Yesterday (11/6/14) my PC experienced a blue screen crash meaning that the screen went blue and it froze. Obviously that made it a little difficult to run a diagnostic on it but based on the way the hard-disc kept failing to engage I suspect that what happened is that six years of heavy use caused the hard-disc to fail.
Anyway I've now got a new, almost identical machine under the service contract while the old one has been sent off for diagnostic examination. The only complaint is that I'm now struggling to to come to terms with Windows new, idiotic operating system which may be great for tablets and smartphones but this is a desktop PC.
18:50 on 12/6/14 (UK date.)
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
It's Time To Act.
After all we are only pretending.
Today the UK backed by the US has gathered representatives from some 140 nations - but mainly Angelina Jolie - at the Excel Centre in London to discuss the issue of rape in conflict. The fact that the Excel Centre is also home to DSEI - the world's largest arms fair - should be something of a clue that this summit has no intention of ending conflict. It also has absolutely no intention of achieving its stated aim of ending rape as a weapon of war. After all the predominately African conflicts that it is focused on are far from conventional wars fought by organised armies. Instead they tend to be little more then gang fights fought between heavily armed children fuelled by crack cocaine. As such the summit has instead set itself the rather twee objective of drawing up a standardised, rules based system of investigating rapes long after they have occurred.
In fact I would go so far as to say that the true objective of this summit is to disrupt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) June meeting which concludes on Sunday (15/6/14). As I think I've mentioned one of the main points of tension in this process is the issue of climate finance between developed nations and developing nations. So far at this June meeting great efforts have been made to focus on the way that financial support from developed nations to developing nations has taken the form of funding to groups which primarily focus on either a feminist or gay rights agenda with the objective of sowing paranoia that such groups are being used to undermine and destabilise developing nations - particularly ones in Africa. By focusing on the issue of rape this London summit goes straight for the jugular of women's rights and the wider issue of sexual politics which along with religion rarely makes for calm and rational discussion.
The London summit also forces us to ask very serious questions about what is going on in nations such as Nigeria, Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As the first of these is oil rich while the last two contain many of the minerals we need to build things like car batteries that we hope will help us move beyond an oil based economy this pitches us into a very nasty discussion about what British values really are.
So sadly the nicest thing I can say about the London summit is that it really highlights how much Rihanna will have to raise her game if she wants to go and play in that charity sector. After all Angelina Jolie is far more accomplished and works far harder on these issues. However based on this performance I only feel able to cast her in the role of a celebrity deck chair attendant.
It also gives me the opportunity to recommend a 2008 film called "Johnny Mad Dog" which is set during Liberia's 2008 civil war. Although people who have read the International Criminal Court's (ICC) verdict on Charles Taylor will find moments of amusement it is far from a comedy but does help explain why I feel I can use the phrase "Well it is his will" as an insult towards either Chris Brown or Drake.
19:50 on 10/6/14 (UK date).
Today the UK backed by the US has gathered representatives from some 140 nations - but mainly Angelina Jolie - at the Excel Centre in London to discuss the issue of rape in conflict. The fact that the Excel Centre is also home to DSEI - the world's largest arms fair - should be something of a clue that this summit has no intention of ending conflict. It also has absolutely no intention of achieving its stated aim of ending rape as a weapon of war. After all the predominately African conflicts that it is focused on are far from conventional wars fought by organised armies. Instead they tend to be little more then gang fights fought between heavily armed children fuelled by crack cocaine. As such the summit has instead set itself the rather twee objective of drawing up a standardised, rules based system of investigating rapes long after they have occurred.
In fact I would go so far as to say that the true objective of this summit is to disrupt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) June meeting which concludes on Sunday (15/6/14). As I think I've mentioned one of the main points of tension in this process is the issue of climate finance between developed nations and developing nations. So far at this June meeting great efforts have been made to focus on the way that financial support from developed nations to developing nations has taken the form of funding to groups which primarily focus on either a feminist or gay rights agenda with the objective of sowing paranoia that such groups are being used to undermine and destabilise developing nations - particularly ones in Africa. By focusing on the issue of rape this London summit goes straight for the jugular of women's rights and the wider issue of sexual politics which along with religion rarely makes for calm and rational discussion.
The London summit also forces us to ask very serious questions about what is going on in nations such as Nigeria, Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As the first of these is oil rich while the last two contain many of the minerals we need to build things like car batteries that we hope will help us move beyond an oil based economy this pitches us into a very nasty discussion about what British values really are.
So sadly the nicest thing I can say about the London summit is that it really highlights how much Rihanna will have to raise her game if she wants to go and play in that charity sector. After all Angelina Jolie is far more accomplished and works far harder on these issues. However based on this performance I only feel able to cast her in the role of a celebrity deck chair attendant.
