To those who haven’t yet had the opportunity to read about Loic LeMeur’s efforts in bringing together the loose ends of the Germanic blogosphere, I say – do so.
When I went to meet him and some other bloggers I had never seen or even heard of before, I was not too sure what to expect beyond a pint of wheat beer. But what developed were indeed very intristing debates about the future -as we develop it.
Weiterlesen
What did Baz Luhrman sing back in 1999? “… in twenty years from now, you’ll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can’t grasp now how how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked.”
Well, actually, today’s birthday kid, the Apple MacIntosh has been holding up pretty well despite having seen some stormy weather.
Age wise, people are far more likely to suffer from malign geriatric symptoms. I guess that’s why it’s probably a good thing that most of the “Friends” will finally move out the Central Perk an get on with their lives. Now their fans will finally have time to think of their own future on Tursday evenings. Well, maybe…
The last episode was shot on Friday under heightenend security to avoid plot leaks. But guess what – as CNN reports naively, entirely disregarding the incentives of strategic PR – “if Washington can leak, so can Hollywood.”
So what’s it all about? In the end, it seems like it’s Ross and Rachel, and twins for Chandler and Monica, no word about Phoebe but Joey will get his shot to become the friends’ “Frasier”. His spin-off “Joey” will initially get the Friends slot on NBC next autumn. I’m not sure about Joey “How you doin'” Tribbiani’s ability to carry an entire show, especially since his roel in friends was far more prominent than Frasier’s in “Cheers”. But then again, what else could Matt LeBlanc ever play again???
Oh wait, he could play Joey in the next part of “Charlie’s Angels”
I can’t read Economist premium content online these days, so I have to rely on Brad Delong’s quote from this week’s Lexington (US politics) column –
“Bush-hatred is now something that civilised people wear as a badge of honour…”
Who would have thought that the day would come where a common adversary would make the Economist write talking points for Michael Moore. Maybe unusual times do require unusual measures – I wonder if anyone from the Economist helped topple the W effigy on Trafalgar Square today…
I should really stop reading William Safire’s columns, I suppose. Yesterday, the Ny Times provided the world with another marvel. He’s writing about “The Age Of Liberty”, the new Bush foreign policy theme song, after ensuring the reader that he has indeed read, and re-read “the serious speech in its entirety.”
That’s good news, I suppose, as it implies that even the Republican spokesperson at the NYTimes (if only by accident) acknowledges that “seriousness” is something worth mentioning when President Bush is speaking…
He’s also explaining that, apparently, a rethoric Europeanization is going on in the White House speechwriting offices, one that is, unfortunately, so subtle it has to be explained even to the readers of the NY Times… – “He chose “influential” rather than “powerful” to stress our democratic example.”
But he’s right about one thing: Instead of reading summaries, including his own, one should proceed to reading the real thing. Well, where he’s right, he’s right.
Now look at that – The Economist is getting warier of supporting President Bush and Tony Blair. Given that the magazine was among the very few European outlets which decidedly supported the war on Iraq because of the dangers posed by the assumed proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a cover like this week’s must be considered a clear indicator of a shift in editorial policy. Now the interesting question would be – taking the headline quite literally – how could the Economist be deceived like it has?
As far as my sitemeter tells me, Georgy Russell must be doing some pretty good PR over in California – or she has bribed someone at Google.
Yesterday, she apparently was on the cover page of USA toda. And now someone has even set up a domain featuring a very likely fake picture of her. She writes in her blog: “As I see it, if people are talking about me, that’s better than not saying anything.” She’s right, it would certainly do more harm than good to go after the person who has set up georgyrussell.net/org –
Der Spiegel’s cover this week, headline: “Powerless Superpower. Appearance and Reality of the USA.” The story is not available for free, unfortunately. For an American perspective of the same subject, check this Atlantic special “The Real State Of The Union”.
Maureen Dowd reflects about the mainstreaming of blogging –
“Don’t get me started on the Blaster virus sabotaging Microsoft systems, or the cram of spam reminding us that the average American is an impotent, insecure, overweight, tired, depressed loser desperately seeking to refinance. The most telling sign that the Internet is no longer the cool American frontier? Blogs, which sprang up to sass the establishment, have been overrun by the establishment.” (from the NY Times)
Hollywood Producer Makes 2nd Bid for German TV Group (from the NY Times Deal Book)
At least for the moÂment, I am not realÂly comÂmenÂting the quarÂrel betÂween the Labour goÂvernÂment and the BBC that very likeÂly led to the traÂgic suiÂcide of Dr. DaÂvid KelÂly, who was the oriÂgiÂnal sourÂce beÂhind the BBC Radio 4’s deÂfenÂce corÂresÂponÂdent AnÂdrew GilÂliÂgan’s claim that the British goÂvernÂment, most proÂmiÂnentÂly AlasÂtair CampÂbell, Tony Blair’s comÂmuÂniÂcaÂtions adÂviÂsor, ‘sexed up’ the BriÂtish Iraq dosÂsier to make a more conÂvinÂcing case for war.
But whaÂtever you think of the goÂvernÂment’s, or the BBC’s, or Dr. Kelly’s, or any indiÂvidual jourÂnaÂlist’s resÂponsiÂbiliÂty for the traÂgedy, some peopÂle in goÂvernÂment obÂviousÂly forÂgot some baÂsic rules of poÂliÂtiÂcal comÂmuÂniÂcaÂtion. When someÂone says “liar”, you don’t fuel that disÂcusÂsion by sulÂkingÂly reÂplyÂing “no, you are” when the only result will be that bad situÂation beÂcomes an even worÂse one.
I just don’t unÂderÂstand why Mr CampÂbell felt the need to reÂlive Shell’s 1995 Brent Spar comÂmuÂniÂcaÂtions disaster when there was no need whatÂsoÂever?
Whatever the truth to his or AnÂdrew GilÂligan’s poÂsiÂtion, talÂking about it cerÂtainÂly made things worse at a time when the pubÂlic disÂcourÂse was “shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice”. WhatÂever the truth to either side’s alligations, withÂout fiÂnalÂly finÂding some buckets of poiÂson someÂwhere in the Iraqi deÂsert, the only way for the British goÂvernÂment to deal with the siÂtuÂation would have been to shut up, not to hunt down an alÂleÂged traiÂtor or charÂging the BBC with jourÂnaÂlisÂtic misÂconÂduct to maÂke everyÂone beÂlieve that there must be really someÂthing to the story.
That’s all I’m going to say.
My forÂmer emÂploÂyer Ben BradÂshaw on the other hand, forÂmer BBC jourÂnalist and now ParÂliaÂmenÂtary SeÂcreÂtary in the BriÂtish DepartÂment for EnviÂronÂment, Food and RuÂral Affairs, is very involÂved in this row.
And, again, whatÂever your opinion of all this: his reÂcent deÂploÂring the lack of quaÂlity jourÂnaÂlism and sourÂce veriÂfiÂcaÂtion seems to have some point when even “The GuarÂdian“, even in a timeÂline of the affair publiÂshed on July 19th, makes him a “ForÂeign OfÂfice MiniÂster”, a poÂsiÂtion he left in June 2002 when he was appoinÂted “DeÂputy LeaÂder of the HouÂse of ComÂmons”.
