Sunday 8th June 2025
Blog Page 2220

The Big Interview: Colin Smith

0

Colin Smith was born in Zimbabwe in 1983 and didn’t begin rowing until into his teens, yet quickly becoming the top sculler in the country. From rowing in crocodile infested rivers, he moved Britain to take up a scholarship at Henly College, after an economics professor named Ray Ward had spotted his talent whilst teaching in Zimbabwe.

From there he went on to attend St Catherine’s College in Oxford and represented the Blue boat in 2004 and 2006. He won bronze at the 2007 World Championships in the pairs and has recently returned from competing in the Beijing Olympics, where he won a silver medal as part of the men’s eights.

Despite, at 6ft and 12 and a half stone, being smaller than almost all other professional rowers, he has been referred to as the “toughest man in British rowing”. Colin has returned to Oxford this year as President of Oxford University Boat Club to study for a Masters degree.

First of all Colin, can you give us an idea of what the Olympics were like as an experience?

It was a phenomenal spectacle. When you’re out there and taking part you really appreciate the sheer scale of the Olympics as a whole and the world wide attention it receives. On the other hand, although the show the Chinese put on was incredibly impressive, the rowing regatta itself was still just a regatta. It’s still 2000m, and it’s still eight men in a boat trying to go as fast as they can.

How did you feel about taking silver? Will it make you even more determined to win gold next time around?

Although we were disappointed not to take gold, silver is still a great achievement. In terms of London 2012, taking silver certainly makes you think. If we had come 6th or 7th then I might not believe I could go back and win gold in the future, but coming 2nd certainly changes your perspective.

Do you think taking gold would have affected your desire to compete in the future?

Perhaps winning gold would have affected me in some ways. It’s the pinnacle of achievement in the sport and I suppose it would be hard in the future to compare anything to that accolade. On the other hand, I think there are many other things which determine my desire to win, and I’d like to think I’d still be the competitor I am with or without a gold medal.

Why have you decided to return to Oxford after your success of the international stage?

I’ve wanted to do a Masters for a long time now, and in terms of the Olympic cycle, if I end up decided to compete in 2012, this is the best time to do it. Oxford has played a big part in my development, both academically and as a person. Also, the opportunity to serve as President of OUBC is a great honour and one which I did not want to pass up.

How would you contrast taking part in the Boat Race and competing in the Olympics?

In terms of comparing the two, they are both still just a boat race, except that with the Varsity Boat Race it’s winner takes all, whereas in the Olympics it’s winner takes all once every four years. I honestly think they aren’t too different with respect to the difficulty in their preparation. I found the rigours of combining my studies and training at Oxford just as hard as training with the national team, it’s just a different experience.

After winning the 2008 Boat Race, how do you fancy Oxford’s chances in 2009?

We’ve only just started the year, but we know what’s required of us and the standards we have to reach. Despite that, we’re still only three weeks into training. Ask me in a few months time.

In terms of size, you’re the smallest man in the British team. What do you think sets you apart from some of the large, physically stronger guys?

I think there are a lot of attributes other than sheer physical ability which make up a good athlete. Obviously I’m lucky enough to have a certain amount of natural talent, but when you look around the sport there are people with a lot more than me. I think in many ways my determination to succeed and, from a very early point in my career, my ability to sacrifice a lot of things to achieve my goals has helped me immensely.

The competition in China was surrounded by a lot of political and human rights debate. How did you perceive this while you were there and did it affect your performance?

Obviously there are a lot of things that China could do better, but I don’t believe sport has to be the way in which these political issues are bought to the fore. Despite this though, China has improved in some areas, and a lot of the credit for this has to go to the Olympics and the level of exposure which the event brings with it. Outside of the Olympics though, I think a lot of people are hypocritical when they talk about China. They condemn then, but don’t mind buying hundreds of products which are made in China.

Do you have any advice for aspiring athletes in Oxford who might be looking towards future Olympics?

If you’re going to be serious about you’re sport, then you have to make the decision to commit very early, and understand that if you want to make it you’ll have to put your training and preparation in from of everything else.