It also gives me the opportunity to recommend a 2008 film called "Johnny Mad Dog" which is set during Liberia's 2008 civil war. Although people who have read the International Criminal Court's (ICC) verdict on Charles Taylor will find moments of amusement it is far from a comedy but does help explain why I feel I can use the phrase "Well it is his will" as an insult towards either Chris Brown or Drake.
19:50 on 10/6/14 (UK date).
Thursday, 5 June 2014
Operation Misery: Month 15, Week 4, Day 5.
Yesterday (4/5/14) Rihanna launched her Rouge perfume in Paris, France without incident. Today she held her much hyped press conference at the Hard Rock Cafe in Paris to reveal the big secret.
It turns out that secret is that Rihanna has donated some of her clothes (not ones she's designed) to the Hard Rock Cafe so they can sell them in aid of the Clara Lionel Foundation which helps children affected by blood cancer (Leukaemia). However, as always with Rihanna, the exact work of this foundation seems poorly defined. So I would say that Rihanna's CIA handlers have gone so small on this it was simply an excuse for Rihanna to appear at the Hard Rock Cafe in Paris so food could be used as an example of that Winter Olympic theme of European high culture versus American low culture.
Of course along with the release of Chris Brown from prison by again associating Rihanna with charity her handlers were also trying to signal that they intended to press ahead with their plan to force Rihanna into a marriage to Chris Brown. The pair will then be used to exert pressure on developing nations through low profit tours and charity visits. The idea being to provoke an aggressive backlash particularly from me. As such I feel I should point out that unless Rihanna is prepared to make some effort of her own what I can achieve is extremely limited meaning that I am starting to view her as a lost cause. It is obviously difficult to become passionate about a lost cause.
The US was also hoping that this backlash would allow the UK to position itself in the role of good cop by leading the objections to the US' plans for Rihanna. Displaying wonderful prior knowledge the UK yesterday put that plan into motion with the announcement that one baby has died and 14 others have been made seriously ill by poisoned nutrient (food) IV drips. The intended subtext being that Rihanna is being poisoned by the poor quality food that is being provided by Chris Brown who is hardly an impressive example of masculinity - a "bit of a drip" in slang. It must be said though that to me that only serves to highlight how skewed the UK's world view is because it's rare that baby killers are viewed as the good guys.
The issue of charity is intended to heap pressure on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) June meeting because it is extremely close to the issue climate finance which divides developed and developing nations. What the developing nations primarily want is money that they can spend how they like. Failing that they want technology transfers which involves things likes patents being waived bringing down the cost of new technology and technical experts being provided so they can make the best use of new methods. What they often end up with though are rather twee programs that see "educators" from developed nations travel to developing nations to train local people in things like eco-driving techniques. Although these sort of programs aren't completely without value they fall far short of what is required and often seem more beneficial to the donor nation then the recipient nation.
Following things like the "Bring Back Our Girls" campaign in Nigeria there is a growing concern that these type of programs - particularly ones linked to gender or gay-rights issues - are actually being used by the developed world to destabilise the developing world. Obviously by linking Rihanna to charity work within the context of the Winter Olympics where soft-power and covert efforts to overthrown governments were major themes is intended to exacerbate those fears and increase the divisions between the developed and developing nations in the area of climate finance. The fact that Leukaemia is a blood born disease makes it a very easy euphemism for HIV/AIDS which has in the past frequently got tangled up in UNFCCC's discussions particularly on the REDD+ program.
Finally it makes it very easy to make fun of Rihanna because many people would describe the Council of Fashion Designers of America's (CFDA) recent decision to bestow an Icon award on Rihanna as an act of charity by the fashion industry. Also this is not the first time that Rihanna has involved herself in charitable efforts to address childhood leukaemia. Back in 2008 she took on the cause of Jasmina Anema - a 6 year old girl with the disease - appealing for a bone marrow donor and setting up a charitable foundation in her name. However after the publicity faded Rihanna appeared to dramatically lose interest with the foundation seeming to undertake absolutely no work and Rihanna and not even bothering to offer her condolences to the Anema family following Jasmina's death in 2010.
13:15 on 5/6/14 (UK date).
It turns out that secret is that Rihanna has donated some of her clothes (not ones she's designed) to the Hard Rock Cafe so they can sell them in aid of the Clara Lionel Foundation which helps children affected by blood cancer (Leukaemia). However, as always with Rihanna, the exact work of this foundation seems poorly defined. So I would say that Rihanna's CIA handlers have gone so small on this it was simply an excuse for Rihanna to appear at the Hard Rock Cafe in Paris so food could be used as an example of that Winter Olympic theme of European high culture versus American low culture.
