In out, in out, you shake it (Mr Cameron) all about

The Liberal view of history is that mankind continues to progress, going from strength to strength.  There may be a few blips along the way (The Dark Ages, world wars) but the serene movement is not long delayed in resuming its course ever upwards, with people becoming more sensible and peaceable.

This concept is being tested severely during the economic crisis.  It could be argued that this is current affairs, not history but, with the growth in communications, history is speeding up.  One would have thought the current crop of politicians in the UK would be more rational than their predecessors, yet the irony is that Northern Ireland seems the most settled part of the realm.  The 2010 intake of Conservative MPs are, if anything, more ferociously anti-European than what went before.  Acolytes of Thatcher though twisting her legacy in the process, they are intent on taking Britain out of the European Union.  A letter has been sent to David Cameron demanding a referendum in the next parliament on whether the UK should remain part of the EU.  John Baron, the MP for Billericay, organised the letter. “The case for a referendum is growing by the day,” he said. “The heart and soul of the Conservative Party believes it is now time to consult the British people about this.”

This is fulsome sophistry of a dangerous kind.  Baron thinks the case for a referendum is not growing but absolute.  The heart and soul of the Conservative Party believes it is now time to withdraw the UK from association with Brussels (presumably to imitate Norway and Switzerland – international non-entities, who have to abide by EU rules though they have no say over them).  That they would use the mechanism of a referendum is merely to cloak it in democratic legitimacy.

Prejudiced they may be, the Tory MPs are not overtly foolish.  With the turbulence of the Euro, they see a golden opportunity – a once-in-their-political-lifetime chance – of taking the British people with them.  There is also still an in-built right-wing majority in the press, with the journalists at these media outlets belittling the EU at every turn – they would engage happily in an EU-phobic campaign.  It has to build up plenty of political capital on this issue in case the Leveson inquiry comes down against them.

The fact that the main benefits of the EU – no war, economic boosts (at least before the crisis) and cosmopolitan harmony – are intangible makes the EU-phobics case all the easier.  The British future lies either as a partner in a European-wide association (maybe a multi-speed one), remaining friendly with the USA or as a servant of the USA (think Puerto Rico), with frostiness towards the continental Europeans.  These are the only future options available to the country and, personally, I’d rather be a partner than a servant.

Out of intensive care

The Affordable Care Act, also derisively known as Obamacare, cleared a major hurdle when the Supreme Court narrowly decided to approve, 5-4, the main tenets of the legislation.  Conservatives were shocked that the mandate survived, they thought the main thrust would be struck down but some aspects upheld, as betrayed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demanding ‘full repeal’ (rather than repeal of a rump).  Despite the SuperPacs, it seems it is not just love that money can’t buy.

That Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Democrat-appointed judges was the big surprise.  US Conservatives are vituperative about ‘judicial activism’ (though curiously quiet when it favours them), yet this was the absolute opposite – the judges voting not to tamper with much of the act’s provisions.  Maybe Roberts is an old-style conservative who disdains the mean-spirited fanaticism of the Tea Party and here he could cock a snook at them.  Possibly he felt he owed Obama one after bungling the presidential inauguration.  Most likely, is that he reasoned he did not become the Chief Justice to meddle with the executive’s legislative programme, especially its signature law; if the electorate voted in politicians who put this act in place and are sufficiently perturbed, they can vote in politicians who will repeal it in November, was probably how he saw it.

As most of the benefits are backloaded and take effect in 2014, Barack Obama has to win the presidential race this year, to ensure that the omelette cannot be unscrambled.  The economy, if not tanking, continues to struggle and that is the most important electoral factor, so he’s trying to wrongfoot Mitt Romney on social issues as gay marriage and immigration.  There is talk of the Right being galvanised by the Supreme Court decision, but they were pretty eye-poppingly manic already.  The really crazy thing is, though it will save most Americans a good bit of money, attack ads have swung a majority against it with outright lies and a belief in some nebulous ‘freedom’ (to be selfish presumably).  One can’t criticise too harshly gullible Americans when overtly misleading advertising on the Alternative Vote pushed Britons from a majority in favour to decisively against, even when one of the ads implied that the British were too stupid to understand it (maybe it was right, after all).  The culture wars in America are not so dissimilar to those that wracked the final half-century of the Roman Republic, with progressives repeatedly battered by vested interests, the conservative Senate little realising it was signing its political death warrant, with the army eventually stepping in again and again.  We are not close to reaching that point yet in America but the polarisation of politics is symptomatic of a society widening dangerously.  Countries fall apart if the gap becomes too wide.

