They can see no reasons, ‘cos there are no reasons

I am culpable to a reflex defensive response to the idiot Norwegian who murdered so many of his own countrymen last Friday. I only caught the news late on Saturday, suddenly finding myself in the middle of a stream of Twitter bollocks already well under way. I was, to say the least, less than enthused with comments expressing “solidarity” with “Norwegian socialists”, which with some reflection I recognise as wrong. “Solidarity” has acquired an overtly political intention which in this context I find insensitive, however it’s difficult to argue with identifying the victims by their political beliefs, when it’s those beliefs that caused them to be targeted by that inadequate human being.

But I remain irritated with the grasping appropriation of victimhood by and for those who share a political outlook. Likewise the seemingly inevitable conflation that results when said murderer cites various authors, journalists and other celebrities in his mad manifesto. Is Prince Charles to be lauded as a result of Brevik's displeasure? Or if I might put it another way, Jeremy Clarkson isn’t stupid as a result of being quoted by a stupid man...

The run-down

My reviews being suspect, I shall resort to lists; of the seven, only those at either end were new to me. The damp squib was Saturday’s conclusion, Empire of the Sun; one of Spielberg’s early ‘serious’ films and of interest because in addition to not having seen it before, it featured child actor Christian Bale. Wednesday began with I’ve Loved You So Long and ended with The Luzhin Defence. Thursday was restricted to Downfall whereas Friday was glorious; Lost In Translation and Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind were joined in the evening by Brokeback Mountain - I’m not sure I can say which I thought best.

Each wish resigned

I’d forgotten it had a soul, and I made the same mistake as before. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind is a clever film, but the world is awash with such. It’s a film I’ve seen three times now and whilst its cleverness will always impress, it has a point; about making the most of the time we have, reminding me that the good memories aren’t cancelled out by the bad. It was the second-half to a double-bill, though in retrospect I wonder if subject might have been best served by reversing the order.

My morning was taken with another favourite, Lost In Translation. It’s not nearly as technically accomplished and its faults are many; it’s voyeuristic, the depiction of the Japanese is at times caricature (accusations of being racist are simplistic), Scarlett Johansson’s character wanders and wonders, and her husband is such an asshole I wonder why she married him. I even thought all that walking around in her underwear unnecessary; suggesting either my new found maturity or - more likely - a cry for help. Yet it too is a film with heart; two people of different backgrounds, brought together by virtue of being lost and alone. I’m at a time where I can remember being adrift at either age.

Wine into water

...our age is not willing to stop with faith, with its miracle of turning water into wine, it goes further, it turns wine into water.

I am 92% of the way through Fear and Trembling which, if I am to believe Amazon, is only 160 pages. Surely this is a miss-print, it feels more... substantial. Since a Kindle supports multiple font sizes, it deals not with page numbers but percentages; you always know exactly how much there is left to enjoy, or endure. Kierkegaard is not boring in any sense (though he is repetitive) but since it is a religious stance on the absurd, a philosophy I read previously in Camus, I find myself constantly having to walk in another’s shoes; which is no bad thing, but with Camus I could - at least in part - walk in my own.

Hence try as I might, I can never see Abraham as he does - though Kierkegaard does not claim to understand him - but I do admire his determination to question Abraham’s willing sacrifice of his son, to posit that without faith he is no more than a murderer; interestingly, for Kierkegaard, faith requires the absurd.

Faith ... is not an immediate instinct of the heart, but is the paradox of life and existence.

Plus one

I continue to tinker. I still find myself posting more on Twitter, and possibly even Facebook, but I think this because I did so using ChromeDeck (TweetDeck) rather than the sites themselves. In other words it’s via their respective API, and I’d imagine Google+ will have its own soon enough. Then it will become interesting as, for example, currently on the blog I show my last Tweet; will I switch to showing my last Google+ post - or rather the first 140 characters (or however many I choose) of my last post?

“Share” (when it becomes externally available) and “+1” from Google+ are analogous to “Share” and “Like” from Facebook, though I’m still getting confused as the two social networks handle the data differently. Facebook “Share” and “Like” are added to the single activity ‘stream’ shown for that user, whereas Google separates the “+1” information into a separate tab; my own “+1”s don’t get shown in my stream, I don’t yet know if they show in the streams of those who have me in their ‘circle’. If not it seems a bit odd - I think I must be missing something. Semantically though, “+1” works much better than “Like”, having a broader scope for use; I liked it enough to put the button on my blog.

