Notsosuperfood

Me and a friend play the spot-the-stupidest-story/ worst-piece-of-journalism-from-the-bbc-of-the-day- game. This story works on both levels:

Products claiming to be superfoods will be banned under new EU rules coming into effect on Sunday - unless the claim can be proved.

How do they prove they are super? Is there a standard EU definition of super?

Good Grief.

Racism pays

So Emily is in some lads mag this week baring (not) all. And of course the "interview" includes no questions about the whole racism incident but she manages to point out that some of her best friends are black at least 76 times.

The strangest thing is that she claims Makosi from whatever season of BB it was phoned her to tell her she (Makosi) had money on her (Emily) to win. I'm not sure which is stranger - the actual bet, or the fact that she phoned up to tell Emily about it OR that Emily feels the need ... oh yeah, Makosi was black.

And Emily wants Charley to win and Emily thinks Charley is the fittest and she thinks ...

I Believe

Been getting into the Simian Mobile Disco album last coupla days. Loving it. Starts with a bang and keeps its hands in the air right to the bitter end.

Here's the video for I Believe.

I'm not being funny yeah, but, honestly, no more.

Ok, so even I'm a little bored with myself and my constant Paris posts. So this is it. Unless something earth-shattering happens I'm not posting about Paris ever again. Or at least for a couple of days. Here's a picture from Defamer to sum up why:

And at some point in the next couple of days I'm gonna get back to posting something constructive.

Honest.

Some Paris Video

The Price Is Right?

This video shows some MSNBC anchor finding integrity of all things and makes a huge show of not talking about Paris Hilton.

Brilliant.

Genius.

Such seriousness.

What was the earth-shattering news that she thought should be top news of the morning?

Someone criticises Bush over Iraq! No way! How could they! It's certainly groundbreaking. I thought everyone supported the Iraq War and especially Bush's handling of it. But apparently not. And then its pushed down the news by such a frivolous story. An outrage.

Then again.

Oh. But wait.

I note first 'her privileged upbringing as the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor'.


But more importantly I note that she doesn't seem to have any qualms about discussing Rosie O'Donnell's possible move to The Price Is Right.

That's very important news obviously.

Paris on Larry King

Just read the transcript of Paris's appearance on Larry King and i've picked out the juicy bits so you don't have to (not that there's a lot in there, it lasted an hour apparently, how they managed it I just don't know).

I've cut it down to the most interesting bits and then the most interesting bits of those bits i've made bold:


KING: What did you eat?HILTON: The food was horrible.KING: Horrible?HILTON: Well, it's jail food. It's not supposed to be good.KING: What is jail food?

HILTON: Dinner was usually the same. Just, it was hot, at least.

HILTON: A lot. I read a lot of books. I received fan mail from all around the world, so many letters. I would literally sit in bed like crying, reading these letters. And it just -- it really got me through it.KING: No kidding?HILTON: Really. It was really special. I had no idea I had so much support from so many different age groups, so many people from around the world. It was -- it was really heartwarming.KING: Any critical letters?HILTON: Actually, no.KING: None?HILTON: None. I was really surprised about that. I was scared to open letters, because I was like oh, I hope this person's not mean. And I don't -- that's like the last thing I want.KING: You said from every continent? Asia?HILTON: Whole -- ever -- Even like India and from -- a lot of soldiers from Iraq. And... KING: Soldiers?

I hate to be alone

HILTON: Well, this all started off with the DUI, which was a .08. And I will never drink and drive again. Granted, it was, you know, one drink, but no one should do it.

KING: Do you think the judge was unkind?HILTON: You know, my lawyers even said that with this kind of infraction, a suspended -- it wasn't for a DUI, it was for a suspended license -- that people only -- I was walking in there assuming I was just going to get community service. That's what my lawyer said at the time. So when he sentenced me to that much time in jail, it was shocking, because that doesn't happen ever.

KING: Have you ever been addicted to drugs?HILTON: No.KING: Taken drugs.HILTON: No.KING: Never taken drugs?HILTON: No.

HILTON: You know I am a social person. I love to dance. I love to go out. I love music. But a lot of people don't know that I'm a businesswoman and I run several businesses. And I like to go out, as well, and socialize.

HILTON: No. I just like to go out and have fun with my friends. I'm an Aquarius. We're social people.

KING: You don't treat -- you don't think you are treated any of this, the jail, the whole thing, frivolously?HILTON: What do you mean by that?KING: That you danced through it, in a sense, when the public saw you.HILTON: I was locked in a cell for three and a half weeks. It was a horrible experience so ...KING: With the ...HILTON: ... I did my time.KING: When the public saw you?HILTON: When the public saw me?KING: Yes, you know, you always looked. You like the camera.HILTON: You know, it's going to be there and I see some celebrities they throw water at the paparazzi or give the middle finger or do things like that. And I don't -- I think it makes you look bad. I just live my life and I don't pay attention. These people are doing their jobs.KING: You like the paparazzi?HILTON: It's not that I like them, but I don't, you know, I'm not going to do anything to hurt them. That's -- they're just trying to make a living.