Of course along with the release of Chris Brown from prison by again associating Rihanna with charity her handlers were also trying to signal that they intended to press ahead with their plan to force Rihanna into a marriage to Chris Brown. The pair will then be used to exert pressure on developing nations through low profit tours and charity visits. The idea being to provoke an aggressive backlash particularly from me. As such I feel I should point out that unless Rihanna is prepared to make some effort of her own what I can achieve is extremely limited meaning that I am starting to view her as a lost cause. It is obviously difficult to become passionate about a lost cause.
The US was also hoping that this backlash would allow the UK to position itself in the role of good cop by leading the objections to the US' plans for Rihanna. Displaying wonderful prior knowledge the UK yesterday put that plan into motion with the announcement that one baby has died and 14 others have been made seriously ill by poisoned nutrient (food) IV drips. The intended subtext being that Rihanna is being poisoned by the poor quality food that is being provided by Chris Brown who is hardly an impressive example of masculinity - a "bit of a drip" in slang. It must be said though that to me that only serves to highlight how skewed the UK's world view is because it's rare that baby killers are viewed as the good guys.
The issue of charity is intended to heap pressure on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) June meeting because it is extremely close to the issue climate finance which divides developed and developing nations. What the developing nations primarily want is money that they can spend how they like. Failing that they want technology transfers which involves things likes patents being waived bringing down the cost of new technology and technical experts being provided so they can make the best use of new methods. What they often end up with though are rather twee programs that see "educators" from developed nations travel to developing nations to train local people in things like eco-driving techniques. Although these sort of programs aren't completely without value they fall far short of what is required and often seem more beneficial to the donor nation then the recipient nation.
Following things like the "Bring Back Our Girls" campaign in Nigeria there is a growing concern that these type of programs - particularly ones linked to gender or gay-rights issues - are actually being used by the developed world to destabilise the developing world. Obviously by linking Rihanna to charity work within the context of the Winter Olympics where soft-power and covert efforts to overthrown governments were major themes is intended to exacerbate those fears and increase the divisions between the developed and developing nations in the area of climate finance. The fact that Leukaemia is a blood born disease makes it a very easy euphemism for HIV/AIDS which has in the past frequently got tangled up in UNFCCC's discussions particularly on the REDD+ program.
Finally it makes it very easy to make fun of Rihanna because many people would describe the Council of Fashion Designers of America's (CFDA) recent decision to bestow an Icon award on Rihanna as an act of charity by the fashion industry. Also this is not the first time that Rihanna has involved herself in charitable efforts to address childhood leukaemia. Back in 2008 she took on the cause of Jasmina Anema - a 6 year old girl with the disease - appealing for a bone marrow donor and setting up a charitable foundation in her name. However after the publicity faded Rihanna appeared to dramatically lose interest with the foundation seeming to undertake absolutely no work and Rihanna and not even bothering to offer her condolences to the Anema family following Jasmina's death in 2010.
13:15 on 5/6/14 (UK date).
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
The UK Queen's Speech.
Today the UK Queen has given her annual speech outlining the legislative agenda for the coming year at the State Opening of Parliament. This event traditionally takes place in the autumn (October/November) but due to the UK Parliament effectively becoming a rubber stamping body the current Conservative and Liberal Democrat (LibDem) coalition government has already driven through much of its agenda of aggressive social engineering leaving it with very little do. As a result a speech that should have been given towards the end of 2013 has been pushed back to now.
What happens next is that Parliament goes off on a long summer break before returning for an autumn session which itself is punctuated by a short holiday before it is time for Parliament's winter holiday. The spring session will then be cut short by the start of campaigning for the May 2015 General Election. As a result and unusually for a Queen's speech it is far from guaranteed that all of the proposed bills will become law. This means that the speech was very heavy on symbolism while being very light of detail.
Certain provisions such as the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, the Pensions Tax Bill and the introduction of a tax break for married couples were intended to show support for the Conservatives older core base who have been tempted by the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Provisions such as the Childcare Payments Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill and the provision of free school meals are intended to show support for the LibDem's core supporters. This is particularly important for the LibDem's embattled leader Nick Clegg as he tries to argue that he has been able to influence coalition policy rather then simply abandoning the parties values to simply wave through Conservative policies.
The commitment to continue the UK's economic policy of creating growth through house building accompanied by low taxation and low interest rates is intended to stick two fingers up to the European Union (EU) who have questioned the validity of this approach. The provisions in the Private Pensions Bill that would see the introduction of Dutch-style collective pensions is meant to signal to the UK's EU allies that it intends to take a more Dutch-style approach to EU politics. That's because while the Dutch Monarchy can be every bit as sociopathic as the British Monarchy they are much better at hiding it behind a veil of respectability. For example the Netherlands very low age of sexual consent tends to be widely viewed as an example of forward thinking sexual liberalisation when in reality it provides cover for Dutch men to have sex with very young girls.