Getting social

Two good things happened yesterday; the problem with the house alarm was sorted, and courtesy of Mickey I received a Google+ invite. I should probably take a thorough look first, but whilst I’ve got the urge I may as well post now, haphazard though the result may be. At first sight it looks cleaner, though this is in part the ‘lick of paint’ affect, more space and less clutter; placed on another tab I flicked between Google+ and Facebook and not surprisingly they’re somewhat similar. In functional terms however, Google+ wins hands down.

Privacy on Facebook has always been a bugbear. My own concern is less with how much is public (it is a social network after all) but their strange inability to match privacy settings with the layout; the sections on the configuration page are as if for a different version of the UI, it’s that bad. Google+ on the other hand, allows me to configure the privacy in-line with the layout, and combined with Circles it becomes not only easier but more flexible. For example, my telephone details are only visible to people in my “Family” circle.

Circles are how you organise your contacts; Google+ defaults with “Friends”, “Family”, “Acquaintances” and “Following”, but you can create your own. It’s intuitive, you can tell they’ve spent a lot of time on the UI and it’s at the core of everything; who I share to and what I look at, the default is ‘Public’ but it’s very easy to change. I also like that the share function is plumbed into the Google toolbar at the top; Gmail, Documents and Picasa (soon to be re-branded Google Photos), to name a few, have got it so far.

Hangouts look like fun, though I'm not sure how I'll use them, and I can’t quite see how Sparks fits. With Google Buzz... at the moment my Buzz is a Twitter reader; once Google+ is fully featured I expect it to disappear. And one of those features not yet (but surely soon) available will be some kind of search function, combined with the possible use of hash tags, though with tags I’m not so convinced; of course I'm basing this on how I personally use Twitter.

What I’d really like is a level of integration - or shared functionality - with my blog, which given it’s hosted on Blogger (soon to be re-branded Google Blogs) may one day be possible. I read a post where one brave soul had decided to move their blog to Google+, and if you’re only concerned with content I can see how that might work; but blogs aren’t only content, they provide a personalised look and feel, your own brand as it were. Essentially I’d like to be able to share my blog content on Google+, and to share the Google+ comments within my blog; Google+ and my blog would thus become different frameworks for the same blog data, and my blog data one source to my Google+ stream. I wonder how long I’ll have to wait.

Leave yourselves on the righteousness of the sun

News International is currently reeling from righteous anger over its mismanagement of the now defunct News of The World newspaper; an anger threatening to engulf its other titles, The Sun (itself not averse to righteous indignation) and The Times, as well as obstruct the attempted takeover of BSkyB by its parent company. However, like the MPs expenses scandal, I worry it may reach the point (if it hasn’t already) of criticising from a general animosity rather than over any illegal activity. For example, the tail-end of the expenses scandal saw criticism of claims for biscuits which, given how many offices across the country can claim for milk and sugar, hardly seemed a valid complaint. The result was IPSA; a ludicrously over-the-top, ineffective and inefficient waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers money. And journalism is a more difficult profession to regulate if (and I used to think this a safe assumption) we also believe in the freedom of the press.

Therefore if we’re considering travelling down this dangerous path, let’s not distract ourselves with a personal dislike for this newspaper or that, this political party or that; let’s concentrate on the specific issue of phone hacking and who (if anyone) is at fault. Much as we may want to question David Cameron’s judgement in appointing Andy Coulson, the relevant question is whether Andy Coulson did anything illegal in his previous position as editor of that paper. Likewise we may be tempted to query the cosy relationship between News International and the Conservative party, and before them Labour who were in government at the time of these events. We might be upset to find that when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, The Sun newspaper obtained details relating to his son's medical condition - which he understandably wished to keep private. These are worthy concerns, and the speed with which politicians are distancing themselves suggests a long overdue adjustment is already taking place. They are however distractions from the question we ask; who is responsible for the phone hacking and why wasn’t it stopped?

In answer we find not a failure of regulation, but people who engaged in unlawful activity and others who didn’t do their job. It is not the fault of the Press Complaints Commission when journalists break the law and the police - for whatever reason - fail to uphold it. It is this failure of the police - who knew what was happening yet took no action, some of whom were themselves corrupt - which should be our greatest concern. Tighter regulation of the press would have made no difference. We should also remember, though unpleasant, the actions of The Sun in obtaining private medical records may be no worse than those of The Telegraph in obtaining details on MPs expenses, or The Guardian in scooping this latest story. It’s mucky stuff, the truth; do we really want to stop it?