KING: Do you visit people in rehab or any of your friends?HILTON: I don't have any friends in rehab.KING: Up next, she said her dumb act is no longer cute. What was cute about it in the first place?

KING: An embarrassing -- were you strip-searched? Do they do that in jail?HILTON: Yes.KING: I know they do it in prison.HILTON: They do. They do it in any jail. It was...KING: What was that like?HILTON: The most humiliating experience of my life. I never had to do that, you know, doing that in front of someone you don't even know. It's pretty embarrassing.KING: So it's a woman police officer and you in a room?HILTON: Yes.KING: Is it as gross as we might think it is?HILTON: It's pretty gross, you know, taking your clothes off in front of someone and having to do that, yes.KING: Do you understand why they do it?HILTON: Of course I do.

Some good

I noticed on Perez's site that some good may have come from the Paris debacle, one of the rich and powerful (rather than the merely rich) may be getting his:

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's complaints of a two-tiered jail system where "the rich and powerful receive special treatment" have come to back to haunt him.

Soon after Hilton was sent back to jail earlier this month, he acknowledged his wife had committed a similar infraction — driving with a suspended license. Among other things, he also admitted sticking the taxpayers with the bill after his wife crashed his city-issued car in 2004, and acknowledged that staffers have occasionally run personal errands and baby-sat his children.

"He was living in somewhat of a glass house," said Raphael Sonenshein, a political scientist at California State University, Fullerton.

The disclosures have led the California bar and the city Ethics Commission to open investigations of one of Los Angeles' highest-ranking law enforcement officers.

And here's some video of today's big news

Copa de Bias

A rather strange post on the otherwise brilliant 101 Great Goals blog comparing Hugo Chavez to Hitler:

In 1936 Hitler and the Nazis used the Olympic dream to fool the world. The Los Angeles Times reports that Chavez is doing exactly the same thing:

“As tournament host, Chavez has built or remodeled no fewer than nine major soccer stadiums across the country, including the new $80-million Cachamay arena in this town close to the banks of the mighty Orinoco River. Granted, the stadiums probably won’t have a long-term economic effect; they probably will be more of a ‘bread and circuses’ offering to the masses and a way to impress out-of-towners attending the tournament…”

I'm not going to go too much into the ridiculousness of the comparison and the whole Chavez is a Demagogue side of the post Though I will say since when has anyone hosting a major tournament NOT built and renovated stadiums? Has everyone who has ever held a major tournament been out to "fool the world"? And the quote itself is misleading, as another article linked to from the post points out. Nine stadiums have been built OR Remodelled, but that amounts to two being built and seven being remodelled, which makes a difference, especially when we add “and renovate airports and surrounding areas for the Copa America.”

I mainly wanted to remark on the way the actual LA Times story which is linked to has been used. I clicked on it expecting the usual rubbish about Chavez but found a pretty balanced article. So i'm just going to post some of the words from the article and leave them under the title “Socialism Works” to redress the balance.

Socialism Works

President Hugo Chavez seems to be lavishing all his oil wealth on ... social programs for the poor ... and aid to socialist brethren in Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

But the fiery critic of the U.S. is also investing mountains of cash on bricks-and-mortar mega-projects to further his socialist agenda and bring economic development to remote areas such as the southeastern state of Bolivar.

Flush with cash, Chavez has been more prudent in taking on debt and has paid off Venezuela's World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans.

Last year, public spending leapt to one-third of Venezuela's economic output of about $180 billion, up from the average of one-quarter of output in the 1990s, said Jose Manuel Puente, an economist with the Institute for Advanced Administrative Studies in Caracas

In no area of Venezuela is the spending push more evident than here in Bolivar state, where Chavez recently completed a billion-dollar bridge over the Orinoco, and the $400-million first phase of a new "Steel City."

The fifth phase of a sprawling hydroelectric project that provides the country with 70% of its electricity is under construction on the nearby Caroni River, which feeds into the Orinoco.

"This will all become an industrial zone," said Radwan Sabbagh, president of Ferromineros Orinoco, the state-owned enterprise in charge of Steel City. The project is going up in Ciudad Piar, an isolated municipality 65 miles south of here that has about 8,000 residents, most of whom work in low-paying mining and cattle jobs.

Steel City's first phase, which employs 300, is a system that concentrates iron ore to make Venezuelan steel more competitive in domestic and foreign markets. In 10 years, Sabbagh said, the area will be a heavy industry nexus that will include smelters and steel factories and be home to 10,000 steel industry workers.

"The iron factories will bring light industry and then urban growth," Sabbagh said. "It's part of our territorial development policy to generate economic and social development where now there is low population density."

Chavez plans several other industrial cities around state-owned lumber and aluminum factories and gold mines here in the four-state region called Guayana. The region has 52% of Venezuela's land mass and a preponderance of the country's nonpetroleum natural resources but only 8% of its population.

The magnificent $1.2-billion Orinico River bridge inaugurated just west of here in November is meant to spur development of Anzoategui and Monagas states to the north and increase commercial links with Brazil to the south.

