Clicking in the name of!

So it’s happened. Rage Against The Machine, ironically enough, have proven the power of social networking to the remaining anti-techs out there, and it has real power. Last year we saw Barack Obama successfully highlight that the internet generally, and social networking specifically can be used to enhance a political campaign, he used it to: build a support network, raise money and target where his volunteers should canvass. This momentous achievement of new technology, helping in such a fundamental way to put the first black president in the White House was largely missed by most of the mainstream media; however Simon Cowell’s X-Factor act missing out on the Christmas number one - this is an achievement that cannot be ignored by our celebrity obsessed ‘news’ outlets.


It is a truly surprising outcome and a parable for our brave new world that husband and wife, Jon and Tracy Morter, could from the comfort of their own home, using the social networking site Facebook, topple the four year monopoly that the X-Factor has enjoyed over the Christmas number one slot. The LA rockers', Killing in the name of, has set two records: the most downloads registered in a single week, and the first song to peak the charts solely on download sales alone.

There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the demise of the Christmas number one over recent years, let’s be realistic, I can count the number of festive hits that had any artistic merit during my lifetime on one hand.


As a Rage Against The Machine fan, I’m ecstatic about their signature tune being so prominent once more, however the number of people who have commented that it is just a foul tirade of expletives have annoyed me. I would like to highlight the songs meaning for those who have dismissed it as profanity and empty angst.


The song is about powerful leaders and police officers being institutionally racist, many of them being members of the insidious Klu Klux Klan, it goes on to tell us that those in power manipulate and control what we think about them, i.e. ‘all police officers are heroes’, that in our society it seems justifiable for the police to kill, or to brutalise people from minorities in the name of the law, and that we moronically honour slain racist police officers. The line “Killing in the name of” therefore has two meanings: it is the murder of a black person by a racist cop, and that cop getting his just desserts in retaliation. “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” is a rallying call to black minorities to stand up to racist police and to fight back, rebel against and to defy corrupt oppressive authority.


Killing in the name of may not be a jolly festive tune, but for the first time in a great many years a song has topped the chart which has a powerful message, great guitar riffs, and soul. We have caught a glimpse of the future power of social networking and happily we have learnt that Simon Cowell can’t always polish a turd, giving us a superbly surprising end to the otherwise dull and culturally vacuous year that was 2009. Happy Christmas!

Copenhagen, another Kyoto cop out?

It appears that as I write some sort of face saving fudge has been reached at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. A US spokesman is reported by the BBC to claim “a historic step forward” after an agreement between the US, China, India and South Africa has been reached, adding “the deal was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future - but was an important first move.” Barack Obama describes it as a foundation for action, before adding there was “much further to go”. There is no mention in this statement of the EU, the world’s largest economic trading block, which seems a little surprising. I can only assume it’s an oversight, seeing as how Europe has led the charge on climate change for well over a decade now.



So will this “historic step” amount to anything? My suspicion is no, not really; it is another voluntary agreement, just the same as Rio and Kyoto. People will hail the fact that the US have taken part at Copenhagen, and are prepared to sign up this time. So what, would be my response; if we look at how many of the signatories to the two previous ‘agreements’ came even close to meeting their voluntary targets then we see that these conferences are utterly meaningless. They do however give our politicians the opportunity to strut on the global stage, spouting rhetoric to sure up their ‘green credentials’, whilst many will on previous evidence have no intention, whatsoever, of even attempting to implement a single commitment.


The conference build up was overshadowed by the accusations of “climategate”, where scientists from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were reputed to have suppressed evidence that there was a levelling out in the rising temperature trends over the last decade. This was followed by the Russians accusing the Met Office of “cherry picking” the weather station data from across their country in order to enhance the case for warming. The Met Office strenuously denies this charge and they say they choose a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe.


Who knows what the truth is; the mysterious thing to me over the last decade has been the idea that most people are quite happy to accept those scientists who are sceptical to be naturally corrupt and in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby, like modern day Dr Mengeles. At the same time there is a bizarre assumption that those meteorologists who agree with a warming hypothesis are beyond reproach, neutral and impartial; like some sort of noble Victorian gentleman scientist. Modern science is an expensive business, and regardless of what side of an argument a scientist finds himself on, he is funded by someone or other. In the vast majority of cases, because they have a vested interest in that research supporting their view, this will sometimes deliberately and often subconsciously impact the findings of that research.


On this basis; I like everyone else, assume the sceptics look to ‘find’ evidence which highlights their hypothesis, but I also assume the non sceptics (for want of a better term) are equally as biased as their counterparts. This is true in many other fields of science, so why people think it should be different in the field of climatic research a mystery; as such I wasn’t remotely surprised to hear of alleged ‘selection’ by the Climate Research Unit.


Incidentally I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the growing use of ‘totalistic’ language employed by green activists over the last few years; sceptics are painted as ‘climate change deniers’ which is quite frankly offensive, and mere climate change is no longer serious enough, it has to be ‘disastrous’ or ‘catastrophic’. This seems to be the language of a cult to me, where any dissent is no longer tolerated; there can be no other view or challenge to ‘consensuses’. These characteristics are counterproductive to the argument and will turn people off from the problem; hence 46% of people in the UK are supposedly sceptical of manmade climate change, according to a recent ICM survey.