And what does the future hold for Colin Smith?

Well first I have to make a decision about 2012. I’m currently undecided about what I’m going to do, but we’ll see. In the longer term I’d like to set up a few businesses and use my experience of top level sport to help bring the competitive spirit which comes with it to organisations which want it. I also want to get back involved with Zimbabwe, the country of my birth, and see what I can do to help the situation there.

Restaurant Review: Jamie’s Italian

0

It’s slightly annoying that you can’t book a table at Jamie’s latest offering on George Street. Feted for weeks as a student loan-friendly gateway to decent restaurant food, the steady trickle of twenty-something media types who wish they were still at university has dwindled to almost nothing.

This, however, does not stop the Jamie-accented waiters welcoming you into a small bar area where you are invited to buy wine decanted in perfect 175ml stainless steel measures. Never has so little drink been wasted. “Can I interest you in a luvely jubbley glass of this fruity Spanish red! How about a smashing Argentinian white with a hint of pukka gaucho!”

At £5 a glass, no you can’t! After forming a patter-proof circle in the corner of the bar, my three dinner mates are grudgingly ushered to a table near the back of the place, the walls covered by about 40 dark, empty photo frames. One of the girls worries she might have an existential crisis, and I look around desperately for the menu.

Thankfully, the staff at Jamie’s are eager to help. “I think the penne’s amazing!” says one of them happily. I look through the list – a pretty safe collection of Italian favourites, including spaghetti Bolognese, lasagne and canelloni – and feel a warm glow from the smattering of Jamie phrases. “Loadsa herbs… amazing chilli jam… old school tomato salad.” Sometimes exclamation marks even happen in the middle of phrases – “Turbo! Penne Arrabiata”.

It strikes the girls that there’s quite a lot of English food in this Italian restaurant. There’s steak, burgers, ‘half a chicken’, and lamb chops. Welsh lamb chops. “They might be cooked in Italian sauce,” one of us says doubtfully, but even so we all end up sticking to the pasta section.
After a rapidly eaten selection of breads, Italianised with rosemary gremolata, I get started on a parmesan-heavy slice of lasagne. There’s a bit too much cheese in it, and I’m sensing that English influences weigh heavy in the Jamie recipe book. I lean over the table and steal a bit of sausage parpadelle. It tastes very similar to my lasagne. In fact, now that I think about it, my lasagne tastes rather porky. I wonder if they used the right seasoning. I wonder if they used the right meat.

Our other mains are truffle tagliatelle and a mushroom-heavy canelloni, which seem like much better choices, thanks to a little less salt and a little subtler flavouring. All through this meal, by the way, I’ve been drinking. And it tastes pretty good – but since I don’t know anything about wine, I won’t try to review it.

As we move inexorably towards puddings, I take a break to look around the restaurant. The interior’s pretty impressive, and certainly a cut above most affordable places to eat in Oxford. If you end up going, it might be worth paying a visit to the loos, if only to gaze appreciatively at the giant steam-punk levers that flush them.

Hopefully, though, you will far too engrossed with your puddings to bother. These are genuinely great (apart from a slightly dry ‘Amalfi’ orange tart) and I’d recommend that all aspiring fresher chefs take a bite of Jamie’s brownies before starting out on their college cake sale baking. Charity will benefit.
In fact, for all my whining about the main courses, the food at Jamie’s Italian is pretty good, if a little overpriced. So long as you’re prepared to pay for the ambience and exclamation marks, it’s an enjoyable night out. As the girls agreed, it would be a pretty perfect place for a first date. The music is relaxed, the staff are friendly, and a lot of the food is great. My only complaint? Cheap meat.

PRICE: £20 for two courses and wine

IN A WORD: Decent!

5 Minute Tute – The US Bailout

0

WHAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK?

The US Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The $700 billion (£394 billion) government plan to rescue the US financial sector had been rejected in a previous form by the House of Representatives on September 29th. This defeat led to the Dow Jones industrial average dropping 777.68 points in a day, losing $1.2 trillion in market value. A new version was drafted, which increased the value of bank deposits protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to $250,000. This passed the Senate by 74-25 on October 1, then being approved by the House in a 263-171 vote two days later. It was then signed into law by President Bush. The law’s passing calmed the financial markets, but its long-term consequences remain uncertain.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT DEBT SITUATION?