Justin Timberlake Kicks Ass

Most amusing video here of Justin Timberlake being kinda funny.

Don't you just hate the paparazzi?!

Not sure what the story's all about. Not up on any of the scandinavian languages I'm afraid.

Ban Everything Now

Another thing I saw in the Daily Star Sunday (I read it at work, hence the haphazard nature of this post (which, as previously mentioned, is mirroring the haphazard nature of their website) was the geezer who reviews games commenting on the whole Manhunt 2 thing (I was just reminded of it by this).

He suggests (and I write this from memory) that there is some sort of double standard for movies and games - what's acceptable in movies is unacceptable in games. So far so good. He then continued "I'm not against banning things, I just want consistency" (not a direct quote, but as far as i remember it's pretty accurate, and the gist is right anyway (oh why isn't their website better?)). What? He'd be happy with them banning Manhunt if only they'd ban a few films as well? Is he right in the head?

Free your inner heiress

I've been wanting to write a reply to this post by K-punk on Paris Hilton, but, for some reason, I'm finding it difficult. Why? Because in so many ways he's right? Maybe. And when I read it I wondered am i this person he describes?

They are statements of flaccid flaneurism (a flaneurism reduced to the most dryly theoretical of poses), a flaunted but uninteresting decadence, whose disavowed libidinal charge comes almost entirely from baiting the haters - what I have previously called a resentment of resentment. Would that Paris' defenders were voguers, who had an intense interest in their appearance, clothes and mannerisms, who wanted to make of themselves a work of art. The shameful, embarrassing, and silly 'Free Paris' acting out - I refuse to dignify it with the term 'campaign' - is vogueing without the drive to self-beautification, a spectatorial pretence of worship. For, naturally, the worship is all a matter of being seen to worship her - what else could it be? And who is supposed to be watching?

It made me think.

My defence of Paris is not so much based on decadence, baiting, but on ... what? On the belief that it really shouldn't matter. No, we shouldn't be wasting time on a Free Paris “campaign”. And not only because she shouldn't actually be in jail, but because it really shouldn't matter. But, apparently it does.

My point is merely that everyone takes so much fun from the hatred of Paris, Lindsay Lohan, etc., that the opposing view should be heard. The way I see it there seems to be thousands of bloggers out there who spend their day berating these young women for there “excessive” partying and (the way I imagine it) afterwards go out, drink, get pissed, maybe take drugs, maybe not, but nevertheless party. It seems there's a different standard going on somewhere, and not just in the LA justice department.

The whole ridiculousness of it is, to me, summed up by the Bansky “prank”. Why was this prank given any credibility whatsoever? It seems so utterly banal, even more banal than the original album. This is what is taken as cutting edge art nowadays?

"Often people might have a view on something but feel they can't always express it, but it's down to the likes of Banksy to say often what people think about things.”

Paris Hilton is rich and female and famous for doing nothing? Cutting edge critique there Banksy! Way to go! And i'm not sure that view was having difficulty getting into the public consciousness before you came along to wow us with your art.

So the Paris album was mediocre, something I've certainly said before, something i'll keep on saying. But why the ridiculously disproportionate response? How we all laughed when it sold barely anything. The public still has taste. Brilliant. But of course shit still rises to the top, Paris's album bombing is not a sign of the public's critical taste. It's a sign that the public hate Paris Hilton. It's a sign that Paris Hilton doesn't give a fuck (about anything) about her pop career. Have you seen the wonderfully up to date Paris Hilton website?

“There are no appearances scheduled”.

From K-punk again

it is the pro-Hilton posturing that is a serious symptom - of a suiciding of intelligence, of cultural bankruptcy and exhaustion. It is the logic of cultural depression, of gradually but implacably lowered expectations, that has produced the over-investment in Hilton; a logic of devaluation, not revaluation - a logic of betrayal, of a failure of fidelity to pop culture's great events.

To me the point is that Paris is famous so we can hate her, and, it could well be arguable that it would be preferable to ignore her, to escape the cultural bankruptcy that means we have to take sides on the issue, but of course that is impossible. It is not being Pro-Paris that is the symptom, it is having an opinion on it at all that is the symptom. To be able to ignore it would mean one was not a part of the culture. To ignore it and remain a part of the culture would be the most elitist thing of all. “I am above all that”, “elitist precisely in the sense that it consists in a demonstrating of one's superiority to the plebeian masses”. The masses didn't buy the record because the masses hate Paris Hilton (did you see the figures for the amount of people who thought Paris should rot in hell for all eternity? Upwards of 90%), not because of any judgement on the worth of the CD. So many other mediocre things manage to sell really, really, well, it was Paris herself who prevented this CD from selling.

