Notes from North of 49ºN

The above AP video shows Pennsylvania House of Representatives member Joe Sestak, who beat White House supported Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary talking about an unpaid job offer discussed by Bill Clinton last year. The skinny is that Rahm Emanuel greenlighted Bill Clinton offering Joe Sestak an unpaid position of influence in consideration for not running against Specter in the 2010 primary. Sestak declined. This wasn’t enough for Republican Rep. Darrell Issa or pundit Liz Cheney. Issa is claiming that this will be Obama’s Watergate and citing 18 U.S.C. § 201 on bribery and wants an investigation. {As an aside, Issa was instrumental in the 2003 California Gubernatorial recall election that replaced Gray Davis with Arnold Schwartzenegger}. Cheney wants the same, accusing the White House of a smokescreen::

The U.S.C. bribery statute clarifies what consists of a bona-fide bribe, which hinges on the influence of an “official act”. What is an official act? Here is is:

“the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” [*]

The idea is to limit influence on law, not a decision to run for office. While I’m not a fan of Emanuel or these types of tactics, I see this as politics-as-usual and within the scope of the law. I think pressing this one is a lost cause and more blowing smoke, but it may well be “run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes” season. Happy Memorial Day.

And they call Toronto The Big Smoke.

Song:: Ben Folds Five-‘Smoke’

Twitterversion:: [blog – #ThickCulture] Sestak-Clinton-@WhiteHouse controversy. Whose smokescreen is it anyway or much ado about nothing? @Prof_K

Arlen Specter, longtime 6-term Republican who switched to the Democratic Party is out. He lost his bid for re-election in yesterday’s primary. The emerging pattern is that the people aren’t interested in politics as usual and that incumbency may be a heavy liability in the November midterms.

Usually, incumbency offers advantages and even in the bloodletting midterm elections of 1994 and 2006, incumbents were re-elected at a relatively high rate—just not as high as usual. My thinking is that some incumbents will have a harder time than others with the key driver being how ties they are to the establishment.

Sestak was behind the 8-ball in early polls, but I agree with the analysis that ideology didn’t drive the turnaround. It was a desire for a fresh face. Here’s the ad {“The Switch”} by Joe Sestak that started Arlen Specter’s decline in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary::

The ad linked Specter to the establishment.

It will be interesting how the races in California play out. There are two Republican ex-Silicon Valley CEO political outsiders vying for the statehouse and Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat. Millionaire Carly Fiorina running for Governor and billionaire Meg Whitman setting her sights on the U.S. Senate, if they get through the primaries, are hoping to give marquee-name Democrats {Boxer and Jerry Brown, respectively} a run for their money. I don’t think their messages will get much traction in California this year, but never underestimate the power of a substantial warchest. I’m sure Jerry Brown’s sister, Kathleen, still remembers what happens when you run out of money in a campaign, as she did in 1994.

Song:: Green Day-‘American Idiot’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Specter loses Senate bid—PA primary. Will incumbents face a “throw the bums out” mandate this fall? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/67xy  @Prof_K

“We simply cannot risk any possible link between our mission and the sort of photos and material that you openly share with the online public. While I know you are a good worker and an intelligent person, I hope you try to understand that our employees are held to a different standard. When it comes to private matters, such as one’s sexual explorations and preferences, our employees must keep their affairs private.”

“I was really Clark Kent about it…I dressed like a freaking Mormon when I went in. I was really overcautious and did an extra-good job. Because I always thought that if they ever did find out about it, I would have proved myself so much that they would weigh the pros and cons and decide to proceed a certain way that, you know, wouldn’t fire me. But I wasn’t there long enough to do that, and I don’t think it would have made a difference anyway, with the way they reacted. It’s like — I went from good employee to monster.”

“One of the unfortunate things is that a lot of people are uncomfortable about unconventional sexuality, especially when a woman’s involved…That is not an employer’s job — to police the sexual lives of its employees — and when an employer discriminates on that basis it is sex discrimination and it’s against the law.”