On September 30, the US national debt hit the landmark figure of $10 trillion. President Bush signed legislation in July raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion, and the bailout plan raises it further to $11.315 trillion. The gross national debt as a percentage of GDP has, under the Bush Administration, hit a 50-year high at around 70%, with the FY2009 budget recording a near-record deficit of $407 billion (excluding $700 billion spent on the bailout and $900 billion already spent on rescues of financial institutions).

HOW DID THIS PROBLEM EMERGE?

Professor John Cochrane of the University of Chicago explains the problem to be as follows: Many banks hold a lot of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, the values of which have fallen below the value of money that the banks have borrowed. Credit market problems are a symptom of this underlying problem. Nobody really knows which banks are in trouble or how badly, nor when these troubles will lead to a sudden failure. As a result these banks do not want to lend more money. It is a problem that many believe can only be solved by recapitalizing banks that are in trouble, or even allowing orderly failures, whilst providing liquidity to short-term credit markets.

HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?

In Sweden, mid-1980s deregulation sparked a great deal of risky lending and led to an overheated real estate market. The bubble burst in 1991, and Sweden’s GDP fell by 4.4% over two years, with abuot 600,000 companies filing for bankruptcy. Housing prices fell by 19%. The government spent $10 billion on blanket guarantees for credits and depositors, whilst buying two failing banks and setting up an asset management firm to assume bad loans and the collateral behind them. The plan’s swift action, bipartisan cooperation and transparency won public support. Much of the government’s costs were recouped when assets were sold. In Japan, financial institutions bet that real estate prices would continue to rise in the 1990s. But when values plunged, borrowers were unable to repay loans, which then became harder to obtain. Inaction and deceit in the financial system exacerbated the problem as institutions hid bad debts. In 1999, the government set up the Resolution and Collection Corp to handle the disposal of nonperforming loans at a cost of $168 billion. This has now been largely recouped by reselling collateral, although the stock market still has not returned to its pre-crash peak. The government was blamed for waiting too long to act to resolve the crisis.

WHAT EXACTLY IS A ‘CREDIT CRUNCH’?

A ‘credit crunch’ is the danger to the economy brought about by this situation. Banks need capital to operate. In order to borrow another dollar and make a new loan, a bank needs an extra, say, 10 cents of its own money (capital) – so that if the loan declines in value by 10 cents, the bank can still pay back the dollar it borrowed. If a bank does not have enough capital – due to declines in asset values which wiped out the 10 cents from the last loan – it cannot make new loans, even to credit-worthy customers. When all banks are in this position, we have a credit crunch. People want to save and earn interest; other people want to borrow to finance houses and businesses; but the banking system is no longer able to do its match-making job.

SO CAN THE US GOVERNMENT AFFORD THIS?

Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers stated in the Financial Times that the US does not necessarily need to cut back spending on other areas such as healthcare, energy, education and tax relief. He claimed that the $700 billion should be viewed as an investment in purchasing assets, buying equity or making loans and not a give-away. Secondly, the budget deficit will not crowd out other more productive investments or force greater foreign dependence with an increased issuance of government debt. Professor Summers argued further that government intervention in the form of a fiscal stimulus is necessary due to the ineffectiveness of monetary policy. The key is to preserve fiscal sustainability.

 

 

Greenbox: Change your bank, not the climate

0

How did you choose which bank to open a student account with? The largest overdraft? The catchiest advert? Perhaps not. However, I expect that a bank’s environmental performance is not much of a factor to most people when deciding where to put their cash. But it should be, because our cash is funding damaging fossil fuel extraction projects worldwide and thereby accelerating climate change at an alarming rate.

The Royal Bank of Scotland, the company behind Natwest, Direct Line and Churchill, calls itself the “oil and gas bank”; it is the second largest bank in Europe and one of the most competitive in the oil and gas industry. RBS prides itself on its role as financial adviser, money lender and all-round hands-on partner, having lent $10 billion dollars and provided advice on $30 billion worth of projects worldwide between 2001 and 2006.