It is interesting that in Paris's Confessions of an heiress she exhorts us to release our inner heiress (which reminds me of Goldblade's “Live like a millionaire when you're still on the dole”), interesting in the contest of this passage of K-punk's piece:

The problem is Hilton isn't aristocratic enough; isn't sufficiently artificial or invested in artificiality; isn't a weaver of opulent fantasies. Compare Hilton to the artistry of the working class-born Kate Moss - Moss, whose life may well be as boringly hedonistic as Hilton's, but who as an artist (and it is only misogynistic prejudice that maintains that modelling cannot be artistry) cultivates an opacity-without-depth, the fascinating distance of the object that gazes. Working class fantasies about the wealthy are far more interesting than the reality (as Bryan Ferry long ago found out, to his cost.) And if there is a leftist moral to be drawn from the Hilton phenonemon it is this: that the lives of rich people are not interesting.

Unleash your inner heiress.

So it is not out of elitism that I defend Paris. It is because one has to take sides. And the anti-Paris side is even more with cultural bankruptcy than the pro-Paris side. The anti-Paris side is the lynch mob, the triumphalism of the sanctimonious, the smugness of the hypocrite. And I know which side i'm on.

Having said that, i do agree that a “Free Paris” campaign is ridiculous – and now I get to post that stupid photo again, and I might as well link to yesterday's Pirate post as well.

Black eyes

Saw this article in the Daily Star Sunday. The website is such a nightmare that I can't possibly find the link to the actual online article (should it exist at all), so I'll just quote from it, it's about artists who are playing Live Earth:

Also playing are the Black Eyed Peas and the Pussycat Dolls, who were both happy to take corporate cash when they joined last years Honda Civic Tour.
Black Eyed Pea will.I.am gushed then "It's all coming back to little dreams that you had when you were younger. I remember we would always have to take the bus because we didn't have cars and I remember saying I can't wait to get a civic."

Oh yeah. He some whore. He didn't dream of being a popstar, he dream of owning a civic?!?

Avril has been watching BB and is loving the Twins? Really?

So, at about the 1:40 mark of this interview with Avril Lavigne and Lil Mama, Avril starts getting really excited about the colour pink. Coincidence? I think not. Bizarre? Oh yeah.

No. I'm not obsessed.

I've just spent ages trying to embed the video of this "event" onto my blog, but can't work out how to do it, and every time i go to the page it puts an advert in front of it and it's getting so annoying that i'm just linking to the page that tells you the story behind the video. You can get to the video from there.

It's that easy.

Anyhows.

It's not so much the stupidity of the first bit of the video, tho stupid it of course is, it's more the second half, where he tries to mime to Gnarls Barkley but hasn't even learnt the words, just singing the last word or two of every line.

Good grief

with friends like this etc.

Strange brew

Just seen this picture and couldn't resist posting it.

Not only is "the duchess" sending letters to Paris, she's also hanging with 50 cent?!

(puts on Perez tone (and note I should again (if bothered) put some perez style drawing on here))

What's with the hand holding?! I SMELL ROMANCE!? (Not really, obviously, he says, removing Perez tone because it's making him feel dirty)

Woman Doesn't Exist

So proof, if proof were needed, of this thesis. Liam gets the money because he's true and simple and genuine and really deserves it. Yawn. And the twins are invisible.

If I was Perez Hilton I would, and frankly I'm sooooooo tempted, put a picture here of Liam and draw something insulting on it.

No.

If I had more time I would.

But I'm kind of busy this morning.

It's Christmas Time

Just seen this "interview" with Avril where she suggests that she might do a Christmas album. I mean, the headline is "Avril May Record Christmas CD". And that would be cool, I do like a good Christmas CD, the Dipset One brightened up last Christmas no end.

But.

When you actually read the article it basically amounts to "hey, i'll do what I like now i'm kind of successful, wouldn't mind a bit of acting, that would be cool, and like wow, how cool would a christmas cd be, all traditional tunes and shit. Love it!"

So don't hold yr breath.

With Friends like this...

Oh my.

The Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, has sent a letter of support to Paris Hilton.

The pair have met previously at showbiz parties and the Royal decided to offer her sympathy to Hilton during her stay in jail.

A friend of Ferguson told American magazine People that the Duchess understood the heiress's problems.

She commented: "She knows that you hit obstacles in life and that you can pull out of them."

The Duchess also offered "support and strength, from one mother to another" to Kathy Hilton when they met at a Beverly Hills restaurant, the source added.

Ferguson said she "hopes that some good will come of it, and this is what [she] told them".

Hilton, jailed for a breach of probation conditions, is due to be released on June 25.

Better late than...

Saw two good posts yesterday on why it's wrong to hate Paris. Which seemed like a good excuse to post this photo.

GO!

The new Go! Team video:





Neither the song nor the video are anything like a departure from the first album, but hey... is that a bad thing?

A Northern Soul

Isn't the difference between Liam and the twins striking?

What do I mean by this?

Liam, a simple Northern lad. No complications. He just is.

The twins. Duplicitous, playing at simplicity. They are not.

Do we not have a very clear illustration of Lacan's "Woman doesn't exist"?

Which is to say, Liam, as a man, is allowed to be himself and nothing more. Of course he has slotted straight into the stereotypical role of the simple Northerner, the predestined role I should say, but it is allowed that he corresponds to this - he is himself. The twins however do not exist. The only way their being can be comprehended is for their fellow housemates to fit them into some role. This, of course, fits perfectly with Lacan's notion - there is no Woman, only a mother, a whore, etc. The twins refusal to fit into this confuses.