While there will be many a finger-wagger clucking about what people should and should not post on the Internet, perhaps the real issue, given how the Internet makes everyday life more transparent and privacy is deader than dead, is that organizations and institutions need to relax the scrutiny and ease up on controlling people’s lives. The alternative is a morality driven not by church or community but by the employee handbook.

Notes from north of 49ºN

“Sugar Sammy” is an Indo-Canadian comic with a cultural studies degree from McGill who wants to portray the visible minority experience in Québec. While getting some acclaim in the anglophone realm and even had had a HBO special, the multilingual Sammy {who speaks Hindi, Punjabi, English, and French}, was up for an Olivier award for Québec humour.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about a Wind Mobile ad airing here in Canada that uses cultural stereotypes of south Asians as a part of its humour.  In that post, I brought up the Apu “problem”, where a Simpson’s character also uses cultural stereotypes to get laughs and to shill for 7-11 with a promotional tie-in in 2007. In this stand-up clip, Sammy goes after Apu and how it’s voiced by a non-South Asian {Hank Azaria} and how media portrayals of South Asians tend towards the weird {go to 3:05}::

While using race as fodder for comedy is nothing new, there’s arguably more room for alternative cultural narratives, particularly with the proliferation of social media. Sammy’s experience of being Indian in a francophone region of a predominantly anglophone country is a story of confluences of culture, politics, and power. In Québec, Bill 101/Loi 101 is the law of the land, where the primary language of instruction in the province is French, as part of attempts to make French language the norm in the province.

Mr. Khullar delivers his routines in flawless French, the result of being streamed into French school along with all the immigrant children in his multicultural neighbourhood of Côte-des-Neiges in Montréal. At the time, the lack of choice wasn’t a big hit in the Khullar household.

But today, the thirtysomething comic acknowledges it’s given him his chance at succeeding on home turf.

‘I’m a child of Bill 101,” he says. “I’m happy I went to French school, because my French wouldn’t have been this good. The more languages I speak, the more people I reach.'”

Sammy’s jokes hit themes where many anglophones would fear to tread—at least in front of an audience at a comedy show. He touches on the cultural stereotypes of the Québécois, but he can do so in perfect French::

video [French]:: “Les Québécois” skit, nominee for Olivier Award

While it may seem like a double-standard that Sammy can poke fun of cultural stereotypes of the Québécois and it seems offsides that the dominant culture poke fun of the South Asian stereotypes, one could say it’s a matter of the dynamics of cultural power and which group has it. Arguably, Sammy gets away with his comedic critiques with respect to Québec audiences because {1} he’s not anglo—i.e., he’s not a member of the dominant anglophone Canadian culture that many in Québec see as hegemonic and {2} he speaks perfect French.

Sammy didn’t win the Olivier award, but you’d be hard-pressed to know that if you just followed the anglophone press. I had to dig deep and use my rudimentary French to find the winners on the Radio-Canada {French CBC} site.

When it comes to comedy in Canada, I think it’s safe to say there’s one safe target no matter who you are. Americans. Of course, this a topic for another blog.

Song:: Malajube-‘St. Fortunat’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Multilingual Indo-Canadian comic Sugar Sammy negotiates cult. boundaries in post-Bill/Loi 101 Quebec #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Club America and Pachuca won’t be there.

Two of Mexico’s prominent club teams canceled a July 7th friendly at the University of Phoenix stadium in response to Arizona’s immigration bill signed into law last month.

The decision by the Mexican clubs means that the football stadium loses a crucial summer revenue opportunity. In 2007, 62,000 fans showed up to the stadium for a meaningless “friendly” between the United States and Mexico. For Club America and Pachuca, you might have seen a similar number.

This news event highlights both the challenges facing soccer/futbol in the United States and it’s probable success. I know Franklin Foer said this already, but Soccer in the USA is on the side of the “modernity project.” In a recent paper, Pippa Norris and Ron Ingelhardt identify five key elements of the modernity project:

more secular
more tolerant sexual attitudes
less nationalistic
more politically engaged
more accepting of “free market” values

This modernity project is tied to what are commonly and simplistically described as Western values: openness, tolerance, embrace of diversity, an embrace of neo-liberal capitalism, democratic governance, etc. They find that the nations of the “developed West” are moving rapidly towards this model.

