The London Village Show: Recent Episodes
George Swithinbank
It's all about the love here on the London Village Show. Things big and small. Londoner's london, podcasting from depths of Elephant and Castle, We find out what going down with the kids, and we're up with all the culture voltures too. Global friends come find out what london living all about..
It is perhaps the most English of humor, satire, that sets us free. To ability laugh at danger, political crisis, personal failures and a faltering economy is without doubt an egg or beans greatest asset. Satire frees the mind, it asks us to remove ourselves from the reality of our observations and take a slanted look at now. Satire gives us alternative perspective, makes us aware of pluralistic nature of now. Matt in the Telegraph does not ask ask readers to stray to far from familiar pipe and slippers, where as David Shrigly pushes us further from our own safe zones. Shock and and sensation compliments wit and wisdom. Were can I find this nest of satire? BBC Radio 4. The Now Show If satire is not forthcoming there is always wonderfully offencive stuff. Jon Holmes lines this week were very good... "Obama got in trouble this week because his pastor sad the '9-11 was chickens coming home to roost'; no, that wrong, they were aeroplanes" and "What is Heather mills going to do with £23 million, spend it on shoe?"
When nothing changes, when the world spins round, when only clocks mark the passing of time, it feels to me like maybe I am already dead. The world needs people who cause conflict, make peace, and galvanise option, they remind us of what we believe in, the limited time we have to achieve our dreams, and the value of our own liberty. Today the Archbishop of Canterbry, Dr Rowan Williams got bah humbugged by every British politician from Ann Widdicombe to Nick Clegg, what was his crime? For suggesting that the present unofficial system of sharia courts in Britain be recognised by the British government. You can read the Archbishop's lecture entitled 'Islam in English Law' here. If you read Dr Rowan Williams text, I think you will find his argument well written, being both complex and compelling. It is a shame therefore that the issue is seemingly bluntly dismissed by all and sundry. I beg you to read what the Archbishop wrote, or skim Paul Varly's article 'Williams is snared in a trap of his own making'. One thing is clear, the Church of England is lucky to have Dr. Williams at it helm, he obviously took the job for more than the opportunity to wear silly hats. And for that I deeply respect him. PS If i had to sit though the upcoming Anglican General Synod later this month, I too might start to think of ways to pass the responsibility of religious legislating off to other faith groups.
My life being one mainly of procrastination I have decided that 2008 is to be a year of new things. 2008 also being the year of my 23rd birthday it seemes only natural to make use of this number. Therefore, I resolve to try 23 new things this calendar year. So far I've got to the 20th of January and have only added one new thing to the list; ice-skating.
Yesterday evening I rolled up at Somerset house to get into my skates and take my first tentative steps on to the ice. The rink itself was just as visually pleasant as I hoped, with no shortage of LED's in blues and violets to light up my experience like so many early 2000s public buildings at night, and flaming torches with that camping-gaz smell. These, with an eclectic mix of music (not out of place on my minidisk in 2002) served to excite all of the senses. Now ice-skating was an interesting first 'thing' for me to attempt. Being overly concerned with my own pretentions and keeping hold of some sort of dignity and British aloofness at all costs I have always avoided those things I think I'll be bad at. The fear of looking stupid has always been with me and I can only hope this is the first step on to the road of losing it.
The whole affair was good fun; in actual fact it occured to me towards the end of my hour-long session that I had barely spent more than a second without an enormous grin on my face. My face began to ache. This enjoyment was largely thanks to the wonderful Elena, who held my hand the entire time, happily she found this romantic, as did I. The hand-holding was also, importantly, my only safety net; in every sense of the phrase.
So there it is; a first step on the road of being less of a procrastinator, being someone who actually steps out of his flat in Elephant and Castle to get out and see the best (and worst) bits of the world. Need to come up with more things to do in a hurry, just two a month required ...
George's life reworded for myself.
No one cares - but here we are.
-I have too many fucking emails.
-I'm free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who can't.
-I am a procrastinator
-I have too much of an inner dialogue, which is unfortunate because not all my thoughts make sense and sometimes I don't share things I ought to .
- I encourage dissent, unless it affects me in some way
- When I get drunk I either fall asleep or do twatish things
- I dare to care.