Will this bring about the end?

The critical move by the Syrian Air Force of shooting down a Turkish military jet could bring about full-scale war between NATO and the regime of Bashar al-Assad.  The proxy war fought between Russia - supporting the regime to the extent of sending helicopter gunships – and the West is illustrated in this incident – an American-made Phantom F-4 no doubt shot down by Russian-built MiGs.  It also highlights the paranoia of Damascus; if someone is violating your airspace (if indeed it was Syrian airspace) you ask it to leave, you don’t blow it out of the sky.  Two salient questions arise that need to answered so as to determine whether Turkey now does invade, are (a) was the Phantom in international or Syrian airspace and (b) was a warning given to the pilots of the Phantom before the firing?

I have no doubt that if Turkey makes war, pursues this aggressively and NATO throws its full weight behind its easternmost member, the Assad regime will fall swiftly, probably in a palace coup by its own military.  If Turkey contents to set up safe havens or buffer zones along its border, then the Assad and his cronies may still limp on for a few more months, even into next year.

There are similarities with the overthrow of Idi Amin.  The Ugandan megalomaniac accused Tanzanian president Julius Nyere of sheltering army mutineers and took military action inside Tanzania (even annexing part of it).  A furious Nyere mobilised his troops, drove out the Ugandans and pursued them into the capital of Kampala, from where Amin fled.  The big difference is that where the Libyans supplied the weapons to a mass-murdering government in 1979 to defend itself, in 2012 they are selling weapons to the Free Syrian Army through the offices and purchasing power of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.  Also, the House of Saud would never offer asylum to the Assad family.

The Arabian monarchies and emirates have no care for democracy but they see a valuable opportunity to weaken the influence of Iran (active in Syria against the rebels).  What the West fears most though is a power vacuum that could serve as a base for anti-Western militants.  The Assad despotism may collapse quickly but then what?  It’s easy to break something – it’s a lot harder to piece it back together.

The game that changed the world?

When it comes to matters of life and death, despite Bill Shankly’s quip, football pales into significance.  But games can change things.  Following England’s World Cup win in 1966, Prime Minister cynically and opportunistically called a general election, which his Labour Party promptly won, allegedly on the feel-good factor that the population had about the status quo.  In another case, football has caused war (though there were underlying factors too), when after a dubiously officiated World Cup qualifier in 1969, El Salvador launched an attack on Honduras, home of the victorious team.  The conflict lasted four days before cease-fire was enacted, though it took another eleven years until a peace treaty between the two was signed.  There was talk in 2002 that if the Serbian-Montenegrin team won the World Cup (not beyond the bounds of possibility), the union between the two nations might be preserved out of a shared patriotism.

Now, against the odds, Greece has progressed to the quarter-finals of the European Championships after they beat Russia to do so.  Prior to Saturday’s game, the Greeks looked out of it, with one point from their first two games and Russia looking formidable.  The next day was the Greek general election, in which the centre-right, pro-bail out New Democracy won the biggest share of the vote (and got a turbo-charged extra 50 parliamentary seats for finishing first), though for the last two weeks it seemed the left-wing, anti-bail out Syrzia bloc was sure to top the polls.  Did the jubilation at beating Russia and progressing in the competition translate into a certain tolerance for the bail out conditions? 

The poem that starts with “for the sake of a nail” and ending up with the kingdom being lost is applicable here.  Had more Greeks than any other cast their ballot for Syrzia, Greece could have been forced out of the Euro, pressures on other weak economies and banks would have intensified, the Euro project could have fragmented completely and plunged the world into a depression through the spiralling chaos.  Was that Greece – Russia game a defining moment in world history?

