I don't claim that these are the only good responses and analyses of the London Underground attacks, or that they're definitive in any way (in fact I think people should lay off the speculation and the name calling, with the drawing of conclusions and the unveiling of the way forward until we get more information about who exactly did it and how; but fat chance of that ever happening, right?), instead, I liked them, for whatever reason; their pessimism, optimism, cynicism, more-than-a-little-bizarre ranting (Ach McLeod, ye daft Scots basterd) and so on.
First, Billmon's reaction, which is more than a little cynical, but as far as he predicted the reactions and commentary of pundits and commentators he's spot on.
Though perhaps he couldn't have predicted this disgusting and revealing insight into what qualifications you need to be a TV pundit. In Brit Hume's case it appears you just need to be incredibly insensitive, callous and just plain freakin' stupid. Yeesh! Stock picks...
Fareed Zakaria's article is probably one of the more interesting and insiqhtful analyses of what the attacks are likely to mean; at least compared to a lot of the reactions and recriminations right and left.
As a final word, in light of all the usual clueless "Blair is now pay the price for the war on Iraq, I told you so I told you so neenerr neener" and"This clearly shows that we are winning the war on Terror and must stay the course in Iraq to secure final victory and reclaim our soverignty over Moon-cheese from the Tungstenoid* menace!" post-bombing pontification, I thought I'd drag out this old warhorse, which is more pertinent than ever given the increased polarisation and general partisan stupidity that makes up most of the 'debates' about 'Iraq' and 'terrorism' on the 'internet', 'these days'.
*Can I just mention this is the first time the world 'Tungstenoid' has been used on the internet, ever? Obviously our complacent liberal democracies have been too self-absorbed and 'soft' to take heed of the threat posed by these cold-hearted ruthless mineraloids to our cherished values, our very way of life! Truly, now more than ever this proves that my politics are the only valid way of thinking and that to consider any other explanation or even question the existence of these metallic fiends is objectively pro-Tungstenoid and therefore treason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
えうwhぃ右派言うrh絵hg；いるgh；IU:絵う：g9うrg；累hゥワウイワgrグイ
Why indeed? I'm glad you asked this question because It's been troubling me for some time!
You see, while I can agree that, to a certain extent, the Matrix had aesthetic value - especially WRT effects, atmosphere etc - it's supposedly 'mindblowing' content was largely appropriated from earlier films like Total Recall and Ghost in the Shell, right down to the scrolling text in the case of the latter.
This isn't bad in itself, but what made the Trilogy so disappoint was the way in which it completely fell apart after the first movie, failing to carry on the concepts and atmosphere it had so sucessfully championed. Paradox and multiplicity of reality were pushed to a side in favor of albino Swedish Rastafarian wraiths and lots of explosioning.
What had been a fairly challenging and inventive action/thriller just got stupid real fast. I didn't see the final one at all just because dude, all that stuff about the nature of reality and destiny and perception and what? It ends in a punch up?
I once saw some of the TV series of Total Recall. It was pretty damn good, from what I saw. Although it clearly owed a lot more to the movie of Bladerunner than that of Total Recall.
Post a Comment