I think that the case for Global Warming is now highly established and that pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is clearly effecting that process, however I also realise that those with the most to lose, should we try to reduce emissions are some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. The latter are the voices that global politicians hear, not ours; it doesn’t matter how hysterical the green movement becomes, they will stop using fossil fuels when they run out and not a second sooner. Sad, but unfortunately true, you may charge me with being too cynical, but I would suggest it is a realistic assumption based on history and human nature.

Straw Dogs

I once used to know a guy who would smoke pot and philosophise on the meaning of life, ponder the depths of the universe and question the very fabric of reality; he would then conclude that life is just a dream, we are merely creations of our own imaginations and that everything is just a shadow of an otherwise empty reality. To this we would politely listen, gravely nod and turn up Pink Floyd or Dire Straits and bring the conversation back to shallower subjects; such as football and pretty girls.


After reading John Gray’s ‘Straw Dogs: Thoughts on humans and other animals’ I am beginning to think he may have been on to something all those years ago. I had always dismissed this school of thought as a product of age. Too old to blithely live an existence in blind ignorance, though not yet old enough to have any real control or means of affecting that life, thus creating a nihilistic view of a cruel and ultimately empty world. John Gray poses a similar outlook, however coming from the Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, he is a little more difficult to dismiss than my pot smoking friend from yesteryear.


As an atheist my hopes were firmly based in a vaguely humanist/secularist philosophy; man would through progress and science, eventually arrive in a place of peace and prosperity. All would be equal, hunger vanquished, superstitions quelled by knowledge. Or at least things would inevitably get a little bit better over time at any rate. According to Gray, this is just as starry eyed as belief in a deity, and is in fact a relic of Christian logic, as are many tenets of Enlightenment thought.


This book will be somewhat of an anathema to those who were laboring in the belief that humankind is somehow special, different or set aside from the rest of nature; we are neither the masters of our destiny nor the controllers of our fate. We are simply animals like any other, locked into our automatic waking dreams. It would seem, if we accept Gray’s extremely skeptical philosophy, then we must accept that our lives are just a by-product of genetics, most of what we perceive are illusions created by our brains and the ultimate end is that there is no purpose or point to our lives; there are no happy endings in this book!


I thoroughly enjoyed reading ‘Straw Dogs’ and found its assertion that humanism is no more based on reality than any of our more mystical beliefs insightful. Some of Gray’s arguments are weaker than others and he is generally lacking in any attempt at substantiation, though the logic is at times convincing.


On the whole it’s a good read if not an uplifting experience.

Flavor of Love

My current regime of weekend nightshifts at the garage and days during the week at uni has left me with a somewhat erratic body clock; it’s like being perpetually jet lagged without all the bother of actually travelling anywhere. I can sometimes lurch into wakefulness in the wee hours and I have found a more modern version of counting sheep.



All I have to do is flick on MTV and there is the perfect mind numbing antidote, TV programmes that don’t require any of my brains higher functions, just the brain stem, that relic of our reptile ancestry is stimulated, keeping me breathing whilst I’m dimly aware of colours passing before my eyes and garbled nonsensical sounds wash over me; before I know it I’m back into a much more convincing version of reality.


A couple of nights ago however, I was startled back into alertness by a show that makes the rest of MTV’s American celeb-reality formats look sane by comparison – I had stumbled upon the arrestingly bizarre ‘Flavor of Love’. This is the happy tale of Flavor Flav, the front man of Public Enemy, who is on a quest to find ‘true’ love. Mr Flav was apparently badly burnt in his last relationship with Brigitte Nielsen, so is wary of dabbling with another famous woman. Naturally a reality show is a safer environment for Flavor to find the woman of his dreams.


Those born circa 1990 are probably wondering; who the hell are Flavor Flav and Brigitte Nielsen? Well Public Enemy were a hip hop group who allegedly made ‘politically charged’ music and the track ‘Fight the Power’ was their most famous offering. Flav also wore clocks around his neck, to which people used to say: “WOW! How like totally COOL”, for we lived in simpler and more forgiving times. Brigitte Nielsen was quite tall.


The best thing about this show are the contestants, who are the most stupid individuals on the planet; if you were to measure their collective IQs it would tally to that of an average poodle. They go on ‘dates’ with Flav and give the impression that they would do ANYTHING to win this show to capitalise on their 15 seconds of fame, including listening to Flavor’s nonsensical ramblings. I do not know if it’s because he’s meddled with too many drugs over the years or received a savage blow to the head, but with his 1000 yard stare and tourette's like mumbling, Flav does not give an impression of balance and composure.


If you get a chance to, you should watch one episode of this show for some jaw dropping comedy value; in much the same way as everyone should watch one episode of ‘Pimp My Ride UK’ to have a good laugh at the madness of Tim Westwood’s persona. Unfortunately my new accommodation doesn’t avail me with Sky in my room, so I will need to find some new sleep remedy; however I doubt I’ll see anything as monumentally insane as ‘Flavor of Love’ for quite some time.