The main focus of the speech though was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting that began today. As a result the Infrastructure Bill focuses very heavily reforming planning regulations in order to pave the way for the building of entire new towns. The issues of planning policy and environmental impacts in the planning process are of course huge issues within efforts to combat climate change. Although today's announcement is thin on detail that could be translated into UNFCCC negotiations plans to allow house builders to offset carbon emissions in order to meet emission targets seems to indicate that the UK places little value on the work of the UNFCCC.
The very aggressive and negative - in environmental terms - element though is plans to increase shale gas production by making it impossible for landowner to refuse permission for fracking to take place on their land. This of course signals that the UK is very aggressively in favour of fossil fuels rather renewables to the point that they're prepared to be very un-British about it by making sure that an Englishman's home is no longer his castle. There is also a hope that along with the ongoing spectacle of the search for Madeline McCann in Portugal this fracking debate will appear as some sort of earnest discussion about me and my situation.
The Queens speech did also include provisions to reduce plastic bag use by introducing a GBP 0.05 charge for them which was a clear nod to environmental protection. However it is so small that it is dwarfed by the rest of the anti-environment agenda to the point where the UK need not have bothered.
14:49 on 4/6/14 (UK date).
What happens next is that Parliament goes off on a long summer break before returning for an autumn session which itself is punctuated by a short holiday before it is time for Parliament's winter holiday. The spring session will then be cut short by the start of campaigning for the May 2015 General Election. As a result and unusually for a Queen's speech it is far from guaranteed that all of the proposed bills will become law. This means that the speech was very heavy on symbolism while being very light of detail.
Certain provisions such as the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, the Pensions Tax Bill and the introduction of a tax break for married couples were intended to show support for the Conservatives older core base who have been tempted by the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Provisions such as the Childcare Payments Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill and the provision of free school meals are intended to show support for the LibDem's core supporters. This is particularly important for the LibDem's embattled leader Nick Clegg as he tries to argue that he has been able to influence coalition policy rather then simply abandoning the parties values to simply wave through Conservative policies.
The commitment to continue the UK's economic policy of creating growth through house building accompanied by low taxation and low interest rates is intended to stick two fingers up to the European Union (EU) who have questioned the validity of this approach. The provisions in the Private Pensions Bill that would see the introduction of Dutch-style collective pensions is meant to signal to the UK's EU allies that it intends to take a more Dutch-style approach to EU politics. That's because while the Dutch Monarchy can be every bit as sociopathic as the British Monarchy they are much better at hiding it behind a veil of respectability. For example the Netherlands very low age of sexual consent tends to be widely viewed as an example of forward thinking sexual liberalisation when in reality it provides cover for Dutch men to have sex with very young girls.
The main focus of the speech though was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting that began today. As a result the Infrastructure Bill focuses very heavily reforming planning regulations in order to pave the way for the building of entire new towns. The issues of planning policy and environmental impacts in the planning process are of course huge issues within efforts to combat climate change. Although today's announcement is thin on detail that could be translated into UNFCCC negotiations plans to allow house builders to offset carbon emissions in order to meet emission targets seems to indicate that the UK places little value on the work of the UNFCCC.
The very aggressive and negative - in environmental terms - element though is plans to increase shale gas production by making it impossible for landowner to refuse permission for fracking to take place on their land. This of course signals that the UK is very aggressively in favour of fossil fuels rather renewables to the point that they're prepared to be very un-British about it by making sure that an Englishman's home is no longer his castle. There is also a hope that along with the ongoing spectacle of the search for Madeline McCann in Portugal this fracking debate will appear as some sort of earnest discussion about me and my situation.
The Queens speech did also include provisions to reduce plastic bag use by introducing a GBP 0.05 charge for them which was a clear nod to environmental protection. However it is so small that it is dwarfed by the rest of the anti-environment agenda to the point where the UK need not have bothered.
14:49 on 4/6/14 (UK date).
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
The UNFCCC's June Meeting.
On Wednesday (4/6/14)
participants in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begin
a 10 day meeting in Bonn, Germany intended to draw up a replacement to the
Kyoto Protocol (KP).
I should point out though that while there is to be a high-level
(ministerial) portion to this meeting its purpose is to lay the groundwork for
the COP20 Summit in Lima, Peru in November 2014. The purpose of the COP20
itself is to lay the groundwork for the signing of the replacement to the KP at
the COP21 in Paris, France in late 2015. As such this June meeting is much
more about building relationships between delegates and finding common ground
on the issues rather than producing some sort of headline grabbing, tangible
announcement.
However that does not
mean that delegates have time to waste. That is because one thing that is going
to be key to producing a replacement to the KP is the delegates ability to
avoid the mistakes of the past which tend to involve leaving everything until the absolute last minute
so the COP Summits are incredibly rushed, high pressure affairs with dozens of sleep
deprived people charging around trying to negotiate very complex positions
before time runs out. In fact a number of parties have raised the need for the
bulk of the work to be completed six months in advance of the COP21 leaving
those two weeks free to work out the finer details ahead of an orderly signing.