- I have been in love lots, and occasionally choose the wrong person.
- I will try anything three times, just to make sure and then to enjoy it.
- I sing quite a lot, but know few lyrics
- I have been called a neurotic, immature, uncool, and weird. I can only remember a very few compliments. It's my nature
- I love women who KNOW, but hate it when they are right and I am wrong.
- I cook, drink and chat at the same time. I deeply respect those who can manage any one of those three with conviction.
- I am not gay, though sometimes the idea used to be attractive. But it was less about the love of men and more about the hatred of women.
- I respect anyone with an opinion they can argue about for longer than 10 minutes.
- I distrust anyone who uses French, the Latin (or ancient Greek for that matter) in casual conversation
- I really don't want to grow up.
- Once I start a project, paper, problem, relationship, I find it very hard to put it down and stop, even if it a lost cause. That's not to say I'll do it very well though.
- I think the world is a rational place, and people are rational actors, but rational is relative to the actor.
- I can't spell very well.
- I find it hard to let people down or say no, which often results in me doing things that I don't want to do.
- I have an unnatural attraction for Withnail and I.
- I hate being alone, I don't mind other people; I wish I listened to radio 4 more.
- Mainly the world is a shitty place, but that is okay because I choose to ignore it most of the time.
- I would rather be happy than right.
- It has to be raw to be real, I hate people trying to elevate the human condition in art, theatre and literature and then denying its not basically about sex, love, lust, or jealously.
- I get worried when people use long words that I don't understand in conversations with me.
- I hate getting out of bed, but I'm not that big a fan of getting in either.
- I like to snuggle and I will spoon anything; until it's time for bed then I need lots of space.
- I want to be a real man, but they don't feel emotions. That's ok.
-I miss my friends whenever I'm apart from them, that doesn't make me any better at keeping in touch with them.
- I deeply resent people who claim to be happy.
- I deeply resent people who claim to know what they are doing with their lives.
- I forgive people too easily.
- I hate people who work in recruitment, slavery or the city. (Hate is too strong a word)
- London is the centre of the universe.
Love changes a man, ideas change the world. I take issue with that. There is no such thing as love, just evidence of it. There is no such thing as an idea, just evidence of change. Astract conceptions distract us from the concrete present that confronts us everyday. Rather sage for a Friday afternoon, but the the Economist Debate Series is up and running at http://www.economist.com/debate/ and it angers me. Oxford rules apply, old boy, and this week the house is debating "Social Networking: does it bring positive change to education?" The proposition put forward by Ewan McIntosh, is a tour de force of liberal aspirations and Utopian thinking, it is the kind of argument that lifts my heart and makes me sing like a cuckoo bird. Change needs to be imagined, and liberals, myself included, imagine it very well, but that always tends to be where it remains, in the future, progress to be made. Constantly hoping, aspiring, and yearning for Utopia makes for a discontent present. There is nothing but now, and how you perceive things in this instant. Ewan McIntosh is waiting for something the future, and in doing so is missing out on it. Anyway, another plug for the Economist. Do you know of any Zen/Taoist/Buddhist liberals?
Today I had an exam, and (relatively) fresh from that fiasco I thought it best to follow George's lead and have a bit of a blog. So here I am, it's 2008; a year for getting things done, for not procrastinating as much as in 2007 (a prime number year, noted for lacking productivity). Why then am I here on blogger thinking of hot steaming truth nuggets for the avid LVS-reader instead of revising (another exam tomorrow see)?
My life since my last post in a few short sentences. I got through the mess of exams with the aid of good beer and better friends, I graduated with a 2.1 in Pharmacology in July 2007; more beer. I got offers from medical schools, decided on which school to go to, spent a month temping for the NHS (bringing it down from the inside ... payroll-wise) and the better part of a month in France (Oui!) I arrived back in the UK in August and returned to London in September only to be confronted with a very early start of term; I started learning the business of doctoring, loved it then gradually learned to hate it. Since my last post I have bought three new pairs of jeans, five shirts, one suit, one diary, a packet of plasters and a clock from Ikea that doesn't work. I have dressed as a ghostbuster once and have almost dressed as a rubix cube once. I have learned to etch-a-sketch and have given up the voluntary work that used to fill so many hours of my time ... I have failed to buy my very own British tea power mug.
