“Wedding Day At Troldhaugen”, from Lyric Pieces op. 65 by Edvard Grieg:
There is a wonderful contrast between the joyful, exuberant first theme and the tender, reflective middle passage.
The pianist is the excellent Leif Ove Andsnes, who I believe will shortly be in Los Angeles helping to commemorate the tenth anniversary of that city’s new Walt Disney Concert Hall.
Louis CK would, I am sure, have a fairly biting put-down ready for me, were he to read this – if for no other reason than the fact that it is being published a day late. Ah well. As the man himself would say, “I don’t care”.
Huffington Post certainly seems to care though, as yesterday they published a short tribute to the provocative comedian on the occasion of his birthday, together with a compilation of twenty three of the most biting, acerbic comments from his stand-up routines and interviews:
Today is Louis C.K.’s birthday. Louie’s had a good year: He decided to take a well-deserved break from his brilliant show “Louie” to recharge his batteries, and got a role in a Woody Allen movie.
Too bad that “Louie” is on hiatus, but at least we have these gems to laugh at, and a neurotic movie to look forward to. Some of my favourite Louis CK observations are presented here:
That may be true, but things sure do taste a little sweeter now that it isn’t George W. Bush in the oval office.
This blog has always been a firm supporter of equal rights for gay couples, and I certainly have no patience for people who, on realising that they have lost the core civil rights argument, fall back on rhetorically weak complaints such as this one – that legalising gay marriage may force them into having a conversation with their children. Quelle horreur!
Wise words, applicable to anyone with the courage to climb up on stage and tell jokes, run for public office, or even just to hit “publish” on a controversial blog post.
Again, very true. The British Education Secretary, Michael Gove, made a similar point during his testimony to the Leveson Enquiry into the behaviour of the British media last year, patiently explaining to Leveson that free speech really means nothing unless you accept the fact that some of the people are going to be offended some of the time.
Louis CK is certainly no new phenomenon (in my typical behind-the-curve style, I discovered what the fuss was about several years later), but he is fast becoming one of my favourite comedians for the very point that he expresses in the above caption. When political correctness begins to impinge on every facet of life, when politicians and the media bow down before it rather than speaking difficult truths and exhibiting the leadership that we need, it has largely fallen to comedians and satirists to shine a spotlight on the absurdity taking place around us.
For those interested in this topic, I highly recommend the following video, a round table discussion with Louis CK, Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld:
Enjoy.
Yikes. Guido Fawkes has done a wonderful job of listing all of the sitting Members of Parliament who currently employ one or more family members on their parliamentary staffs at the taxpayer expense. To my mind, the only acceptable scenario for doing so would be if your family member just happens to possess vast prior experience of working on a political staff, or is a renowned expert an a particular issue or cause championed by the MP. This would reduce the number of MPs employing family members to the comfortable single digits, I’m sure. Just look at the list – as Guido says, this is a personal family enrichment scheme being perpetrated by a long and alarming list of our nation’s elected representatives, to the tune of four million pounds a year. This needs to stop. No more employing your husband or wife to be your secretary. I don’t care to hear about individual cases where the husband and wife parliamentary team are wonderful – the risk for fraud and abuse is too great. Only when we introduce strict term limits and ban the practice of MPs hiring their own family to their political staffs can we begin to eradicate the scourge of the career politician, and that even worse phenomena – the career MP who sees their public duty as a free ticket to enrich his or her family at the taxpayer expense.
“La Fille aux cheveux de lin”, from the book of Preludes by Claude Debussy. Performed here by Lang Lang.
A wonderful, still, reflective piece with which to ease into the weekend.
In an unusual development, Vladimir Putin and the Russians have taken over the drivers seat when it comes to the international response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. This shift has been met either by gushing praise over President Obama’s deft handling of a fluid situation, or condescending scorn that Obama allowed the United States to be upstaged and outplayed in the diplomatic arena by an old arch-enemy.
Regardless of where the truth really lies between these two extremes, two things are certain:
1. The ball is in Russia’s court. They have seized the initiative, they have the ear of Syria, and they are now in the best position to force Bashar al-Assad to comply with demands to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community.
2. Russia is already flunking the test, and their first shot at global responsibility.
Rather than getting to work immediately to establish an architecture and process for the international community to verify the safe removal and decommissioning of Syria’s chemical weapons, President Putin is spending his time writing op-ed pieces in the New York Times, arguing the lonely and discredited position that the Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical attack on themselves, and urging the American people (not that much urging is required) to speak out against any future military strikes against the regime. Furthering Russia’s own interests rather than trying to solve a global problem.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
Ah yes, Russia – tireless, stalwart defenders of the rule of law, at home and abroad. And then we get this:
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.
It makes a change to see Vladimir Putin peddling a “false-flag” conspiracy theory rather than being the subject of one.
Newsflash, Vladimir – the military option is off the table for the time being. You helped to do that (though certainly not out of high-minded, altruistic pacifism). Tempting as it must surely be to rub the Obama administration’s face in your steaming pile of diplomatic cunning, it would be far more helpful to keep military action off the table, not by performing a valedictory lap in the media, but by buckling down and taking action on the new commitment that you have just made for your country. Your time is not well spent testing the patience of the United States and her allies by stalling and prevaricating, especially when Obama has made clear (just like all other US presidents in recent history) that constitution be damned, he seeks neither congressional approval or public support to attack another sovereign nation.
And to those who side with President Putin and crow that there was a diplomatic solution at hand the whole time if only the warmongers had been looking for one, it should be remembered that without the credible threat of force emanating from the United States, the present reset of diplomatic efforts would not have been possible. You don’t need to have supported military strikes to understand this – I was against military strikes without the rest of the international community joining us on the moral and financial hook, but I still appreciate that it was only the determination to proceed with strikes on the part of the Obama administration that ultimately led Damascus to seize so gratefully on the Russian proposal.
So, the responsibility for achieving a meaningful disarmament now lies with the Russians. As Putin concludes his op-ed:
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
I have grave doubts that Russia is serious about this. But if they are, then we must wish them every success. Whether motivated purely by self interest or not, Lord knows we need more mature actors on the world stage.
Semi-Partisan Politics 