Such investment commits the worldwide energy framework to unsustainable and damaging fuel supplies, since oil and gas projects usually last 20 to 40 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared that the largest cause of climate change is the combustion of fossil fuels and that reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the most direct way to reducing climate change. RBS is now investing in previously inaccessible, ‘dirty’ fuel found in oil sands and coal bed methane, which produce higher levels of CO2 and push the carbon frontier to the limit.

RBS puts money into developing sustainable energy too, but the amount is tiny in comparison. Unlike other British banks, it takes no responsibility for the climate impact of its investment in fossil fuels; it even claims to be “financing the transition to a low carbon economy.” RBS could easily take a leading role in this important transition by capping and reducing involvement in fossil fuels, ceasing investment in “dirty” fuel and committing to a complete move toward financing renewable energy development.

RBS will only take such steps if they look profitable; it is a company, not an environmental group. What can you do about that? Close your account with your bank if you feel that they are environmentally unfriendly and get involved in a campaign which tackles one of the biggest players in climate chaos.

For more information on the issue and what you can do, contact [email protected] or see www.peopleandplanet.org/ditchdirtydevelopment. Sources: ‘The Oil and Gas Bank’, published by PLATFORM, People and Planet, Friends of the Earth Scotland, BankTrack and New Economics Foundation; www.royalbankofscotland.com

Get into… the social scene

0

While you’ll bump into people around college during freshers’ week, why not branch out and join some of Oxford’s many societies devoted to socialising? They vary in cost, friendliness and how likely you are to bump into hacks, so use our guide to find out which one you’ll most enjoy

Law Soc
President’s Drinks, 8.30pm, Town Hall, 1st October

Possibly the most popular of all the Oxford societies, although no one joins it for the lectures and the majority of members don’t study law. Membership is £30 for the duration of your course, or £15 for a year, yet many students will swear that they made that money back in one evening through drink alone. As its primary function is social, it’s a great place for networking, as well as playing “spot the hack”. The highlight of the term is the champagne and chocolate evening – don’t miss it.

OU Investment Finance Society
Drinks at Raoul’s, Monday 13th October, 7.30pm

With over 850 members in the University, OUIFS provides a platform for students to reach key firms in the investment world. However, the main reason many attend is both the sheer amount of free food and drink offered and the social opportunities, although some may find the hackery intimidating. But with the credit crunch and the collapse of some of their main sponsors, the future for OUIFS is uncertain. Move quickly to take advantage of their impressive social events.

Med Soc
Dissection Drinks, 8pm, Brasenose, 16th October

Whilst its primary function is still social, Med Soc’s socials are not nearly as impressive as those offered by Law Soc. Make sure you join if you’re a medic, and go to the dissection drinks where you’ll be able to meet other medically minded freshers. If you’re not then just get a ticket for their halloween party. It’s held annually in the town hall and is always sold out.

LGBT Soc
Freshers Drinks, 7pm, Teddy Hall, 16th October

A friendly and unintimidating atmosphere and regular socials make this a great place for meeting new people. Tuesday night drinks are extremely cheap and well attended, and they finish the night at Pop Tarts, the weekly gay night at the popular Babylove bar. But there is no pressure to drink if you don’t want to and pizza nights are organised a few times a term for a more relaxed evening if that’s what you’re after.

Varsity Ski Trip

The varsity ski trip guarantees a week of great skiing and the opportunity to socialise with tabs. The destination this year is Val Thorens, which, as the highest resort and largest club in the Alps, means that not only will the snow be good, but the nightlife will be too. But even if skiing’s not your thing, make sure you go along to the various socials and club nights, where you’re guaranteed friendly faces and plenty of cheap drinks.