The Russians have specifically highlighted the problems of the usual headless
chicken scenario although they incorrectly termed it "Force Majeure Conditions."
This reference to
Force Majeure seemed intended to draw attention to New Zealand's rather ground
breaking submission to the March meeting. This was so comprehensive in its
thinking that it even raised the possibility of Force Majeure clauses in any agreement.
These are pretty standard clauses in international agreements and private
sector contracts laying out the extreme conditions under which parties are
freed from their obligations. Japan's 2010 tsunami and the devastating impact
on its predominately nuclear energy sector serve to highlight that Force Majeure
clauses certainly need to be considered as part of any replacement to the KP.
The main
revolutionary idea from New Zealand's submission though was that it proposed a
sort of hybrid agreement where nations are able to submit a minimum baseline
mitigation commitment. The nation is then free to exceed that baseline if they
are able but if they fail to meet that baseline rather then being directly
punished they would be given the option to offset that failure by increasing
their support to developing nations. So for example while it might cost a
developed nation USD100million to upgrade their powerstations they may be able
to produce the same mitigation result by spending USD50million to help a
developing nation to switch from household electricity generators to a solar
powered electricity grid or similar task that said developing nation needs doing.
This sort of
flexibility helps to increase ambition in the developed world and would provide
the sort of data that could be used to set higher baselines as part of a
trajectory approach to develop the new agreement beyond its first 10 year
period. It is also very helpful to developing nations because it allows them to
set out what their minimum commitments will be without international help, what
their commitments will be if they receive a small amount of international help
and what their commitments could be if they got all the help they require. This
provides a powerful negotiating tool because it helps narrow down the specifics
of what developed nations wish to achieve through their spending and shows that
developing nations are committed to reducing greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions
rather then trying to use the process as a boondoggle to weasel money out of
the developed world.
Based on how things
stand at the moment I would say the biggest threat to negotiations and an
eventual agreement is the issue of whether to continue with the Annex I
(developed) and Annex II (developing) nations split that was used in the KP. It
must be said that amongst the more forward thinking parties there is a growing
realisation that the very rigid structure of the KP is restricting what people
are able to do and that is limiting what they are able to achieve. This rigidity could well be one of the core reasons why the KP failed.
Also there
is almost a uniform consensus that nations such as China, India and Brazil which
were considered developing when the KP was signed now need to be reclassified
as developed. This creates a difficult situation where nations in the middle
face being squeezed very hard by reclassification or creates the need for an even more complicated three
annex system to be developed.
The least developed
nations are understandably passionately opposed to the phasing out of the annex
system. However I do feel the need to warn them that they are being backed by
larger nations such as Saudi Arabia whose entire survival are wholly dependent on the
maximum number of people producing energy by burning fossil fuels at the
highest possible price. These nations have absolutely no interest in helping
poor nations develop economically and are instead using the annex issue as a
way to sow division in order to prevent a replacement to the KP being signed at
all. As such the least developed nations need to think very carefully about
whether they are in fact trading the possibility of a fairer but less profitable
deal for the probability of no deal at all.
In terms of an
outcome from this June meeting I will consider it a success if a majority of
nations find themselves in a position where they will be able to draw up
prototypes of their National Action Plans (NAP's). These should go beyond the
type of template that South Africa very helpfully laid out their
submission by including examples of mitigation and adaptation action and actual numbers. However I should point out that these do not necessarily need to be real numbers
and most certainly should not prejudice any future commitments even if that would assist with the ex-ante issue. This is an area
where the European Union (EU) can be more useful then simply pointing how
serious the problem is and how little time there is to solve it because putting
actions already under taken as part of KP into this new methodology will
certainly help people understand how these new methods will work in practical
terms. Singapore also seem able to help in this area because they are certainly
economically and technologically advanced enough to draw up an exemplar NAP and
their small size means that it should be simple enough to convey the basic
principles.
Essentially what I'm looking for is an example so simple even I can understand it. After all Obama's attempts to introduce the States to the mere concept of an Action Plan are simply not sufficient.
22:05 on 3/6/14 (UK date).
Operation Misery: Month 15, Week 4, Day 3.
As I mentioned in my previous post the US has decided to use the occasion of the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) June meeting in Bonn, Germany to once again push Rihanna to the fore. Last night (2/6/14) she was presented with the Council of Fashion Designers of America's (CFDA) "Icon" award in New York City, US.
Obviously being a fashion industry award a of lot focus was on what Rihanna wore to the ceremony. Although it paid clear reference to 1920's (prohibition-era) glamour this Adam Selman original was essentially just 230,000 Swarovski Crystals (not diamonds) threaded together. As a result Rihanna appeared almost completely nude with her breasts, nipples and buttocks all clearly visible and only a brief thong preserving what was left of Rihanna's modesty. This outfit of course followed perfectly the narrative of the "Free the Nipple" campaign that the US has been trying to build through Rihanna and Miley Cyrus' Instagram which was mocked extensively at both the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest. It was also accompanied by a public statement on Instagram's censorship/prohibition policy by Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom.