Jonathan's reaction to them illustrates this perfectly. He attempts to fit them into his own symbolic universe by equating their being to money. They are "marketable" and they "know it". The twins, in a moment of genius, give him his meaning back by, in the game of truth or dare, asking him what his bank balance is. His interest in them shown for what it is: an interest in money.

And the twins remain an enigma.

Coming on Like Jon Bon (Jovi)

You wait weeks for a post on Avril Lavigne and then two come along at once.

Here's the video for her new single, "When You're Gone".





It's like some mid 90's soft rock video crossed with Christina Aguillera's "Beautiful" video.
Which i'm fairly sure isn't a good thing.

A post about Avril Lavigne? Really?

It's been a while since I posted about Avril Lavigne, but hey, who cares really?

Anyway just found this site which has like 5 covers by Avril Lavigne including a not bad cover of Metallica's Fuel, a dreadful cover of System of A Down's Chop Suey (tho to be fair it sounds like it might have been a bit of a joke), and some take-it-or-leave-it covers of Green Day and Blink 182. I'd leave it, probably.

Just read this report which includes this rather bizarre sentence:

Washington, Europe and Israel prepared to throw open the taps on financial aid to Abbas that was cut off a year ago when Iranian-backed Hamas used its popularity in impoverished Gaza to defeat Abbas's Fatah faction in a parliamentary election.

Used popularity? In an election? How very evil of them.

Check out the humorous photos here.

The World Turned Upside Down

Two things.

Firstly, saw this link on Boing Boing. It contains the classic sentence (also quoted on Boing Boing):

“Our law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned,” NBC/Universal general counsel Rick Cotton said. “If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year.”

And i think this must deserve some sort of award for most perverse name for an anti-piracy campaign ever:

Cotton is spearheading the new effort, christened the “Campaign to Protect America,” as chairman of the newly formed Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy.

Protect America?! It occurs to me he missed a perfect opportunity to suggest that instead of wasting money in Iraq troops should be pulled out and sent onto the streets of America to protect America from pirates. Probably didn't want to piss off Bush.

And secondly this story:

Contenders for the Labour deputy leader job have dismissed concerns that the party has been lurching to the left.

Concerns? Whose concerned? Aren't we all to busy wondering how far right they're going to manage to go?

THe good lord save us from Soul

Recently read a review somewhere (really can't remember, and it's not important enough to actually hunt down to link to) of a Fujiya + [why won't blogger allow the use of the ampersand?] Miyagi live show in which they were criticised for being somehow not ... soulful enough. As if they were trying to be and had fallen short. The review led me to go and listen to Transparent Things again, just to see if I had completely misunderstood them. And I'm fairly sure I haven't. Are they trying to be “soulful”?

No, I didn't think so.

Anyway, I think it raises some interesting questions about authenticity. My whole project is to try and find a way to define “selling out” without recourse to bullshit notions about authenticity. And don't Fujiya + Miyagi fit into this project? They are playing with notions of authenticity to destroy their worth. The name, completely ill-fitting to the group. The sound, unabashed Neu! The lyrics, rooted firmly in the mundane, in the everyday. And yet they move still. Isn't Cylinder a great lovesong (the repitition of “I read your starsign before my own” towards the end being utterly moving without the need for histrionics) and all the better for its restraint?

And isn't Soul intricately caught up in selling out anyway. And isn't the problem the belief that a personal authenticity allows for selling out. I believe in my own authenticity and nothing outside of me can harm that therefore I have every right to sell out.

The Knowledge Takes Hold

Already it takes hold, just read this:

Carole and Nicky have vented their anger towards the twins over what they thought was selfish behaviour.

Nicky called the twins "very selfish" and Carole agreed, reminding her about how Amanda demanded dumplings immediately after a meal. "They should try living in Africa," Nicky commented. "They're lucky to have a dinner never mind a dessert."

Carole said that the girls were learning, but Nicky disagreed, saying: "They get a meal put on the table in front of them and they haven't got a clue about the work that goes into it." Carole replied: "They take and take and take."

Carole said the only way to solve the problem would be to tell them off whenever they act selfishly. Nicky said she was worried that it will just make her seem like a bad person as no one else confronts Sam and Amanda. Nicky explained: "I feel I can't say anything to them because they'll misconstrue me being nasty because that's what they do."

Of course Nicky and Carole love being the cook and cleaner really and all this type of talk is just a way for them to demonstrate how important they are. But there is still a breaking of the taboo about slagging off the twins, as they themselves point out. This is the knowledge working its magic. The twins nomination as "entertainers" has placed them in a position in the house that they did not have before, they were in the house but never fully placed there. Now, of course, they are.

The twins and their doubles

Amanda and Sam, the Big Brother twins, are remarkable for their absolute ... emptiness. Perhaps this is the wrong word, I mean simply that they have a lack of self-awareness from which to act, they act, they do not think about why they act. This is remarkable because it goes against the norm for just about every Big Brother contestant ever (Brian from season 2 being an exception that springs to mind). They all sit around telling us how they are being real, being true to themselves etc., and they act only in the light of this, thus completely ruining their ability to act "real". (As I type this BBLB is currently discussing how they can't understand what the twins are saying, which I guess demonstrates my thesis).