I am the only London Village Show team member (of George and I) left in London Village. I hope to be considered the Pepys of my generation, though I sign off this first entry with suitably low expectations. D
Consumerism and concrete have taken the edge of the weirdness in Japan. A concrete hulk of a shopping complex is a hulk of a shopping complex anywhere you find it the world. The price tags and descriptions may be in different languages and currencies but the concept is universal, you want stuff, you buy stuff. I wonder what it would behave been like to have visited Japan before the American cultural invasion, before concrete and Miss Kitty. How can we go there, how can we go where we've once been? The past is not a foreign country, it is lunch time in Japan, of this I am sure. Thursdays I take luncheon with a disparate group physically and educationally challenged students and teachers (I am not being facetious, I work at a special needs school). Something always challenges me, from Japanese language failure, the whole fish on a stick I am expected to eat, to the slurping sounds and table manners of 13 year olds. Today I was half way through lunch with no incident, then I absent mindedly pulled out my little pot of Vaseline for my sore lips. It blew minds. 'Wasiline' as they called it passed round and inspected. I was asked what it taste like. I invited them to try it. Dollops of Vaseline were eaten, heads shaken and then as quickly as it began, it ended. The little blue and white tin pot was passed back to me and the meal continued, chopsticks began bulldozing rice into mouths soup slurped and seconds fetched. That was that. The lunch of Vasaline ended. It was a little like going back in time, the science of Vaseilne was too much for my students, what a silly colonial I am.
Hello, LVS is born anew. Reading a post a day keeps the boredom away. Starting tomorrow, honest.
no one cares - but here we are.
-I have no fucking emails.
-I'm free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who can't.
-I am a procrastinator
-I have no inner dialogue, which is unfortunate because not all my thoughts make sense and sometimes I over share.
- I encourage dissent, unless it affects me in some way
- When I get drunk I either fall asleep or do twatish things
- I dare to care.
- I have only been in love twice, and seemingly always choose the wrong person
- I will try anything twice, just to make sure.
- I sing quite a lot, but know few lyrics
- I have been called a neurotic, sex attacker, stalker, and immature, however, I can't remember a single compliment. It's not in my nature
- I love women who KNOW, but hate it when they are right and I am wrong.
- I cannot cook, drink and chat at the same time. I deeply respect those who can.
- I am not gay, though sometimes the idea is attractive. But it's less about the love of men and more about the hatred of women.
- I respect anyone with an opinion they can argue about for longer than 10 minutes.
- I distrust anyone who uses the Latin in casual conversation
- I don't want to grow up.
- Once I start a project, paper, problem, relationship, I find it very hard to put it down and stop, even if it a lost cause.
- I think the world is a rational place, and people are rational actors, but rational is relative to the actor.
- I can't spell
- I find it hard to let people down or say no, which often results in me doing things that I don't want to do.
- I have an unnatural attraction for Clerks II.
- I hate being alone, but can't stand other people, so I listen to a lot of radio 4
- Mainly the world is a shitty place, but that is okay because I choose to ignore it most of the time.
- I would rather be happy than right.
- It has to be raw to be real, I hate people trying to elevate the human condition in art, theatre and literature and then denying its not basically about sex, love, lust, or jealously.
- I get worried when people use long words that I don't understand in conversations with me.
- I hate getting out of bed.
- I like to snuggle and I will spoon anything.
- I want to be a real man, but they don't feel emotions, so I can't.
-I miss my friends terribly when I am overseas, but then fail to talk to them when we are both in the same country.
- I deeply resent people who claim to be happy.
- I deeply resent people who claim to know what they are doing with their lives.
- I forgive people too easily.
- I hate people who work in recruitment, slavery or C and H Fabrics
- London is the centre of the universe.
London Village Show has moved to Japan for a year, keep your eyes on this space for all the latest in the parody of Lost in Translation that my life has become. More later, Blogger assumes I can speak Japanese and has turned all the buttons into noodle soup. Thanks blogger. Love to all.