So far from being risque, rule breaking or rebellious Rihanna's outfit was very much a safe choice with which she followed her CIA handlers instructions to the letter. As such the speech given by Vogue Magazine editor Anna Wintour as she presented Rihanna with the award was particularly biting. In it she spoke about how Rihanna used her fashion 'choices' to tell stories and communicate a message to her fans before describing Rihanna as being like a little boy and reminding Rihanna that the purpose of fashion is "pushing buttons while remaining true to yourself." Wintour's reference to what Rihanna was wearing that evening seemed very much intended and received as a cue for laughter amongst the audience. Finally Wintour highlighted her closeness to Rihanna by describing her as a Text message friend rather then say a Twitter or Facebook friend.
This is perhaps no less then you would expect from a woman who is affectionately known as "Nuclear Wintour/Winter" and in fact seemed a large act of charity. That is because by acknowledging that the CFDA's description of Rihanna as a fashion icon lacks credibility Wintour may well have helped defuse the storm of criticism that is expected to greet Rihanna when she arrives in Paris, France on Wednesday (4/6/14) which is considered one of the fashion capitals of the World.
However it has emerged that Rihanna's handlers are not satisfied in merely sending Rihanna to France for the launch of her Rogue perfume. Apparently on Thursday (5/6/14) Rihanna will also hold a press conference at the Hard Rock Cafe in Paris. The primary purpose of this is create a big secret which we are all supposed to speculate on while really emphasising that Olympic theme of European high culture versus American low culture. After all the superiority of French slow food over the type of American fast food sold at the Hard Rock Cafe has long been a source of pride for the French.
As for what the big secret is it could be anything from the very small such as a Willy Wonka style competition which would give Rihanna fans the chance to meet her if they buy the Rogue perfume through to something larger like the release of this long rumoured concept album in support of the upcoming film "Home" or a "Monster/777" style mini-tour.
However if I were Rihanna's CIA handlers tactically what I would do is use it to announce the sudden Beyonce-style release of an Internet album. The way that album would be quickly purchased by Rihanna's core fans would help create a baseline of Rihanna's core support that could be contrasted with the conventional release of an album later in the year helping to give an indication of how far Rihanna's popularity has dipped since 2012.
12:45 on 3/6/14 (UK date).
Obviously being a fashion industry award a of lot focus was on what Rihanna wore to the ceremony. Although it paid clear reference to 1920's (prohibition-era) glamour this Adam Selman original was essentially just 230,000 Swarovski Crystals (not diamonds) threaded together. As a result Rihanna appeared almost completely nude with her breasts, nipples and buttocks all clearly visible and only a brief thong preserving what was left of Rihanna's modesty. This outfit of course followed perfectly the narrative of the "Free the Nipple" campaign that the US has been trying to build through Rihanna and Miley Cyrus' Instagram which was mocked extensively at both the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest. It was also accompanied by a public statement on Instagram's censorship/prohibition policy by Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom.
So far from being risque, rule breaking or rebellious Rihanna's outfit was very much a safe choice with which she followed her CIA handlers instructions to the letter. As such the speech given by Vogue Magazine editor Anna Wintour as she presented Rihanna with the award was particularly biting. In it she spoke about how Rihanna used her fashion 'choices' to tell stories and communicate a message to her fans before describing Rihanna as being like a little boy and reminding Rihanna that the purpose of fashion is "pushing buttons while remaining true to yourself." Wintour's reference to what Rihanna was wearing that evening seemed very much intended and received as a cue for laughter amongst the audience. Finally Wintour highlighted her closeness to Rihanna by describing her as a Text message friend rather then say a Twitter or Facebook friend.
This is perhaps no less then you would expect from a woman who is affectionately known as "Nuclear Wintour/Winter" and in fact seemed a large act of charity. That is because by acknowledging that the CFDA's description of Rihanna as a fashion icon lacks credibility Wintour may well have helped defuse the storm of criticism that is expected to greet Rihanna when she arrives in Paris, France on Wednesday (4/6/14) which is considered one of the fashion capitals of the World.
However it has emerged that Rihanna's handlers are not satisfied in merely sending Rihanna to France for the launch of her Rogue perfume. Apparently on Thursday (5/6/14) Rihanna will also hold a press conference at the Hard Rock Cafe in Paris. The primary purpose of this is create a big secret which we are all supposed to speculate on while really emphasising that Olympic theme of European high culture versus American low culture. After all the superiority of French slow food over the type of American fast food sold at the Hard Rock Cafe has long been a source of pride for the French.