English support for the underdogs… of England

Given that we have qualified for a major tournament, I’m a little amazed (and gratified) that there are no pumped-up - to the extent of being overblown - expectations surrounding the English football team.  Very few cars have England or Union flags pegged to their windows and, for those that do, the cloth has a distinctly ragged look as if they were 2006 vintage.

Just because the hype is absent, doesn’t mean the commentary should be neglected.  Gary Lineker continues to improve as the link man but with matches in progress, Mick McCarthy, for example, is still prone to interspersing wisdom with absolute cobblers.  Over on ITV, Clive Tyldesley spouted rank footballing illiteracy when he said that Portugal have never been eliminated in the knock-out stages of the European Championships.  A non-sequitur at the best of the times given that Portugal was engaged in a group stage match with Denmark, the fact that it is untrue (losing in the semi-finals in 2000 and in the final in 2004) and that Tyldesley meant to say that Portugal have never been eliminated in the group stages, is, well, that’s just poor.  That this stupidity survived to the highlights package sums up the slipshod nature of ITV football coverage.

Fragmentation of response

If it is as Hillary Clinton says and the Kremlin is sending helicopter gunships to Syria to bolster the Assad regime, then the siren calls of John McCain to arm the rebels sounds very tempting.  But, for Americans in the know, McCain has a reputation as being a ‘media bitch’ for at least the last ten years, sounding off for his own gratification.  He seems to forget that the West pursued a similar strategy in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, creating a chain of events that led to one day in September in 2001.  There is a distinct possibility that western hardware could be used against ISAF troops in the land of the Hindu Kush.  Even if we did provide weapons to rebels we ‘trusted’, there is no guarantee that they would not sell it on to anti-western radicals.  And were western armaments found to be involved in an atrocity carried out by the Syrian opposition, the PR fallout would be disastrous.  Riyadh and the Gulf states may well be funnelling guns, missiles and ammunition through Damascus-hostile Jordan or across Iraq’s porous borders but they are playing with fire.  Militarising the country will also make it harder to re-establish order, even if the overthrow of the Assad regime is successful.

Moreover, Moscow could point to hypocrisy on the part of the West, with Saudi Arabia sending in massive force to crush the uprising in Bahrain and Israel frequently perpetrating humans rights abuses (usually in retaliation) on the Palestinians.  But neither the House of Saud nor Tel-Aviv inflicts carnage on such a scale or as organised as that which is occurring in Syria now.  Putin is also treading dangerously as the Gulf states, for by thumbing his nose at his government’s line of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, he is making all Russian people and property located in Syria fair game to be attacked by the rebels.  Were damage to be inflicted on Russian assets, he could not send in Russian troops to ‘defend’ it having so vigorously opposed western foreign intervention.  Russia doesn’t care how many innocent civilians, men, women and children, that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for killing, just so long as he puts down the revolution/civil war.  The Kremlin sees him as weak, hence their increasing talk of supporting the regime, not the Assad family.  How Russia must pine for the days of Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad, when he killed tens of thousands in Hama before the world was even aware (though communications technology has become more widespread since then).

It is frustrating that there is little we can do in the absence of a Security Council resolution, with Russia blocking any criticism of Assad, let alone sanctions.  Maybe we should channel non-lethal equipment to the rebels, such as body armour and night-vision goggles, so that if it does end up in the hands of radicals and makes its way to Afghanistan, it won’t be as damaging to our troops as live weaponry (though it would still make the task of ISAF harder).  I would still favour targeted assassinations by covert western forces but that carries its own risk should they be caught.  In a civil war, which it what it is, there are no easy choices.

Playing with fire

When choosing the name of a spaceship in science fiction, it usually is an idea to invest it with a grand-sounding name, referencing myths and other tales, such as Icarus (One and Two) in Sunshine.  It is a classic way for scriptwriters to signal ‘look at me! I’m well-read’ to the multiplex masses.  In space, everyone can hear you being pretentious.