Often, these values cut across local norms and traditions. They are indifferent to borders. With respect to immigration, if an undocumented immigrant can do the job for less than a US citizen with little risk of sanction for breaking the law on the part of the employer, then the market produces strong incentives to hire that worker. As it relates to soccer, if 62,000 people want to watch a “foreign” game, then there are strong incentives to put that game on.

Say what you want about how “nobody cares about soccer in the US,” but look at the list of European and South American teams visiting the United States to play “friendlies” against Major League Soccer (USA league) sides.

Matches & Scores:

-Wed May 19
New England Revolution v Benfica (Portugal)
Venue: Gillette Stadium in Foxborough MA

-May 19-22
Sister Cities International Cup
-Wed May 19
Chicago Fire v Paris Saint-Germain (France)
Legia Warsaw (Poland) v Red Star Belgrade(Serbia)
-Sat May 22
2 Winners play for cup
2 Losers play for pride
Venue: Toyota Park – Bridgeview IL

-Sun May 23
New York Red Bulls v Juventus (Italy)
Venue: Red Bull Arena
Los Angeles Galaxy v Boca Juniors (Argentina)
Venue: Home Depot Center – Carson CA

-Wed May 26
DC United v AC Milan (Italy)
Venue: RFK Stadium
Seattle Sounders v Boca Juniors (Argentina)
Venue: Qwest Field – Seattle WA

-Sun May 30
Chicago Fire v AC Milan (Italy)
Venue: Toyota Park

-Sat Jun 12
Sacramento Cup
Chivas USA v San Jose Earthquakes
Venue: Raley Field – West Sacramento CA

-Sun Jun 13
New England Revolution v Cruzeiro (Brazil)
Venue: Gillette Stadium – Foxborough MA

-Sat Jun 19
DC United v El Salvador (national team)
Venue: RFK Stadium – Washington DC

???June ???
New York Red Bulls v Cruzeiro (Brazil)
Venue: Red Bull Arena

-Wed Jul 14
Philadelphia Union v Glasgow Celtic (Scotland)
Venue: PPL Park – Chester PA

-Fri Jul 16
Celtic v Manchester United (England)
Venue: Rogers Center – Toronto ON

-Sat Jul 17
San Jose Earthquakes v Tottenham (England)
Venue: Buck Shaw Stadium

-Sun Jul 18
Seattle Sounders v Celtic (Scotland)
Venue: Qwest Field – Seattle WA

-Wed Jul 21
Philadelphia Union v Manchester United (England)
Venue: Lincoln Financial Field – Philadelphia PA
Toronto FC v Bolton (England)
Venue: BMO Field – Toronto ON

-July 22-25
New York Football Challenge
New York Red Bulls
Manchester City (England)
Tottenham (England)
Sporting Lisbon (Portugal)
Venue: Red Bull Arena

-Sun Jul 25
Kansas City Wizards v Manchester United (England)
Venue: Arrowhead Stadium – Kansas City MO

-Wed Jul 28
MLS All-Star Game
MLS All Stars v Manchester United (England)
Venue: Reliant Stadium – Houston TX

The increased flows of people, ideas, and technologies has made it easier for people to move across borders, but more importantly it has made it easier for the games those people love to follow them. This fluidity makes it harder for individuals to maintain and preserve “culture” and tradition. To the extent that sport is a reflection of parochial interests, “foreign” games pose a threat to those deeply held traditions. I put foreign in quotes because soccer has a tradition in the United States that as old as football and basketball but it never made the crossover into mainstream fandom (see Andrei Markovitz for why this is).

I think that both Arizona’s (an the nation’s) response to immigration and some people’s hatred of soccer in the U.S. are largely cut from a similar cloth…. a discomfort with the modernity project. One response might be that this is all high-falutin’ professor speak and that soccer is simply too slow and boring. Possible, but no other sport produces the vitriol that soccer does among sports writers and commentators on blogs. Heck, there’s even an entire website devoted to “saving the world” from the game.