As for what the big secret is it could be anything from the very small such as a Willy Wonka style competition which would give Rihanna fans the chance to meet her if they buy the Rogue perfume through to something larger like the release of this long rumoured concept album in support of the upcoming film "Home" or a "Monster/777" style mini-tour.
However if I were Rihanna's CIA handlers tactically what I would do is use it to announce the sudden Beyonce-style release of an Internet album. The way that album would be quickly purchased by Rihanna's core fans would help create a baseline of Rihanna's core support that could be contrasted with the conventional release of an album later in the year helping to give an indication of how far Rihanna's popularity has dipped since 2012.
12:45 on 3/6/14 (UK date).
Monday, 2 June 2014
Bowe Bergdahl Released.
On Saturday (31/5/14) US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was released after being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2009. Up to now I've avoided commenting on this because it struck me primarily as a good news story about someone who has been held prisoner for a long time finally getting to return home. I of course tend to specialise in bad news.
However in terms of the wider political implications of the release the first thing it does is highlight the US' decreasing importance within Afghan politics. Although they eventually traded him for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay Bergdahl's main value to the Taliban was that it forced the US to talk to them - even indirectly - about his fate and those discussions could be used as metaphors for other aspects of the US' role in Afghanistan. With the US removing most of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and all but a small Embassy guard expected to be gone by the end of 2015 the Taliban have clearly decided that the US is no longer a power broker within Afghanistan meaning they have little need to continue talking to them.
The release also highlights the US' growing dependency on the Gulf Monarchies in its dealing with Afghanistan and the wider Arab world because Qatar seems to have been the driving force behind Bergdahl's release. For example they passed on the message that there was an imminent threat to Bergdahl's health and safety that forced the US to act when it did. The US has of course acted some four days before the next round of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begin in Bonn, Germany on Wednesday (4/6/14) which the Qataris are not keen on.
The US also acted on the day of my home town Croydon's "Parade of Nations" Carnival. Officially this is a "community carnival celebrating Croydon's cultural diversity" but in reality involves a small parade and a large spike in crime. Almost exactly on schedule that evening two young men attempting to burgle one of the houses next to mine but were disturbed and chased off. This of course increases the concerns about my health and safety which seem to increase to almost hysterical proportions every time there is a big UNFCCC meeting.
Although generally just reflecting the simple facts of what's going on most aspects of the Bergdahl story are likely to have a negative impact on the UNFCCC meeting. For example all this stuff about him having trouble speaking English after not having spoken it for the past 5 years and his need to be rehabilitated could be interpreted as reference to long running dispute I've been having with elements such as the Gulf Monarchies over things like climate change. Essentially their position is because I disagree with them so fundamentally there must be something wrong with me because they are appointed by God and therefore infallible.
All the stuff about Bergdahl passing all medical tests with flying colours but still being prevented from talking to his family could be interpreted as a reference to why Rihanna and I still haven't met up or spoken in person. Essentially Rihanna's handlers argument has been that if we were to meet up I would immediately infect her with some disease although at this point that 'disease' appears to be rational thought.
As the story has developed people have also begun to claim that rather then being an all American hero Bergdahl is in fact a coward and a deserter whose selfish actions endangered the lives of his fellow Americans. This could be interpreted as reference to Chris Brown, Drake or any number of people who have been running the Rihanna operation and insist on continuing it.
The disruption caused by the Bergdahl's story of course comes on top of what the US already had planned to disrupt the UNFCCC meeting. Essentially this focused on continuing the Rihanna operation. So today Chris Brown has been released from prison less then 4 months into a 12 month sentence which primarily seems like an attempt to irritate me. Later today Rihanna will controversially receive an Icon award from the American fashion industry. On Wednesday Rihanna will travel to Paris, France which along with Milan, Italy is one of the world fashion capitals where we are supposed to be looking intently for any European backlash against the US' operation and Rihanna in particular. So while the Rihanna operation was foolish to begin with the addition of the Bergdahl story is likely to make the US seem very unpopular at the Bonn meeting - not least because it makes the US appear subservient to Qatar rather than a nation able to offer leadership on what is an important global issue.
US President Obama has tried to counter-act this by using this week to announce plans to regulate carbon emissions from US power stations for the first time. The 645 page document detailing this plan was only released in the past hour or so but I already get the impression the fine detail is going to be argued about within US Courts for years to come. The reason for that is Obama appears to be attempting to use legislation intended to regulate black carbon (essentially soot) emissions to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The main positive aspect of the proposal is that forces states to draw up action plans to reduce their greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions which is very much keeping with the Bonn meeting which is trying to get nations to draw up similar action plans.