Then in walks Gerry. Gerry introduces Lacan's discourse of the university, "behind all attempts at to impart an apparently 'neutral' knowledge to the other can always be located an attempt at mastery (mastery of knowledge and domination of the other to who the knowledge is imparted)". And what does he do? He immediately makes the twins aware of their position in the house. They are no longer just there to have fun, they are "there to have fun", they are there to entertain the others, this is now their assumed role, no longer just "the way they are".

All the talk of innocence demonstrates Gerry's desire to use knowledge as a type of mastery. He belittles them as he tells them how great they are. He denies them any knowledge other than that which he imparts to them as Solomon.

Thus enjoyment for the twins must become a sort of burden...

Big Brother off its Head

Just watched Big Brother On the Couch for the first time. How dreadful?

1) Why get Davina to present it of all people? Is it some sort of joke, some sort of warning to us all? Here's Davina, who obviously knows every law of body language, she can "do" listening so well, and yet she obviously listens to nothing. Her every mannerism screams correctness from a psychological point of view, but is wrong in every other way. Her body can no longer "do" real.

2) How many times can they get Davina to say "Let's take a look"? It must have been at least 30 in an hour show. Think of a different way to introduce clips. Please.

3) Why does every Psychologist talk such bullshit. Lesley's power demonstrated by the way she eats a banana? Surely the very opposite is demonstrated? She sits behind the banana with her knife and fork precisely because she is trying to hide her impotence. Seany pulling off her duvet (which they of course show without comment straight after talking about her power), demonstrated that her parade of power was completely empty. And so she could not stay in the house a moment longer. The emperor was naked.

4) The meeting rule which turned out to be a) repetitive (the reason for the meeting seemed to be listed in 3 of 5 categories) b) meaningless, as the rules for running a good meeting turned out to be powerless in the face of the ... drama triangle!? Good grief.

5) There was no context given for anything. Wasn't the way they integrated the psychology into a normal show in previous series far better, not only contextualized but also allowing you to pretty much ignore it.

6 Why Davina?! Why. Why. Why.

Paris Hilton acting cute

"I used to act dumb. ... That act is no longer cute," ABC quoted Hilton as saying

It is interesting, considering the media circus of the last few days, that Paris still thinks she has some sort of control over her image. Hasn't it always been obvious that she was merely acting at being the stupid blond? But this obviousness has never stopped the media labeling her as such anyway. Just dropping the act will have no effect on the situation whatsoever. It will presumably only make it worse, given that if she says she's acting serious any act of even slight dumbness will be taken as the funniest thing since...

Paris Hilton is pretty funny

I love the bit of Paris Hilton's new statement which says she doesn't understand the press coverage of her prison "troubles":

"I must also say that I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials. I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things like the men and women serving our country in Iraq and other places around the world."

And I found this pretty funny as well:

Some were at the courthouse were there for other matters, but were ready with an opinion. Moses Baltazar was there to clear up a traffic ticket.

He acknowledged he was not a fan of Hilton, saying he was working as a valet the only time he met her. She tipped him just a dollar after he went to the trouble of keeping paparazzi away from her.

Baltazar felt Hilton should be returned to jail.

"Driving like that, you have to behave," said Baltazar, 20. "If you're rich, you have money, you have to respect yourself."

At least this guy's honest with his reasons...

Justice?

As a corrective to my Free Paris posts I'm posting this story:

Washington, DC: A 27-year-old quadriplegic man sentenced to serve ten days in a Washington, DC jail on charges that he possessed a minor amount of marijuana died while in custody last week due to inadequate health care, including prison officials' failure to provide him with a ventilator.

The victim, Jonathan Magbie, had been paralyzed from the neck down since the age of four, was unable to breath on his own, and required nursing care 20 hours a day.

Magbie was sentenced to spend ten days in jail on September 20, 2004 after pleading guilty to one charge of marijuana possession. Though prosecutors had recommended probation, the judge in the case ordered Magbie to serve jail time - noting that the defendant had told pre-sentence investigators that he would continue using marijuana because it made him feel better.

NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup called Magbie's death "one of the most tragic results of marijuana prohibition I have witnessed in the 35-year history of the organization."

He concluded: "Although Jonathan Magbie died from causes currently under investigation, it is clear that his death was the result of the overly punitive laws criminalizing the use and possession of marijuana. There is little doubt that were it not for marijuana prohibition, Jonathan Magbie would still be alive today. He did not deserve to die for smoking marijuana."

As if we need reminding about the inadequacies of American justice.

But is forcing Paris back to jail really serving justice, or is it serving the interests of the popular press. Isn't it actually a way to avoid changing anything: "Look, we've sent Paris to jail, our system works! Now, move on".

Paris Hilton Update

How depressing is this picture and what exactly does staging this whole circus serve

Big BRO II

Just a few thoughts on the whole Emily/racism thing.

