Recently in Socio-political Category

Oh dear. Just saw this on Dan Harmon's blog. Tom has been covering the writer's strike with enthusiasm and aplomb and I don't have that much to say about it since it is fundamantally an American issue and hence not really much of my business, except that some of my favourite shows (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report most fundamentally- gosh I miss them!) are now MIA and that the script for the new Star Trek movie can't be 'punched up' during filming, as is often done while shooting a movie, which could seriously degrade its quality -which would suck (incidentally, it was the Writer's Strike of `88 that ruined the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, as well).

Apart from these, it's not something that affects me directly, but I have a few thoughts on the process that I think may provide some balance to an issue that, based on my exposure to it (mainly via the web), it isn't really getting. Most people, if they are aware of the issue at all, are under the impression, fostered by writers talking to the media, that it's about getting residuals for work posted online or to other forms of new media (like through cellphones for example). While this is true, it's just one facet of an issue that is actually much more complex yet, if you phrase it bluntly, much more simple than that.

I just want to put a disclaimer that I support the writers in the strike, and I support the strike in general. I write this not to belittle the strike, or the WGA, just to play devil's advocate and perhaps fill in the other side a little.

It's difficult to comprehend (although the strike gives you a clue) just how much clout the WGA and the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) have in Hollywood unless you have worked there and worked with these two institutions. Now I want to stress that these institutions are good things and without them writers and actors would be getting screwed out of money left right and center. The studios will take as much rope as they pay out to them so it becomes by nature a combative process between the studios and the guilds (the money and talent, basically) where each side tries to take as much as they can because if they don't, the other side will. It's important to see this strike as part of that combative process where occasionally each side has to flex some muscle. This strike, put simply, is the WGA saying: "See what we can do?"

Ya see, nothing much gets made in Hollywood without WGA and SAG approval. If you've got a script, it needs to be registered with the guild to get made. The guilds are self-supporting, so if you have a script that isn't registered, the SAG, in solidarity with the WGA, won't let you use SAG-registered actors. One of the problems with this is that it creates a very insular 'Hollywood-only' environment. A good example of this is that SAG sued each and every SAG actor who worked on The Lord of the Rings because they were working on a film with other, non-SAG actors. In other words, they were punished for working on a film outside the Hollywood system, because when you sign up with the union, you agree to support other SAG actors by only working on films made inside the confines of the system. Likewise with tradespeople- SAG only lets you come to them for actors if you can prove you're using IATSE members, and are being directed by someone registered with the DGA, and so forth- all the guilds are self-supporting. So if you don't get your script registered with the WGA you don't get the actors from SAG, and you don't get the tradespeople. You have to fill in all the slots to get your film/show made, and this can get very expensive, which is why films seem to cost 10x more when they are made inside the Hollywood system than they do when made elsewhere- the unions have set the price for their wares, and since there's little competition (because of the self-supporting nature of the unions): it's high.

I should point out that while I am using these examples in reference to their negatives, using guild-registered tradespeople, finding the right actors through SAG, and registering your script with the WGA comes with a host of advantages (for both sides) that would not exist without the strength of the unions. I'm not saying the unions are inherently bad things (in fact: they're essential), and certainly I am fans of many of the writers who are protesting. I'm just saying this isn't a valiant struggle on behalf of the poor wee writers who are being stomped by the studios. It's a struggle between two massive cogs in a bloated, corrupt studio system, and they both seem equally threatening when you're just a guy in LA trying to get a film made. The studios may not give you any money, but neither do they try to shut you down when you don't grease the wheels with money with each and every turn.

Again, I don't say this to attack the writers (or even the system itself really, it is what it has evolved to become), just to provide a little perspective on both sides.

Yes, it's true, that was me you saw in the Goo-ardian this weekend (er, if the photo* and the name didn't tip you off), you may now stop texting me (although I must say I'm impressed by how many of you read your weekend Guardian, well done).

If you missed it, I'm reposting the entire article below (which was oddly laid-out so you may experience temporary confusion as to what section you're in- it may be easier just to read it on the Guardian site), since I'm sure all of history will want to benefit from my wisdom. If it sounds like my wisdom is an odd series of non-sequiturs that is because they were cherry-picked or even paraphrased from an hour-long interview which I actually thought was a pretty interesting conversation. I've asked Craig (who interviewed me) for the recording and I may post it here later if it comes through (if, y'know, you just can't get enough of my views on sex).