The main problem with the proposal is that while desert states such Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona should take a very serious look at solar power for a host of reasons it seems mainly focused on getting states to switch from coal to natural gas to meet emissions targets. This is something the UK tried for around a decade before rejecting because it made them too dependent on natural gas exporters such as Qatar driving the UK's current obsession with hydraulic fracturing or "Fracking."
So rather then helping to portraying the US as a world leader on climate change issues Obama's proposal is likely to increase concerns about the US ability to play a role in an future agreement by highlighting that it is still clinging to outdated thinking that is likely to leave it less likely to reduce its ability to take effective action in the future.
15:15 on 2/6/14 (UK date).
However in terms of the wider political implications of the release the first thing it does is highlight the US' decreasing importance within Afghan politics. Although they eventually traded him for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay Bergdahl's main value to the Taliban was that it forced the US to talk to them - even indirectly - about his fate and those discussions could be used as metaphors for other aspects of the US' role in Afghanistan. With the US removing most of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and all but a small Embassy guard expected to be gone by the end of 2015 the Taliban have clearly decided that the US is no longer a power broker within Afghanistan meaning they have little need to continue talking to them.
The release also highlights the US' growing dependency on the Gulf Monarchies in its dealing with Afghanistan and the wider Arab world because Qatar seems to have been the driving force behind Bergdahl's release. For example they passed on the message that there was an imminent threat to Bergdahl's health and safety that forced the US to act when it did. The US has of course acted some four days before the next round of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begin in Bonn, Germany on Wednesday (4/6/14) which the Qataris are not keen on.
The US also acted on the day of my home town Croydon's "Parade of Nations" Carnival. Officially this is a "community carnival celebrating Croydon's cultural diversity" but in reality involves a small parade and a large spike in crime. Almost exactly on schedule that evening two young men attempting to burgle one of the houses next to mine but were disturbed and chased off. This of course increases the concerns about my health and safety which seem to increase to almost hysterical proportions every time there is a big UNFCCC meeting.
Although generally just reflecting the simple facts of what's going on most aspects of the Bergdahl story are likely to have a negative impact on the UNFCCC meeting. For example all this stuff about him having trouble speaking English after not having spoken it for the past 5 years and his need to be rehabilitated could be interpreted as reference to long running dispute I've been having with elements such as the Gulf Monarchies over things like climate change. Essentially their position is because I disagree with them so fundamentally there must be something wrong with me because they are appointed by God and therefore infallible.
All the stuff about Bergdahl passing all medical tests with flying colours but still being prevented from talking to his family could be interpreted as a reference to why Rihanna and I still haven't met up or spoken in person. Essentially Rihanna's handlers argument has been that if we were to meet up I would immediately infect her with some disease although at this point that 'disease' appears to be rational thought.
As the story has developed people have also begun to claim that rather then being an all American hero Bergdahl is in fact a coward and a deserter whose selfish actions endangered the lives of his fellow Americans. This could be interpreted as reference to Chris Brown, Drake or any number of people who have been running the Rihanna operation and insist on continuing it.
The disruption caused by the Bergdahl's story of course comes on top of what the US already had planned to disrupt the UNFCCC meeting. Essentially this focused on continuing the Rihanna operation. So today Chris Brown has been released from prison less then 4 months into a 12 month sentence which primarily seems like an attempt to irritate me. Later today Rihanna will controversially receive an Icon award from the American fashion industry. On Wednesday Rihanna will travel to Paris, France which along with Milan, Italy is one of the world fashion capitals where we are supposed to be looking intently for any European backlash against the US' operation and Rihanna in particular. So while the Rihanna operation was foolish to begin with the addition of the Bergdahl story is likely to make the US seem very unpopular at the Bonn meeting - not least because it makes the US appear subservient to Qatar rather than a nation able to offer leadership on what is an important global issue.
US President Obama has tried to counter-act this by using this week to announce plans to regulate carbon emissions from US power stations for the first time. The 645 page document detailing this plan was only released in the past hour or so but I already get the impression the fine detail is going to be argued about within US Courts for years to come. The reason for that is Obama appears to be attempting to use legislation intended to regulate black carbon (essentially soot) emissions to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The main positive aspect of the proposal is that forces states to draw up action plans to reduce their greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions which is very much keeping with the Bonn meeting which is trying to get nations to draw up similar action plans.
The main problem with the proposal is that while desert states such Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona should take a very serious look at solar power for a host of reasons it seems mainly focused on getting states to switch from coal to natural gas to meet emissions targets. This is something the UK tried for around a decade before rejecting because it made them too dependent on natural gas exporters such as Qatar driving the UK's current obsession with hydraulic fracturing or "Fracking."
So rather then helping to portraying the US as a world leader on climate change issues Obama's proposal is likely to increase concerns about the US ability to play a role in an future agreement by highlighting that it is still clinging to outdated thinking that is likely to leave it less likely to reduce its ability to take effective action in the future.
15:15 on 2/6/14 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