I was reminded of the Freud Borrowed Kettle thing when Emily was explaining to Big Brother why she said it: I know it can be offensive but I didn't mean it like that. And anyway it's not offensive anymore. And even if it is everyone says it.

The whole Hip-Hop culture thing (which was used in the article I linked to yesterday as well) seems to be overly simplistic. It ignores the fact that there's a debate within Hip-Hop about whether it's a suitable word to use ever. I used to know someone who would use it in this way and he couldn't see the problem with it. His argument was, “Racism doesn't exist, therefore it is now acceptable to use the word”, which perhaps shows the ignorance behind a certain type of privileged white middle class teenager, which, like Emily, this person was (and I might just add here that this is taken to the extreme end of privilege when we get to the video showing Paris Hilton making racist remarks). The interesting thing was that this lad was a complete racist, he'd deny it, but in the sort of I'm definitely not a racist but ... way. So, his use of the word was a defence against his own racism, I'm using this word, therefore I'm not a racist, because if I was, I wouldn't be able to use the word in this Hip-Hop way.

It demonstrates well (and this is one of the reasons I love Big Brother: because it so often does this type of thing) the impotence of the individual in the face of language (and more generally): the situation is always bigger than the individual, the individual can only watch her fate unfold.

And the other thing, which I've seen referred to in different places as well, is the fact that Jade Goody and Danielle Lloyd haven't become the pariahs everyone said they would be. They're always in the celeb papers etc. This is interesting mainly because it demonstrates how offence no longer means anything. We no longer actually feel offended, we simply act being offended, sometimes raising it to the level of outrage, but then when we have our way... ach, who cares really.

Why must they persecute the Beautiful?

They're dragging out the Paris in/out of prison thing aren't they, surely it's tantamount to mental torture? As such it should be considered "cruel and unusual". Shouldn't it?

New York civil liberties lawyer E Christopher Murray said house arrest was a more appropriate sentence for a celebrity.

"Sentencing Paris to jail for an extended period of time was an example of a celebrity being treated more harshly than an average person," he said.

Yes indeed.

Big BRO

So Emily's gone for using a racist term. Don't want to comment fully so early, without seeing it etc. but I think this article takes a pretty good view of it. I note channel 4 is extending its big brother coverage on Channel 4. Expecting more viewers etc. I like the comment that one racist term is treated more seriously than a concerted attack of racist bullying was in the celeb version.

All Apologies

Just what is the point of this apology:

Lindsay Lohan's "knife pal" Vanessa Minnillo regrets her behavior with the young star, according to reports.

... Minnillo, who is now dating pop star Nick Lachey, is allegedly ashamed by her behavior, which took place after a night out at New York club Bungalow 8.

A source tells Us Weekly, "(Minnillo) got caught up in the moment and thought it would be fun.

"It was stupid and she regrets it. They were only fooling around."

She got caught up in the moment? Isn't that pretty much what fun is?

Ummm Coffee

I always just buy whatever coffee's on offer, i'm not that fussy, so anyway, today I got some Kenco Sustainable Development. And it occured to me: just how lazy are these people? They can't even be bothered to dress up the cynicism behind the product, as if one coffee out of your whole range is gonna change anything, as if it's not just an attempt to get something out of a (growing) niche market. It's like their other coffee's all have names describing their (always lovely) flavour, Really Rich and the other ones whose names escape me. What exactly does Sustainable Development taste of?

Smugness, no doubt.

Paris Avec Avril

Two strands of thought can be ascertained in the juxtaposition of Avril and Paris mentioned in the last post:

Firstly there is Paris the photographers darling never missing a photo op vs Avril who appears in so many photos sticking her middle finger up to the (or even spitting at) the camera. The juxtaposition of the two demonstrates that there is absolutely no difference between the two positions. Paris gets slagged off for always being photographed, Avril gets slagged of for her anti-media attitude, but both generate column inches because of there continuous presence in front of the camera. In the same way we identified Avril's first two albums as being attempts to escape the binary opposition of artist/sell-out and her third as regressing back to some acting out of 'rebel', so, in her reaction to photographers, do we see that she has failed here too and is horribly immersed in this logic as much as Paris.

Secondly we are of course drawn to comparisons between their albums. Is the logic as simple: do we see that Avril's regression makes her last album apiece with Paris? Where as her first two break away? I'm not sure it's that simple. It must be stated that the reception of Paris was completely out of kilter with its content. Not that I would argue that it is a brilliant album (I would argue that it is adequate on the whole, with a couple of really good tracks (so much better than Kingston Town anyway)), but that the fact that it is a Paris Hilton album meant that it would never be taken on its own terms. This point is of course completely obvious but at the same time it is necessary to make it explicit because so much of the reaction to the album focused more on Paris Hilton's failings than on Paris' failings. And it is this duality which Avril Lavigne is constantly trying to escape on her first two albums: is it possible to combine being Avril with being “Avril”? It is a question that was never resolve and on the third album we have a complete immersion in being “Avril”. In way it is a mirror image to the Paris trajectory. Paris becomes “Paris” and her first album is created and consequently received as such; Avril fights “Avril”, but eventually becomes what she always was on her third album, which is to say that the first two albums were received less on their content than on the rebel-skater-punk which “Avril” always was outwardly but which on The Best Damn Thing she becomes artistically. In both cases there is no escaping the extimacy of identity.

