, gossip, the ridicule of serious culture, amateur philosophy, amateur anthropology and even amateur medecine. See if you can spot the weak political analysis and shameless product placement in between. And don't say 'you don't have to watch it', that's not the damn point!

4) I love Scandinavians but they don't love me.

5) The only thing that Facebook is doing is informing me when people are having more fun than I am, in more meaningful relationships than I am and in more exotic countries than I am.

6) The water in my bath is draining ever-more slowly, and I can't seem to do anything about it. It now has a drain-time longer than 24 hours, which means bailing water out after use. Every unblocking chemical that says 'industrial strengh' just seems to make it worse.

7) When will the media learn that an opera singer is someone who sings and acts in live operas, not someone who mimics an opera singer's vocal qualities for ten minutes at a time and then brings out an album.

8) There are so many wonderful countries, works of art, people and ideas out there, but thanks to the fact that I have to work for 45 weeks a year, I won't even scrape the surface of discovering them.

9) Channel 4's view of a 'teenager' reaches a level of decadence which is so far removed from any resemblence of my teenage years that I'm convinced they're just trying to rub it in.

10) My best mate is looking worryingly like he's about to move to Seattle.

11) I so often say to people, 'we really must meet up soon, honestly, we really must', and yet still never get around to organising it.

12) There's so much more, but I know you'll have stopped reading by now, and besides, I suddenly can't think of anything, which is also really annoying.

13) The whole concept of people listing things that annoy them is creatively lazy and self-centered and I've just been sucked in. I blame the media.

Once more at the fore: The city of Liverpool

A fascinating article in the Observer about the murder of Rhys Jones. 

It has been mentioned, eloquently by his father, that his new uniform now sits untouched in the wardrobe, and the image is powerful: for me, though, the shocking ease of transition from life, from hope, to endless nothingness was somehow summed up by the fact that Rhys died with his shin-pads on.

The differences are not just between the council wastelands Croxteth/Norris Green and the private primnesses of Croxteth Park; they are between neighbouring houses, between neighbouring individuals.

The bans have, here in Croxteth, perhaps contributed to teenage crime [my emphasis]

Yesterday morning - is it just me that finds this weird? - Sky had an interview with Maddie McCann's father, asking him to say what he thought about Rhys's shooting

Harry Potter: I just don't get it

I was in WH Smith yesterday to buy a copy of The Guardian, and saw copies of a new Harry Potter book everywhere. I was aware that some sort of Potter mania was going on, but wasn't sure if it was a new book out, or a new movie [and as i've subsequently been told, it's both - does anyone else find that self-defeating?] As part of the "Pottermania" series in said Guardian, Megan McArdle (an economics writer) expresses her frustrations. In doing so I've realised precisely why i've never *got* Harry Potter: it conflicts both with my economic and political beliefs. According to Meg:

• Magic must have rules and limits in order to leave the author enough room to tell a story. In economic terms, there must be scarcity: magical power must be a finite resource.
• To the extent that there is any system at all, it is the meanest sort of Victoriana, ... There is a hereditary aristocracy of talent, and I [Harry] am secretly at its apex. There is an elite school almost nobody can go to, and I am one of the chosen. People fall quite neatly into the categories of good, bad, or clueless, we are the good ones who get to run things in the end.

Not only does this show why I found the couple of Harry Potter films I saw a let down, but it also explains The Guardian's infactuation - it's bad economics and illiberal!

Update: Matt contradicts some of these points in the comments