I thought I'd also take this opportunity to clarify a few things which may sound odd without context:

• The interviews were undertaken to provide a counterpoint to the main article- they wanted to see if Decca's theories mapped out in reality. I hadn't read the article before we did the interview and it was quite freeform (it ranged all over), so I was somewhat suprised to see that the two primary theories behind the article (the pornographization of the mainstream and the internet's role in the availability of casual sex) were echoed almost directly by my own thoughts. I think the main difference is that Decca took a largely negative stance on current views on sex and sexuality, whereas I think it's part of an evolutionary process (in which feminism has played an enormous, powerful role) that will unfold largely as it should- with both positive and negative sides. That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't pick sides- that's part of the process. My side? Well, we can't go backwards -and I wouldn't want us to- but we do need to make our way forward with care and circumspection.
  
• Many people have taken the opening line as some kind of condemnation of porn on my part. It really isn't. Like all men I've consumed porn and probably will again at some stage or another. I think there's definitely nasty aspects to it but I wouldn't make a blanket condemnation of it as a media form, or indeed anyone who consumes it. My comment was specifically about how porn has (quite recently, really) set up station in the mainstream of popular culture and I think there may be some creepy aspects to that. I saw my first pornographic magazine when I was thirteen and it was almost an artifact in terms of how hard it was for a group of teenagers to get a hold of. Yet I would have to stab my eyes out to avoid similar levels of exposure to porn in my regular day-to-day apperception of television and advertising today- it'd be downright odd if I saw a dance (or R&B) video that didn't feature a lot of nekkid ladies gyrating about. That was my main point. Not that porn is bad per se, just that it's everywhere.
• I haven't been through four relationships in the past six months: I've dated four people, by which I mean, you know, you hang out with someone, go on dates, see if you get along enough to get into an 'actual' (?) relationship- admittedly the line gets blurry as you start to phase from one to the other. I get the impression this is a largely American concept, but it's definitely gaining currency over here- I'm certainly a big fan of it. Presumably the word relationship was subbed in because a lot of people don't know what I mean when I say 'dating'. Hmm. Anyway, my primary point was that while its easier to find people and get dates, it's changed the value of sex...and really, how could it not?
• "Sex has gone from being this important relationship to being a recreational activity." I'm pretty sure what I said (or at least meant to say) was: "Sex has gone from being this important part of a relationship to almost a recreational activity." I didn't mean to say the former had overwritten the latter. Sex is, of course, a very important part of a relationship- I didn't mean to preclude that option. I was just saying that that there has been a large explosion in casual sex- now people can use the internet to dial up a casual sex partner just as something to do, not as part of a relationship- I'd say this is dangerous to a person's idea as to the value of sex.
• These are all opinions based on experience (although I should say I have never used the internet to dial up a casual sex partner- although I do know people who have), not declarations of fact based on inferential reasoning. I'm not saying I'm right, nor that anyone else is wrong- but feel free to jump in if you think I am, heh.
• It's a minefield out there, people! Take care of yourselves, and each other. [wink]

*with my teenty-tiny beady eyes (God how I hate them!) and ludicrous 17-inch neck (do you know how hard it is to lose weight in your neck?). And for the record, I didn't get intentionally dressed up, I didn't even know I was being photographed until an hour before I was. That's just what I normally wear to work, for real. I'm fancy.

"Everywhere I look there's bloody Bob Geldof. All the performers taking part are mega-rich, but they're asking us for money? Bleh."

"Gah! You're like the tenth person I've had to explain this to. I can't blame you, because the papers are encouraging the impression that this is just another Live Aid. Live8 is not about raising money to give to Africa. Nowhere on the Make Poverty History site is there a little 'donate money' button. I mean, aid is useful for certain purposes, but no amount of cash can ever possibly catch up with the fundamental economic problems that are affecting Africa. In several cases, simply dumping cash on the problem makes it worse."

"Then...why are they doing the concert again?"

[sigh] "They want to show the participating governments at the G8 conference that a huge amount of people want them to alter the rules of international trade so that Africa has a fighting chance to create its own robust economy. Right now, export subsidies don't give African farms even a chance to produce their own food- they just increase the debt. Forcing Africa to keep its markets unregulated is like trying to teach a baby to swim by chucking it into a pool. Even with the promise to drop the debt, they've tied that promise to demands to keep the markets open -which is in our interest- which means the problem is just going to reoccur all over again."

"So...it's just a protest rally."

"Yes- an enormous protest rally. With music."

"Think it'll help?"

"I think it'll help about as much as the Iraq protests did. The sad fact is, Africa is in the position it is in because that is the position we want it to be in. It simply isn't in the interests of the Western world to have an economically viable Africa. Politicans will smile and try to use this as a chance to ingratiate themselves with the public. They may even make some substantial policy changes that they will reverse later when not so many people are looking, and in twenty years we'll have Live40. Paul McCartney will mysteriously still be the same age."