Hyperbolic hatred of this sport in the USA, I think, is the result of in perceived intrusion upon a group’s desire to create their own cultural norms. The decision to go watch “the footy” on a summer Saturday is a direct rejection of a time honored tradition of watching the “ball game.” In the same way that some are offended by undocumented immigration because it curtails a group’s ability to define who is a member and who is not.

In both cases, however, the weight of the modernity project is strong. Ingelhardt and Norris find that modernity does not replace local culture, but it modifies it. They caution that “Sweden is not in the process of becoming America, nor is the U.S. becoming Sweden.” It doesn’t eliminate local culture, but it forces societies to reckon with it.

The USA will accept soccer, but will give it its own provincial touches. We’ll have an “MLS Cup” cause’ that’s how we roll! We have a “draft” where teams select college players, because that’s what the NFL does. We have an “Eastern” and “Western” conference, dammit! And absolutely, positively, no promotion and relegation!!

HT to Chuck D for the title

The English have a reputation for producing soccer players that are not afraid to make hard challenges to win the ball. They refer to this as getting “stuck in.” But could it be that because England’s players all play in the same league, they are also more likely to get “stuck” as well.

University of Michigan professor Scott Page wrote an interesting book in 2007 called The Difference where he makes a provocative, argument about the benefits of diversity to institutions. The genesis of his book began as a young professor at CalTech:

One winter evening in 1995, to have a little fun I constructed a computer model of diverse problem solvers confronting a difficult problem. Put aside for now what counts for fun at Caltech; “fun” at Caltech rarely makes sense to the outside world. In my model, I represented diversity as differences in the ways problem solvers encoded the problem and searched for solutions. I referred to these ways of solving the problem as tools. In working through the implications of my model, I stumbled on a counterintuitive finding: diverse groups of problem solvers—groups of people with diverse tools—consistently outperformed groups of the best and the brightest. If I formed two groups, one random (and therefore diverse) and one consisting of the best individual performers, the first group almost always did better. In my model, diversity trumped ability.

In follow up experiments, Page found that a random group of problem solvers consistently outperformed high ability groups. Why? Here is Page in a New York Times interview describing the general findings in his book:

People from different backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems, what I call “tools.” The sum of these tools is far more powerful in organizations with diversity than in ones where everyone has gone to the same schools, been trained in the same mold and thinks in almost identical ways.

The problems we face in the world are very complicated. Any one of us can get stuck. If we’re in an organization where everyone thinks in the same way, everyone will get stuck in the same place.

But if we have people with diverse tools, they’ll get stuck in different places. One person can do their best, and then someone else can come in and improve on it. There’s a lot of empirical data to show that diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, the most innovative companies are diverse.

Does this finding apply to football/soccer teams? One proposition would be that teams with players for that play is different leagues around the world bring a diverse set of experiences, training habits, tactics, norms, etc. that would be beneficial in game preparation and in making split second decisions on the field. By extension, players who all ply their trade in the same league would all have the same general set of experiences and would see off-field and on-field problems the same way.

If Page’s logic applies to winning at soccer, then that does not bode well for England’s changes at the upcoming 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Here’s a look at the preliminary 30 man roster coach Fabio Capello named yesterday:

Goalkeepers: David James (Portsmouth), Robert Green (West Ham United), Joe Hart (Manchester City).

Defenders: Ashley Cole (Chelsea), John Terry (Chelsea), Rio Ferdinand (Manchester United), Glen Johnson (Liverpool), Ledley King (Tottenham Hotspur), Jamie Carragher (Liverpool), Matthew Upson (West Ham United), Michael Dawson (Tottenham Hotspur), Leighton Baines (Everton), Stephen Warnock (Aston Villa).

Midfielders: Steven Gerrard (Liverpool), Frank Lampard (Chelsea), Michael Carrick (Manchester United), James Milner (Aston Villa), Theo Walcott (Arsenal), Gareth Barry (Manchester City), Joe Cole (Chelsea), Tom Huddlestone (Tottenham Hotspur), Scott Parker (West Ham United), Aaron Lennon (Tottenham Hotspur), Adam Johnson (Manchester City), Shaun Wright-Phillips (Manchester City).

Forwards: Wayne Rooney (Manchester United), Peter Crouch (Tottenham Hotspur), Emile Heskey (Aston Villa), Darren Bent (Sunderland), Jermain Defoe (Tottenham Hotspur).