Prometheus is the eponymous name of the starship transporting scientists and mercenaries, ahem, security contractors to a far-distant moon in another constellation.  That they do it in a few years suggests they’ve found a way to go faster than light and as the minute rocketship blasts across the expanse of space (and screen), it is reminiscent of Tarkovsky.

In the fad for origin stories, this is the prequel to one of the biggest, explaining the creatures in the Alien franchise and the mysterious ‘axeman’ fossil.  Ridley Scott obviously felt justice could only be done if he were at the helm.  It draws on the tomfoolery of Erich van Däniken and takes it to another level in films covering the subject – aliens didn’t just build the pyramids, they ‘built’ us.  It certainly carries it off with far more panache than, say, Indiana Jones and the clunky title, I mean Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  There is an enigmatic opening scene – is the bulbous humanoid drinking the black gunk meant to become us or become a weapon to destroy us?

Noomi Rapace, an overnight A-lister after The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, is very spunky in the role of the intense ‘fanatic’ Dr Elizabeth Shaw, a scientist with a determination to hold onto a faith of sorts, though more narrowly theistic than the Christianity suggested by her crucifix necklace.  She is the person we are to rally around as her colleagues are variously and progressively slaughtered.  Charlize Theron is the hard-as-nails ice maiden corporate executive who has a background which more than the gray drone initially suggested.  Michael Fassbender, with another origin story, X-Men: First Class, under his belt is an android who, like cybermen in Dr Who or HAL in 2001, claims to be devoid of emotion yet turns it on when he wants, especially with his Oedipal leanings.  The question that hangs throughout pertains to whether he is a bad Ian Holm-robot or a good Lance Henriksen-automaton.  Fassbender is very convincing as David (a tribute to David Lean from Scott as David watches Lawrence of Arabia to perfect a human accent?), though surely, while the others are in deep stasis, you would have more than one of him in case he broke down.

Of the characters with the smaller roles, Guy Pearce is the chief of the shadowy Weyland Corporation funding the trip and looks like Mr (Montgomery) Burns brought to life - not so much flesh and blood as skin and dust – rather than being a Simpsons drawing. The Anthony Hopkins figure in the Emilio Estevez vehicle Freejack is instructive.  Idris Elba plays a big, bluff character, much like Yaphet Kotto in Alien.  Whilst one could not describe either role as tokenist giving their importance to the respective plots, it still has the impression of box-ticking that the presence of a second black actor would annul (the fanboys came at Thor from the wrong angle).  An American of Chinese heritage has a few lines of banter with his co-pilot and that demographic is also covered.  There is a whole variety of alien fodder, with an official manifest of 17.  The primary expendable is Rafe Spall as the dumbest biologist imaginable – who touches an undomesticated animal of which you know nothing, yet is flaring its neck in the manner of a cobra?

Prometheus, like Batman Begins or Casino Royale, may not be a direct origin story, as the ‘axeman’ seen in Alien does not die in his pilot harness here.  So though not apparently seamless, what it does deliver is jaw-dropping scenery, sharp twists and shocks to send the heart-racing.  While keeping one guessing throughout, it stays in your mind a long time after you have left the cinema too.  As I departed, one man remarked to his mate the unusual lament that it should have been half an hour longer to explain more of the facets, ye I think Scott intended to leave aspects opaque so we would continue to chew over them.  What is the prologue about?  What did David really say to the axeman? And so on.  On a less praiseworthy note, how can homo sapiens have the same DNA as beings twice our size and with a different body structure, even if they did ‘engineer’ us?  Indeed, everyone’s DNA is different, full stop.

Whether benign or hostile, we pattern our conception of alien ‘civilisation’ on ourselves.  Whilst conforming to his norm, at the same time Prometheus reverses it.  It does the same with the Greek myth, where it is not an eagle’s beak diving in to the abdomen but something bursting out.  It’s not a genre-defining picture like Alien but it an excellent work all the same.  Just don’t see it if you’re pregnant.  Four out of five.