College Bars
Super Tuesdays, 7.30pm, Baliol, Tuesday

Obviously the first place to get to know those in your college, but it’s worth sampling the other colleges as well. Drinks will always be among the cheapest in Oxford, and often entertainment is offered such as open mic nights and pub quizzes. The informal atmosphere makes the college bar a guaranteed good night. Head to Balliol bar for Super Tuesdays and also to Hertford bar for a dark pango, but be warned, it’s an absolutely lethal drink…

Union Presidential drinks
The Union, Thursday, arrive fashionably late, 9.30pm

Has, in previous years, been the place where a select few, the elite of Oxford, can retreat after debates to carelessly drink away both theirs, and everyone else’s, membership fee. But this year, the powers that be at the Union have promised a change; pressie drinks will be for everyone, and not just for the president’s friends… we’ll see, but one thing is certain; this will still be the best place in Oxford for networking, and making the right sort of contacts…

Pulse club nights
www.new.facebook.com/pages/PULSE/25462694583

OUSU’s new project, but don’t let that put you off. They aim to “revolutionise” student clubbing in Oxford by making it more affordable, and more exciting, so nothing that new or exciting. But, with the amount of publicity it’s being given, a large turn out is almost guaranteed, and drinks are promised to be cheap. With 18 events organised during freshers week, it’s worth getting to at least one of them.

New Choral Prof lands Gramophone award

0

Edward Higginbottom, leader of New College’s Choir, has been appointed as Britain’s first ever Choral Professor.

It caps a triumphant week for Oxford’s new professor, who has just won a prestigious Gramophone award – often referred to as “the Oscars for classical music”.

Higginbottom, 61, became New College’s Director of Music at the age of 29. Under his leadership, the college Choir received the Gramophone award for its recording of a piece by the 16th century composer Nicholas Ludford.

Negligent landlords fined £15,000

0

Landlords of a student house, Mr and Mrs Ahmed, have been asked to shell out over £15,000 in fines for breaching housing regulations.

Oxford Magistrates found them guilty of five separate charges at a court hearing on 26th September. Windows of the house, in Leys Place off Cowley Road, were excessively rotted and the smoke alarms defunct, according to council reports. The couple had failed to repair a broken window and left it boarded up.

They were also unable to produce gas and electric safety certificates, and had not responded to repeated complaints from students about conditions.

Why Sarah Palin Matters

0

Contrary to common perception, the American government is full of some very clever people indeed. A simpleton might think that it’s a bad idea for the Federal Reserve to lend billions of dollars that don’t exist, encourage banks to do the same and ask the government to insure the resulting financial system with money it doesn’t have. A dullard might tell you that if the Federal Government spends far more money than it receives year on year there will be long term consequences. A true Neanderthal will point out that if you encourage banks to give loans to people to who can’t afford to pay them back, it might blow up in your face when they, umm, don’t pay them back.

Clever people, though, know better. Their answers are, in order, the Fractional Reserve, Deficit Spending and the Community Re-investment Act.

The re-establishment of sound money and public finances are essential to America’s long term future, but I will, here, only deal with the last item. Everyone knows that the current financial crisis originated in the American ‘sub-prime’ market. A lot of journalistic ink has been spilt discussing the practices of predatory lenders, but that wasn’t the talk a few years ago. Then it was tight-fisted bankers who were alleged to be engaged in “redlining”, a practice in which people from poor and minority communities are refused mortgages. To combat this The Community-Re-Investment Act was passed in 1977, criminalising those who did not give a certain proportion of loans to the subprime market; it was subsequently expanded in 1995.

Their final two pieces of the puzzle were the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1992, which got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on board to underwrite and give these subprime mortgages and the establishment of myriad taxpayer funded NGOs, such as ACORN, that would use legal measures to intimidate alleged redliners. The consequence was a massive injection of money into the housing market, generating a housing boom as well as increased home ownership among the desired groups. The loans were parcelled up into little packages and re-sold throughout the financial system. A lot of people with political connections, especially those in the pseudo-private GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made a lot of money.

Of course, eventually house prices stopped rising, oil and food prices started to do so and millions of Americans decided they either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up with their monthly payments. Fast forward to now and we have Congress scrapping over a bailout to sort out the resulting mess.