Every single one of these 30 players plies their trade in the Barclay’s English Premiere League. Of course this is almost universally accepted to be the best league in the world. And the 30 on this team (with the possible exception of the goalkeepers) are among the best players in the best league in the world. With Wayne Rooney, they have a player that is arguably the best player in the world, or at least one of the top three. As a result, pundits expect England to waltz through their qualification group and to possibly win the World Cup for the first time since 1966.

But Page’s key insight is that merit based groups don’t perform as well as diverse groups because merit based groups see problems in similar ways and are disposed to get “stuck” in the same place and in the same way. A team with less talented players but more diversity of experience (playing in different leagues) might make up for their lack of ability with an enhanced range of experiences that gives them a greater ability to get “unstuck” when the group encounters a problem.

it just so happens that England’s first game is against the USA, a team that fits this bill nicely. Let’s look at the USA’s 30 man roster:

GOALKEEPERS (3): Brad Guzan (Aston Villa), Tim Howard (Everton), Marcus Hahnemann (Wolverhampton)

DEFENDERS (9): Carlos Bocanegra (Rennes), Jonathan Bornstein (Chivas USA), Steve Cherundolo (Hannover), Jay DeMerit (Watford), Clarence Goodson (IK Start), Chad Marshall (Columbus Crew), Oguchi Onyewu (AC Milan), Heath Pearce (FC Dallas), Jonathan Spector (West Ham United)

MIDFIELDERS (12): DaMarcus Beasley (Rangers), Alejandro Bedoya (Örebro), Michael Bradley (Borussia Mönchengladbach), Ricardo Clark (Eintracht Frankfurt), Clint Dempsey (Fulham), Landon Donovan (Los Angeles Galaxy), Maurice Edu (Rangers), Benny Feilhaber (Aarhus), Stuart Holden (Bolton), Sacha Kljestan (Chivas USA), Robbie Rogers (Columbus Crew), José Torres (Pachuca)

FORWARDS (6): Jozy Altidore (Villarreal), Edson Buddle (Los Angeles Galaxy), Brian Ching (Houston Dynamo), Robbie Findley (Real Salt Lake), Herculez Gomez (Puebla), Eddie Johnson (Aris Thessaloniki)

The 30 players on this roster come from twelve different leagues: (England, USA, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Mexico, and Greece). While the USA has some influential players in global soccer, they are in large part not among the best players in the world. They are serviceable players for mid-level teams (Edu and Beasley excepted) in both high and mid level leagues. Nine of the 30 on the roster play in Major League Soccer – a good, but not great standard.

If Page is right, the USA should do better than England. But it can’t be right? If it was, then a random sample of 30 people from around the world would give England a game! And we all know that wouldn’t happen (although it would be funny to watch).

Page’s key point is that in problem solving, both diversity and ability matter.

Diversity and ability complement one another: the better the individual fruits, the better the fruit basket, and the better the other fruit, the better the apple. So while we might equally proudly affix “my other child’s different” bumper stickers to our vehicles (anyone with two kids can claim that to be true), ideally, our children would be individually able and collectively diverse.

If you could find a team that merged both ability and diversity then you would have a force of nature. Here’s Brasil’s preliminary 23 man roster:

Goalkeepers – Julio Cesar (Inter Milan), Doni (AS Roma), Gomes (Tottenham Hotspur)

Defenders – Maicon (Inter Milan), Daniel Alves (Barcelona), Michel Bastos (Olympique Lyon), Gilberto (Cruzeiro), Lucio (Inter Milan), Juan (AS Roma), Luisao (Benfica), Thiago Silva (AC Milan)

Midfielders – Gilberto Silva (Panathinaikos), Felipe Melo (Fiorentina), Ramires (Benfica), Elano (Galatasaray), Kaka (Real Madrid), Julio Baptista (Roma), Kleberson (Flamengo), Josue (VfL Wolfsburg).

Forwards – Robinho (Santos), Luis Fabiano (Sevilla), Nilmar (Villarreal), Grafite (VfL Wolfsburg).