Boobing at the Beeb

Though I did enjoy the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee from the TV, the anti-BBC press certainly had a field day (or field days) with some of the coverage.  Admittedly, apart from the church service of thanksgiving and, a few hours later, the carriage procession on Tuesday, I dipped in and out, not paying too much consistent attention to the other days (I only watched the first half hour of the Jubilee River Pageant, for example, as I was attending a Mongolian hair-cutting ceremony, as friends of wife were engaging in a rites-of-passage event for their three-year old).

I did see the Fearne Cotton interview with Paloma Faith but only the intro, before they got on to discussing the Jubilee sick bags, as I was put off by Cotton asking Faith if she was enjoying the festivities, eliciting the reply “Yeah, I’m really happy as my album went to number two in the charts.”  Yes, I’m sure the Queen would have been thrilled that she could play a bit-part in her own party for the commercial promotion of an evanescent pop star.  This crassness set the tone – a rancid one.  It was as if BBC Three had suddenly colonised the main channel.

I did briefly flick over to ITV but what I saw seemed to be following the same pattern as Auntie so I went back to the service I knew.  Now, Clare Balding, one of the presenters for the Jubilee admits mistakes, that the presentation on all three days misfired.  No-one’s prefect - like inviting American performers to the concert.  Though it's nice to see the recalcitrant colonies kowtowing to their admiration of the descendent of those who once ruled them, as they are not part of the Commonwealth, I don't know how appropriate it is.

Newsnight exposed their Guardian-reading colours, first covering a story of jobless people becoming unpaid volunteers at the Jubilee, two of whom had to sleep under London Bridge (a hardship that Jubilee well-wishers bore without complaint) – a story that the Grauniad has now been accused of sensationalising.  In alliance, with The Guardian, was the Beeb trying to be a stick-in-the-mud for the queen?  Au contraire, as secondly they showed what they promised to be the view from around the world, but turned out to be the most mocking and vituperative of clips, as in ‘think we were bad, look at these’.  What was that phrase about ‘when you’re in a hole…’?

Best daytime TV ever

Whilst The Guardian gritted its teeth as the Diamond Jubilee was celebrated by vast crowds, I think everyone else had a good time as the monarchy reaffirmed its position in society and the Queen became ever more an enduring icon.  Astonishing to think where they were in 1997 when the tabloids despicably shifted the blame from themselves on to the royal family in the wake of Diana’s death (the value of wearing seatbelts).  The royals for their part seem to have forgiven the BBC for Martin Bashir’s interview with Diana in 1995, awarding it the lion’s share of the coverage of the events.  ITV tried to squeeze in on the act for the carriage procession to Buckingham Palace today but it was a little pathetic, like it was pushing its nose up against the BBC window.  There was even a toe-curling moment as Gemma Samuels lost her place in the intercession prayers – you could hear a pin drop in St Paul’s Cathedral.  The past three days have been great on the TV (it was warmer with better views).

Sugaring the pill of working with the barrow boy lord

Since the Apprentice started offering serious money to the tune of £250,000 in a start-up business, the quality of the candidates - or at least their backgrounds I should say - has skyrocketed.  Mind you, with the bombastic pomposity on display, you half expect Lord Sugar to proclaim at the start of a programme, “Your task is to create a new religion.  After 48 hours, those with the most adherents will win and on the losing team, one of you, if not indeed all of you, will be sent to hell.”  Entering into a partnership with Lord Sugar is not quite on the scale of a Faustian pact, though it will always be a fraught relationship.

Though they often had decent businesses behind them, the girls proved themselves to be the worst crop in a while as evidenced by them losing the first two tasks in a row.  One of them, Jane, even had a multi-million pound multinational behind her, yet fell to pieces frequently in the process.  When it came down to the final five, Jade was a nailed on certainty for the final, as it would be a PR disaster were the last four candidates all men.  Having never been in the bottom three until the last task, Nick was also guaranteed.  With Ricky and Tom winning on the other side, Adam was exposed once too often as ‘out of his depth’.