In 1957 against the background of the developing Cold War between the USA and USSR SAC’s plan to ‘overdestroy’ Moscow is clear and simple case of the correct application of Clausewitian strategic thinking. This essay will demonstrate that SAC’s plan to overdestroy Moscow, were conceived primarily from the political objectives of the United States foreign policy, the application of Clausewitzian strategic thought, and the arguably Boolean means of nuclear war. The logical conclusion of which is concurrent with SAC’s plans to overdestroy Moscow and by extension the rest of the communist world. It should be noted that at the root of the question lies the paradox of strategic nuclear defense. The answer tenured in this essay therefore rests on the logic of this paradox and should be understood as such. The paradox of strategic nuclear defense is simple; the political objectives of governments require strategic plans so destructive that they no longer serve the political objectives they were designed for. To begin this essay it would be expedient to examine what the USA’s political objectives were.
In 1957 the government of the United States of America understood the continued existence of both capitalist and communist simultaneously as nation states was unviable in the long run. This is most clearly expressed in NSC 162/2 published in October 1953 with the following assessment ‘…the basic Soviet objectives continue to be the consolidation and expansion of their own sphere of power and the eventual domination of the non-communist world’[1]. The foremost and political objective of any government is the continued survival of the state, Eisenhower and his national security advisors understood the USSR as a threat of that magnitude. It stands therefore that the political objective of the United States was ultimately the disarming of the communist world, if necessary by force.
The strategy of SAC to overdestroy Moscow and by extension the rest of the communist world can be accurately descried as proportionate for two reasons; firstly the commitment to the political objectives of the cold war were high. Secondly, Clausewitzian strategic logic demands the maximum use of force to guarantee the imposition of your will upon the enemy.
In the first case the, acceptance of US foreign policy and high levels of commitment towards it can be seen in Gerald C. Smiths’ 1957 memorandum dated 25th of November. The memorandum confirms that key offices within the national security framework of the United States were complicit in SAC’s strategy[2] to overdestroy Moscow. This complicity demonstrates an acceptance and commitment to the political objective of the United States as ultimately the disarming of the communist world, if necessary by force. As Clausewitz stated in his 1832 in his magnum opus , Vom Krieg ‘war is a mere continuation of policy by other means’[3], if the USA’s policy was the ultimate defeat of communism, the military strategy will follow. As such, Strategic Air Command’s strategy was a proportionate strategic response to the political objectives of the United States government.
In the second place Clausewitian logic condones SAC’s strategy as a propionate and correct use of force. Clausewitz clarifies how much force should be applied; ‘…the political object, as the original motivation for the War, will be the standard for determining both the aim of military force and also the amount of effort to be made’[4] It is assumed that always the aim in war is to disarm your enemy, likewise your enemy will always aim to disarm you, therefore in logical conception war will always tend to the extreme. The specific means of nuclear war demand that any use of force be maximum available. This logic pushes any nuclear strategy towards the purist conception of war, and therefore in Clausewitian terms SAC’s plan to overdestroy Moscow was a proportionate use of force. Indeed the nuclear means rendered over destruction of Moscow the only strategy appropriate.
The paradox of nuclear defense is evident in the statements above. As Clausewitz states war is a continuation of policy of by other means. If it is understood that both the USA and the USSR had policies equally determined as to the disarming of each other, with force if necessary, the war resulting, using all available means would destroy the planet. This cannot serve the political aims of either the USA or USSR while at the same time being the only strategy available.
It is a further irony to note that the greater the level of strategic planning for a nuclear war and implementation of planning through acquisition of nuclear weapons, the greater the understanding of the consequences of such action. This leads to nuclear war becoming less likely. The logic behind this is simple, a greater understanding of the consequences of nuclear war leads to an understanding that it does not serve political objectives. The evidence for nuclear war being avoided because it does not serve political objectives can be seen in the avoidance of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis, the SALT talks and the continued nuclear peace today. By planning to overdestroy Moscow and the rest of the communist world, SAC unwittingly maintained an understanding of mutually assured destruction and therefore made nuclear war less likely.