Brazil’s 23 play in 9 different leagues: (Italy, England, Spain, France, Brazil, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Germany). The difference between Brazil’s nine and the USA’s 12 is that Brazil’s 23 are superstars in 9 of the top league in the world whereby the USA’s 30 are good players in 12 different leagues (10 actually since Jozy Altidore was loaned from Spain to England and Oguchi Onyewu has been injured and actually hasn’t played for AC Milan, but I digress).

Brazil has the best of both worlds — ability and diversity of soccer experience. So they are my pick to win the world cup.

But take heart England fans, the all might be nonsense. England’s first division is much more international than it was just a generation earlier. In 2008, only 34% of the players were from England, about half the percentage of English players in the previous generation. Therefore, the 30 on England’s roster have been exposed to a wide assortment of players and playing styles. The Premiership is a prime destination for players from all over the world and many of the top talent on display at the World Cup will either be playing or hope to be auditioning for a chance to play in England.

England also has an increased diversity of coaches. Of the top seven teams in England’s top flight, five six were from other countries: a Scot (Freguson), a Northern Irishman (O’Neil), two Italians (Ancelotti, Mancini), a Spaniard (Benitez), and a Frenchman (Wenger). Further, most of the players on the English roster play in European tournaments gaining further exposure to a wide range of soccer experiences. And finally, England’s national team is managed by an Italian, Fabio Capello, one of the best soccer minds in the world. So they might have a better chance than ever because they have introduced more diversity into their league and into their national team.

But, if England does lay an egg in one month, the lack of diversity might be a good reason.

Now that my semester is winding down, I can indulge my semi-unhealthy obsession with the global game. In exactly one month, the United States’ most popular team, Mexico, will take on South Africa in Johannesburg in the opening match of the FIFA World Cup.

Just a warning to our dear readers (and to my fellow bloggers) I’ll be hijacking using this blog to geek out about the social and political aspects of the tournament.

First, let’s dispel the myth that no-one cares about this tournament in the United States. In 2006, ABC drew a 5.8 rating for the USA-Italy match (a 1-1 draw for the USA against the eventual champions). This despite the games being telecast in the morning rather than in typical prime time spots (the tournament was in Germany in 2006). The final of that tournament between Brazil France and Italy drew a 7.0 rating, a 180% increase from 2002.

As a comparison, here are the TV ratings for the finals of the four “major” sports in the US.

World Series (Average for all games in the series) — 10.1
Super Bowl — 41.6
NBA Finals — 8.5
NHL Stanley Cup Finals — 1.8

Buoyed by the surprise success of the 2006 tournament (ESPN didn’t even bid for the 2002 World Cup), the network is putting more resources into the event than ever before. John Skipper, ESPN’s vice president of network programming, is expecting this to be the highest rated World Cup in the network’s history. The network has hired famed English broadcaster Martin Tyler for the event and it will broadcast it’s Sports Center news show from South Africa.

The network can also take heart in the fact that non-World Cup international soccer has garnered impressive ratings. In 2009, the U.S. made an improbable run in FIFA’s Confederations Cup, a largely ignored, bi-annual tournament featuring the champions of each of FIFA’s regional confederations. The USA reached the finals of that tournament, losing to Brasil 3-2 but giving them a scare by taking a 2-0 lead on them. The game drew an impressive 4 million viewers in the United States, despite little promotion of the event. Here are highlights of that game (it just sounds better in Spanish):

Whatever success this World Cup garners can be traced back to two key events in US soccer. The 1994 World Cup held in the United States. The event introduced hundreds of thousands of people to the game in the USA (myself included).

The next big event was the USA’s 5th place finish in the 2002 tournament held in South Korea/Japan. Along the way, the little regarded USA beat Portugal, tied the hosts (South Korea), beat arch rival Mexico, and had Germany on their heels before falling 1-0 to the perennial powers. That impressive run brought an entirely new group of fans into the game as well:

To get you in the right frame of mind, here are the promo commercials for the 2010 World Cup:

Here’s an ad that announces the World Cup in the language of each of the 32 participating nations:

The Power of 10

31 Countries will Fall

And of course, Bono’s meta-analysis

Let the geeking out begin!