I don’t want to make a partisan point. Washington Democrats are up to their necks in this debacle, but so are many, many Republicans. The Bush administration did try to reform the regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2005, but it certainly didn’t try hard enough. At some point almost everyone from either party was prepared to cash in, either electorally or financially, from what amounts to the Subprime Pyramid Scam.

So, why is Palin important? When she became Governor of Alaska she promised to sort out two problems. First, a cartel of energy companies that paid almost nothing in tax, received grotesque subsidies and bribed officials to block all competitors; secondly, a corrupt Republican establishment responsible for this and other problems. Palin told the cartel, who were requesting billions of dollars to build a new pipeline, to get lost, introduced competition, taxed the companies at equitable rates and got the new pipeline completed anyway. In so doing she contributed more to meeting America’s energy challenges than literally any other politician alive. She also demonstrated practically the difference between being pro-market and pro-business. As for corrupt Alaska’s Republicans: well, ask them how they feel about her.

Washington is a disgrace. It has spent decades encouraging the poor decisions that caused this crisis and is now proving woefully incapable of even ameliorating it. The Republic has the chance to bring to the White House someone not in the pocket of special interests – be they party, financial, industrial, union or whatever – whose political career is characterised by opposition to the politics of corrupt, crony capitalism that has brought it to this impasse. In all likelihood it will pass up this chance for a smooth talker who rose through Chicago politics by associating with slumlords and machine-politicians and just so happened to be the third largest recipient of bribes (sorry, donations) by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae last year. When the next, even bigger, bailout comes in 15 years, I hope Americans are glad their President, whoever he or she may be, gives a good interview.

0th Week

0

Morning. New year, new blog. A simple premise, this: a quick round up of the six most pertinent singles officially released today, today being Monday. I shall strive to keep prejudice and subjectivity to a moderate high, whilst genuinely attempting to give a decent impression of the song in question. Constructive comments, please: ‘less shit’, ‘shorter’, ‘less wrong’, that sort of thing. So; to the breach.

Sugababes: Girls ***

This should be by far the best single released this week. Its cocksure swagger and good-time keyboard effects underpin a hideously artificial but undeniably sassy vocal. Can a song preen like a complacent peacock at the same time as burrowing into your brain like some tenacious weasel? Yet despite all this, frankly it’s nowhere near as good as it makes out, not that that’s ever hindered chart success. The official remixes all play pretty safe, respecting the integrity of the original structure a little too much and contenting themselves with adding a layer of hand claps or squirty synths. But when someone gets this right, club playlists are going to go into a new Groundhog Day…

Sharleen Spiteri: Stop, I Don’t Love You Anymore ****

This is in fact by far the best single released this week. The work of the same Scottish chanteuse who gave the world ‘Halo’ and ‘Black Eyed Boy’, thus putting herself one martyrdom short of saint-hood, this Motown/Spaghetti Western hybrid is brimming with all the infectious joy and pop hookery that should be bubbling through Sugababes’ latest. As it is, this ultra-retro effort from her out of Texas combines ‘50s guitar, a vocal of Diana Ross gorgeousness, some discreet Hawaiian percussion and truly exultant trumpets to bring light into your young lives.

Foals: Olympic Airways ***

In which Oxford’s most overrated homeboys peddle yet more math-rock with all the emotional connection of the Dewy Decimal System and as little funk as you’d expect from some skinny white kids playing guitars. Except that, thanks to some delicious harmonics early on and lullaby-soft dual vocals, this one’s actually quite good. It lacks the brilliance of Foals’ standout track, ‘Red Socks Pugie’, but ambles along pleasantly enough compared to most of the album it comes from. Wittering away about building aviaries and pronouncing ‘disappear’ with four syllables, there’s just about enough eccentricity to keep the brain engaged and the foot tapping.

Tilly And The Wall: Beat Control **

Dear God this song is infectious. Like SARS. A sort of aerobics workout for the teen dipping their big toe in the waters of ‘80s indie, this song means absolutely nothing and has zero artistic value. Even the bizarre use of solemn church-organ to underline the infantile chord progression fails to lend it chutzpah. What it does have is one hell of a melody atop an inoffensive groove that, if you’ve previously sold your soul to any form of diabolical entity, feel free to go and inanely grin to.