The paradox of nuclear defense does not nullify the foreign policy objectives of Eisenhower’s administration. It could be argued that the paradox of nuclear defense furthered the United States ultimate goal of disarming the USSR. A convincing argument is put forward by Sir Laurence Freedman asserting that ‘the centre piece of American strategy was economic.'[5] This can be seen also be seen in NSC 162/2, it emphasis on the importance of maintaining a strong economy.[6] Nuclear weapons were the technical fix that enabled the USA to maintain a peace time economy as advocated in NSC 162/2 whilst at the same time maintaining a strong deterrent against soviet attack. In the long run the Soviet Union could not sustain it’s spending on large conventional forces and nuclear missile programs. Many historians and strategists understand the USA to have triumphed over the USSR in the cold war because of having a stronger economy. SAC’s plan to overdestroy Moscow enabled relatively low levels of military spending in comparison to the USSR.
The fundamental question of why Eisenhower chose to adopt a policy of Massive Retaliation and the resulting SAC plan to overdestroy Moscow can be answered by looking at his experiences during the Koran war. Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles, felt that the threat to use nuclear weapons during 1953 at the end of the Korean war hastened the pace of negations and the end of the war.[7] Eisenhower was a believer in coercive power of nuclear weapons. He believed that SAC’s plan to overdestroy Moscow and by extension the rest of the communist world would deter soviet aggression.
It is revealing to ask what would have happened to the USA if SAC had not planned to overdestroy Moscow and the rest of the communist world in the face of perceived soviet aggression.
[1] NSC 162/2 original document, http://www.jan.vandercrabben.name/nsc/index.php bottom of the first page
[2]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/nh2_1.gif and http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/nh2_2.gif
[3]Carl von Clausewitz, trs. Colonel J.J. Graham. ‘On War’, Barnes and Noble Publishing, New York, 2004, p. 17
[4] Ibid. p. 8
[5] L. Freedman ‘The evolution of nuclear strategy’, Macmillan in association with the International Institute for Strategic Studies , 1989, Basingstoke/London p.78
[6] NSC 162/2 original document,http://www.jan.vandercrabben.name/nsc/index.php top of the sixth page
[7] Rosemary J. Foot ‘Nuclear Coercion and the Ending of the Korean Conflict (in Truman, Eisenhower, and the Uses of Atomic Superiority)’ 1988, International Security, Vol. 13, No. 3. p1
If you can identify this man, or know someone whom you think it may be, the london village show will make you a gift... Washington DC won't know what hit it..
Fourth Generation War may well be upon us. Frustrated by an lack of actual fighting the US Navy and The fine gents of the Gray Funnel line, seemingly inspired by recent reality TV shows, have taken fooling around with YouTube. Fourth generation warfare's battle are fought over YouTube and the medium is music. The RN kicked off; the US responded. Who will be the ultimate winner, who cares, who worries that our tax dollar/pounds maybe slightly better spent?
Interestingly the choice and style of each of these videos show the different characters of the Navy's involved. As a patriot I'm just going to leave it there. Come on RN... lets shake of the stereotypes..
Your the judge.. you decide...
Her Majesty's Britannic Royal Navy
Uncle Sam's Finest
Marines are Just weird - singing into an SA80?
The Russian's Didn't get it at all.
Nothing from the Germans as of yet.. Probably for the best.
GodTube has arrived, www.godtube.com
I love a good christian, but sometimes i think the lions had it just about right... What sort of a bonker could extrapolate the existence of an omnipotent lord creator of the universe from a banana? This man does. I'm not against the idea of a god, i am against smug bastards, he is so secure in the knowledge that god exists that he has forgotten the importance when prophesying of not sounding like the type of smug git that would actively deter you from the whole idea of Christianity.
Yes have god, yes have the Internet, but no, don't do the two together. The Internet is for enlightenment thinkers, people who see the answers in science and further expanding human knowledge (and porn). Not god. Don't force him upon me, especially by some gimp smugmyster jim on my Internet.
who i am and what i want by david shrigley and chris shepherd
David Shrigley makes me smile alot. Even when I am sad. If you like this short film you may want to go to his website You could even buy one of his books.
TTFN
One of the few elegant things molecular biologists have come up with ... very good though
Also available at http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520
D
A little bit of nostalgia ... "Come on monsters, you don't have to cry: We can be happy!"
I've liked this band for a long time. I hate people telling me how amazing bands are and how you should really like them, because they are going to be the next big thing. The Good Shoes are ace, they're not going to be the next big thing, but you should at least give them a listen, to me they are the sound of London.
http://www.goodshoes.co.uk/