[this began as a comment on another blog, but it got so long I thought I'd just stick it here. My thoughts on this topic aren't (and could hardly be) original, and are covered far more eloquently and intelligently in other, more eloquent, more intelligent blogs]

So, according to the Sunday Times yesterday, the Tories intend to turn abortion into a 'keystone issue' for this year's election. My first question would be: why? Surely anyone who is against abortion will already be voting conservative*, so politicizing it as an issue will just drive otherwise conservative-voting women away from the party? **

Conservative thought (in the US predominantly but increasingly over here as Tories seem to think that Republicans are on to a vote-winner) seems to take the same tack towards abortion it does towards sex education- that is, if you stop providing teenagers with education and contraception, they'll stop having sex and getting pregnant.

This is manifestly not the case. If you remove the choice of women to have abortions in a sterile, safe environment, followed up with counselling, it will simply force women to have abortions in unsterile, unsafe, life-threatening ways. Beyond that, it'll force women to have children that they don't want, which kind of ruins two lives, instead of just the one.

I actually quite enjoy the debate side of abortion, because unlike a lot of political issues, it actually begins to get mildly philosophical. In how many other political arguments do you get to use the word 'ensoulment'?

Look, I don't know when conciousness begins, and I doubt anyone does, or even if there's a way to quantify it (I swear I've met several adults, and entire Irish rugby team infact, who are wholly un-self-aware). Does it actually matter? I suppose there's a certain horror in the thought that, moments after baby Jesus' first thoughts: "Hey! I think, therefore I am. These are my fingers. This is what a womb looks like. Hey what the...." CRACK! THUMP! WOOSH! You're dead! but beyond that, it's pretty hard to deny that abortion is, by definition, terminating a life that, whether you do it to a bunch of blastocytes, a mildly-developed fetus, or a full-term infant that you've delivered and then chucked in the trash***, would have gone on to become a properly alive human being, had you not interceded. Pro-choice people like myself need to stop dancing around the whole 'oh well it's alive at 20 weeks but not at 19 weeks' thing, as though that is the issue at hand. It's not.

The issue at hand is this: If you want to believe that abortion is murder and if you'll do it you'll go to hell, that's cool in the gang. No-one's out to take that away from you. Have your baby. Run organisations that try to support young mothers and convince then that they don't have to abort their baby. Fight your battle, I applaud that. But fight it in the moral arena, not the legal one. Don't force your decision on to others who may not believe as you do. No-one (particularly not any man, and particularly not any pastor with a corrected cleft palate) has the right to force a woman what to do with her body, or anything inside of it. You have the right to talk to them, show them the 3D images of the baby laughing, put the fear o' God's wrath into them if you please, but the moment you force, you're exercising violence.

Our legal system, much to the chagrin of Michael Howard, massively places the burden of proof on the accuser, based on the long-held understanding that the crime of taking away someone's freedom for something they didn't do is so heinous, that it's worse than murder. Abortion is, by one definition (to put an end to), murder of a kind, and it's tragic and awful and I wish it didn't have to happen. But forcing someone to bear a child they do not want, stripping away the freedom to control their own bodies, is a greater crime, in my belief, even than that.

d

I went to Hyde Park on Saturday, absolutely gorgeous day, I was meeting some friends for a picanic. I walked over from Green Park, and I quickly noticed that all the roads around the park were closed off, police were everywhere. I had a marvellous time, walking down the centre lane of the five-lane blacktop running alongside Hyde Park. Eventually I ran into the reason the roads were blocked off, which was a ?No More Blood? demonstration, in support of bringing the troops home. Now, this demonstration was absolutely dwarfed, by several factors, by the ones I attended in the lead-up to the war, and those demonstrations, some of the largest in history, were duly ignored by the powers that be.

Uhm, guys? It?s over. We failed. We can?t go back in time and undo this war. Our troops went in, against the will of the people, against all the evidence that Iraq was complying with the UN?s demands. And we annhilated the infrastructure of this country, along with a fair portion of its citizens. And now that we?ve done this awful thing, it?s our responsibility to do what we can to help Iraq get back on its feet. If there?s one MORE fuckup that can be added to the colossal pile of fuckups we?ve inflicted on Iraq, it?d be bringing the troops home early. The one good thing they can do, after all this destruction, is to help the reconstruction. That doesn?t make the war right, but the shitstorm that would be unleashed if we withdrew now would be colossal- if you need evidence of this, just ref. the shitstorm that whirled up when America withdrew from the Gulf at the end of the last war against Iraq.

I didn?t agree with the war, but the mistake has already been made- let?s not compound it. This doesn?t mean there isn?t a lot of work to be done, and a lot of positive things activists can do to help Iraq- but bringing the troops home early is not one of those things, unless you are the sort of person who values British blood over the blood of Iraqi citizens and, oddly, those were not the sort of people attending this demonstration.

d