I had really been impressed with Tom for a long while but had cooled as his imagination started to fail him – he recognised things were boring yet didn’t have a fix to rectify that.  Ricky was growing on me but his initial summary to Lord Sugar before the interviews began in earnest backfired in the jargon he deployed.  Nick and Tom emerged best from this soundbite section. 

With the interrogations, I noticed that Nick did something that Stuart Baggs did, addressing Margaret Mountford by her Christian name.  Yet Nick got away with it unlike the irrepressible Mr Baggs, though that was about all in which Nick succeeded.  Jade was annihilated in the interview stage, proving there was to be no ironic twist that she would be triumphant from such a lousy bunch of women.  Yet when Claude praised Ricky’s business plan, I knew his influential clout would be an important factor in the boardroom.  From that point and my wife can vouch for me on this, my top two were Ricky and Tom, with Ricky being Lord Sugar’s pick.  What a shame I’m not more au fait with bet in play.  With Lord Sugar having made £850 million from selling his satellite dish manufacturing company, he didn’t need the hassle of a high-risk, potentially very lucrative exploit.  Ricky’s niche recruitment agency gave him the safety route and fulfilling his contractual obligations with the BBC.

"Forget that Roswell crap"

When protecting the Earth from the scum of the universe, it usually helps if you have the best publicity available and after being lacerated by the X-Files, secretive extra-governmental agencies received an ally in Men in Black to tackle extraterrestrials.  They might have said ‘no thanks’ to MIIB (Men in Black 2) but I’ll think they’ll be cautiously pleased with the latest, much delayed, outing, Men in Black 3.

With an alien theme and the most effective use of limited, insistent chords in a film since Jaws, it is no surprise who would want to be attached to this project and as Amblin Entertainment appears in the opening credits, we know Steven Spielberg has an investment here.  Maybe it is a shame that Spielberg wasn’t more actively behind the lens.  For me, Barry Sonnenfeld is a director of first-rate mediocrity, exerting a reverse Midas Touch.  Sure, he’s been in charge of some very good pictures but just think how great they could have been from someone with more accomplishment and flair, someone who doesn’t apply the directorial equivalent of painting-by-numbers.

As it is, Men in Black 3 (or cubed as the posters have it) is more than moderately diverting.  The 3D is still gimmicky and it will take a few more years before it can be deployed effectively (if it lasts that long).  The glasses alone are troublesome if you are already wearing spectacles to get the detail from the silver screen. 

It is Will Smith’s first flick in four years but his quick-draw smart patter as Agent J shows no sign of ring-rustiness.  Tommy Lee Jones is partially relegated in his role as the elder Agent K though is his usual gruff, reliable self.  Yet John Brolin is a revelation as the younger K – he deserves an Oscar for how downpat he gets his character, as if 40 years had been wiped from Jones.  Unfortunately, Rip Torn’s Agent Z is only mentioned in memory (obviously Torn has committed one to many misdemeanours for I can’t think of any other reason he wouldn’t appear in person); however, a host of other acting talent get in on the show – Emma Thompson, Alice Eve and Jermaine Clement, the New Zealand actor from Flight of the Conchords, playing another big screen villain (cf. Rio) with a – ho-hum – English accent (at least Thompson and Eve bat back on that front).

The script does the business with plenty of poignancy, the wit being incidental – Nicole Scherzinger playing one of those women attracted to criminal masterminds (her acting ability isn’t pushed too far as she doesn’t last long); as Agent J falls through time from the Chrysler building (an underused landmark in Hollywood), he is briefly in line with a jumper in the wake of the Wall Street Crash; and an encounter with Andy Warhol, to name a few.  Two things aren’t squared, however – if the there is this planetary shield in place since 1969, why was it so useless in the first instalment of Men in Black; and also, contrary to popular belief, the Moon does have an atmosphere.  English stereotypes of warm beer and bad food are rolled out but as they are referencing the 1960s, it could have been true so I’ll let it slide.  And, in this kind of flick, you do need a truly impressive death for the villain and on one front it does not disappoint.

A buddy-buddy-buddy movie with a twist, it’s not out of this world (though Lady Gaga maybe, as the film suggests) but it’s worth the ride.  Three out of five.