Kaiser Chiefs: Never Miss A Beat *

I begin to sense a theme: the cynical use of the word ‘beat’ to lend cutting-edge significance to a song that is in fact soul-searingly irrelevant. Worse still, the well-intentioned message, some kind of indictment of the poverty of ambition and intellect prevalent in today’s youth culture, may be pitched at too subtle a level of irony for the Chiefs’ fans. They themselves are clearly irony gods, as they manage to disapprove of wilful, destructive, narrow-minded ignorance with their lyrics, whilst exhibiting precisely that on a musical level. If you’ve ever heard a Kaiser Chiefs song before, then you know what this sounds like. My commiserations.

Jack White & Alicia Keys: Another Way To Die **

Hopefully the Bond film this is written for will take rather less time to get going. Once ‘Another Way To Die’ stops sashaying around in the background and gets in your face, it certainly demands attention. But, like a shy belly-dancer who eventually gives it their all, this could do with a few pointers on taste and style. Based very loosely around a suitably schizoid Jack White riff, this is less a coherent song, more a mad welter of bar-room piano, skulking strings, and apocalyptic brass. It has no discernible tune. The two protagonists content themselves with arguing heatedly but vaguely about furniture and receipts somewhere in the background. It sounds like another tired attempt at capturing the ideal ‘Bond Theme’ sound. One happy day they’ll all just give up and use Morrissey’s ‘Irish Blood, English Heart’, which is what Bond themes should always sound like.

Top Of The Ox: local tune of the week.

Every week I intend to support Oxford artists by, ah, giving their music away for free. I’ve been plugging Stornoway for years so I may as well get them out of the way first. Zorbing is simply the greatest take on the three-chord song I’ve ever heard and regularly gets me weepy around the third verse. First revel in its pop simplicity, driving jazz piano and name-checking of the Cowley Road, then check out the band live at the Jericho Tavern, supporting Sam Isaac, this Wednesday. If you can’t make that, they’re playing the Academy on November 8.

Send your suggestions for tune of the week to oskar.coxjensen[at]chch.ox.ac.uk.

 

Tonight’s VP debate is lose-lose for Democrats

0

Sadly an early start tomorrow means I won’t be live-blogging this evening but here are some pre-game thoughts.

For all the media hysteria over the Kate Couric interview, Democrats, not
Republicans, should be most worried about tonight’s Vice-Presidential debate.

The problem, from the Democrats perspective, is that expectations of Palin are too low. Ridiculously low. Impossibly low. There is almost no way that
Palin can fail to beat expectations, and even if she does it’s unlikely to
deliver a knock-out punch. It will simply confirm the current perception of
Palin which will leave McCain 5-6 points down, ie. where he is right now. 

Traditionally veep debates are worth 2 points in the polls at the most (according to Fivethirtyeight’s analysis), but because expectations of Palin’s performance are so low a good night for her could actually be worth more than that.

There are other reasons Democrats should be nervous ahead of the debate. For one thing, there’s a reason Joe Biden has a reputation for gaffes. Just look at this McCain ad for some examples. Any comment by Biden that sounds in any way patronising or misogynistic will be devoured with glee by Republicans afterwards. He’s also got to avoid saying anything stupid, full stop. Oh, and maybe best to avoid asking the moderator to stand after this.

There’s another factor that means this debate is tilted heavily against any kind of Biden boost. The Couric interview was so embarassing that she’s built up a fair bit of sympathy amongst some voters. Any perceived media sexism – in the GOP world read any media criticism/less than fawning praise – against Palin will further aid the Republican ticket.

In short: what’s the best the Democrats can hope for tonight? Voters being left with the perception Biden is an experienced, knowlegable statesman and Palin is dangerously, comically, tragically inexperienced perhaps? Trouble is, that’s already the popular view. For Palin the only way is up, and after a week spent furiously cramming, and a format designed to reduce the opportunities for candidates to be able to debate amongst each other,it will be pretty hard for her not to outperform these “ankle-high” expectations, and ‘win’ the debate.