Birds of a feather

I don't want this blog to become some sort of blindly-celeb-obsessed-thing, however, in this instance I think it necessary to post this story. Avril and Paris together. I knew it had to happen! Now I just have to think through the politics of it...

Sarah who?

This video is ridiculous:


I'm not going to get all defensive about Paris ... again ... but the joke actually doesn't work in any way. Does it?

to make her feel more comfortable in prison, the guards are going to paint the bars to look like penises ... I just worry that she's going to break her teeth on those things

Since when did prison bars look remotely phallic?



And what? she's going to go in sideways at a great velocity? Has Sarah Silverman ever sucked the cock... ?!

Save the Twins, Save the House

(Why am I wasting this title before they come up for eviction? Sod it. I'll just use it for every twin post and pretend it's a series...)

Read this article in The Sunday Times. It's rubbish. I mean, it even references this Daily Mail story as a source, and its not like its a good Daily Mail story, its just the usual rubbish, as if writing about how shocked you are at everything actually makes what you are writing about shocking. But I don't want to go too much into The Sunday Times story's idiocy and dismantle it, I just wanted to pick up on this point:

But, as the cast of the latest BB demonstrated in horrific detail, it is not just the audience that has been invented, it is the protagonists. People like this did not exist before BB with its penumbra of celebrity culture was born.

The (literally) bottomless, shrieking, preverbal twins Sam and Amanda only look, sound and act like that because they have been taught to do so. They have been told that this is what you should do – it is what you must do – if you are young and pretty. In another time, another place, another culture, they would have been different people with different aspirations. The rest of the cast ranges from the pathetic to the brutal, all are inventions.

Firstly, “(literally) bottomless”?????? Bryan Appleyard likes the big booty? In an otherwise OUTRAGED article this information seems ... superfluous.

But my primary point is that of all the contestants to chose to illustrate his point why on earth chose the twins? The twins initial reaction to being in the house and their subsequent behaviour seem completely different to the usual Big Brother contestant reaction. There's was a reaction borne out of joy, excitement, naivety. The usual reaction is more akin to Charley's and Shabnam's and it's a detached excitement. An excitement borne from cynicism: “yes, this is Big Brother and of course I'm excited but it's what happens afterwards that I really want. Bring it on!” It's a constantly deferred excitement. The proper Big Brother reaction is to sit round and tell everyone how real you are being without ever actually being. The proper Big Brother reaction is to sit round and talk about how you are sick of superficial conversation but never have any other conversation. The natural state of Big Brother is this mix of cynicism and deferment. The twins (and again I should say “from what I've seen”, I've not been able to catch as much live feed as I might have liked) seem to be the opposite, and in this sense they may well be “preverbal”, or at least, if we are arguing for the normality of deferment, they are “now”. And this can only be a good thing.

The problem with this is at which point does this stop being the way they “are” and become the way they “act”? And isn't this the eternal question that Appleyard should be concentrating on, rather than slagging off teen girls because their arses aren't to his taste?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Paul McCartney brands Big Brother boring:

Music legend Paul McCartney has hit out at 'Big Brother', branding the show a "celebration of mediocrity".

When asked if he watched the show on Xfm radio, 64-year-old McCartney said: "No, I studiously avoid 'Big Brother'. I avoid it."

"I'm against the celebration of mediocrity. I'm sorry about that world because I know everyone loves it and loves to watch mediocre people."

"I just don't like all that stuff I'm afraid. It's really boring. I'd rather go round and see someone rather than sit in the corner and watch them," McCartney said.

"It's cos we're real," replied Charley.

To bring my Big Brother obsession back to the (main) point of this blog I was reading the news on the BB website and came across the line in the title:

"It's cos we're real," replied Charley.

And I was reminded that people on Big Brother are obsessed with being Real. The amount of conversations every year on the subject of being real or being fake should be considered in the light of Adorno's comments quoted in one of our Mirror Stage posts: ‘those who are so utterly compliant with the expected behaviour that they can even simulate the signs of resistance spontaneously precisely because they no longer feel such resistance in themselves’. They can suggest they are in someway real, against the fakeness of the other housemates and, perhaps more importantly, the (apparent) unreality of the house, simply because they have fully accepted the order that is imposed by the house. That is to say, they, in their realness, are acting (within a day) like exactly every other housemate who has ever been in the house. Their reality, which they see as being resistant is a sure sign that they have given themselves up to the house.

One could also note here the way Tracey said she didn't wear make-up because she is just Tracey, she doesn't need to hide herself, take her as she comes (The emphasis she placed on being Tracey is of course missing here and perhaps loses the point about all the other people named Tracey). Of course one has also to mention Shabnam's brilliant riposte of "Well? What's that in your hair?", she could have also asked about the piercing in her lip...