• relative weight {transportation energy}
• energy to produce and transport the bags and lifecycle carbon footprint
• biodegradability {although landfills emphasize stability, not biodegradation}
• harm to wildlife in the natural environment
• use of a renewable versus non-renewable resource
• use, durability, and cost of compostable plastics vs. regular plastic bags and paper bags

I wish I could take credit for the headline, but credit must go to Anne Perkins of The Guardian-UK. Earlier today, Labour leader Gordon Brown tendered his resignation to the Queen after it looks like the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are close to striking a deal. This would hand the Prime Minister spot to Tory leader, David Cameron, in a coalition that will have a majority of the seats in Parliament. Six months ago, Clegg had not many good things to say about the Tories::

“If progressives are to avoid being marginalised by an ideologically-barren Conservative party, bereft of any discernible convictions other than a sense of entitlement that is now their turn to govern, then the progressive forces in British politics must regroup under a new banner.”

I’m curious what this coalition will look like, given how a Lib-Con coalition will make for some strange bedfellows. Indeed, Anne is right, as the Conservatives won’t just be holding hands with the Lib Dems, but sharing power and cabinet seats.

I’m not against coalitions or parties changing their stances on issues, as I’ve blogged about earlier today on rhizomicon. Where things get dicey is keeping the coalition together and making sure the voters in the MP’s constituencies are on-board. Also, Perkins points out that such coalitions are rare and usually occur under dire circumstances::

“In Westminster history, coalition has always been about demonstrating unity in crisis, leading by example in a response to war or national disaster. Times are hard; the economic situation is bleak. But we are not living in a time of national catastrophe. At least not yet.”

On the web, pundits, journalists, and commentors on news sites are shouting “sellout” on the part of Nick Clegg and David Cameron. While the specifics aren’t out, the rumour mill is that the Lib Dems made concessions on::

1. Immigration amnesty
2. Defence policy & Trident
3. Closer ties to Europe

Will these be dealbreakers to Lib-Dem MPs, who still need to ratify the deal, and those who supported them? The Lib-Dems were a platform of change and while a coalition implies concessions on both sides, will a Lib-Con coalition leave a bad taste in the mouths of many?

David Cameron doesn’t need the support of his party, but I question how hard-line conservatives will perceive this power sharing arrangement.

Song:: Selecter-‘Selling Out Your Future’

Twitterversion:: UK Lib-Con coalition imminent, but as Ann Perkins says “not a marriage of convenience but actual sex” #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Crossposted on rhizomicon

More kerfuffle from the UK that’s spreading like wildfire on social media. The current top UK trending topic is “sack Kay Burley”, stemming from viewers wanting the Sky News journalist fired after a hostile interview with a protester. Here’s a video of the interview {apologies for the sound quality, the volume does goes up}::

Burley’s tactics make her appear bullying and clearly not impartial. She also has very flawed logic, but the facts and being knowledgeable aren’t her strong suit as she mistook Joe Biden’s Ash Wednesday ashes on his forehead for a bruise. She later apologized. So, Kay appears to be opinionated, a loudmouth, and not too bright—I think she’s angling for a career in American cable infotainment.

Burley is being obtuse on purpose in order to make her point. The protests are about the “first-past-the-post” or winner-take-all method of tabulating seats in Parliament, which has resulted in the current hung Parliament. Kay doesn’t see any point in that as it a fait accompli and that the current party negotiations are democracy in action. She asserts that the people chose a hung Parliament, while the protesters are complaining that the hung Parliament is a product of a “broken” system.

Given social media, the news of this spread virally and the video footage of her exchange was put on YouTube {above}. Adding fuel to the fire, hecklers are interrupting her interviews with chants of “sack Kay Burley, watch the BBC” and this is now making the rounds on YouTube, as part of the “sack Kay Burley” meme.

Ah, a facepalm moment, UK-style.

Song:: Elvis Costello and the Attractions-‘Lipstick Vogue’

Twitterversion:: “Sack Kay Burley” meme goes viral.@skynews journalist hostile towards protester, gets social media backlash.#ThickCulture @Prof_K