Every network is now talking about evacuated tube stations in London and reports of smoke and a “nail bomb” and a bus attack. They are being careful, as they should be, not to go overboard. In the days after 9/11, there were many scares and reports that, thank God, did not pan out. We can only hope that’s what is happening in London. Here’s the Guardian, the BBC, CNN. I get errors from Reuters and the Times of London.
Martha Stewart tells Vanity Fair that she figured out how to take the drat unfashionable ankle bracelet off:
Asked about the electronic monitoring device she must wear on her ankle she has complained repeatedly that it irritates her skin Stewart says she knows how to remove it. “I watched them put it on. You can figure out how to get it off,” she is quoted as saying. “It’s on the Internet. I looked it up.”
But Phillip Torone says Martha is a better Googler than he. He can’t find this on the internet. Can you?
I, for one, am delighted that New York lost the 2012 Olympics. We did not need another security threat; an expensive stadium; drug-crazed athletes; an overdose of reporters; endless gushing features on the 6 pm news; candy-colored banners festooning our city, trying to put us in a good mood; and yet more touurists. New York never needed the Olympics and as they pointed out on the radio this morning — comparing the crowd of thousands of losers, as it turns out, in Paris vs. the gaggle of reporters in New York — New Yorkers never wanted the Olympics.
: LATER: As My World Turns says Chirac may have lost Paris the Olympics with his snarks at the Brits (below):
But — and here is the Olympics connection — it was also hinted both in London and on last night’s NBC News that Chirac’s faux pas could only hurt Paris’ bid for hosting the 2012 Summer Olympics. NBC News mentioned that two of the judges who would decide which city was going to host the 2012 Summer Olympics were from Finland! A little revenge on their part might have gone a long way…
Ever the gentleman, Jacques Chirac manages to piss off the Brits before the G8:
An astonishing diplomatic blunder by Jacques Chirac soured relations with the UK after it emerged that he had mocked Britain’s cooking and reputation for trustworthiness.
His comments, made during a private conversation with President Putin of Russia and Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, were overheard and printed in the Libération newspaper yesterday.
“The only thing that they have ever done for European agriculture is ‘mad cow’ disease,” M Chirac said of the British. “You cannot trust people who have such bad cuisine. It is the country with the worst food after Finland,” he told amused colleagues during a meeting in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on Sunday.
M Chirac’s remarks are being seized upon as evidence of “Old Europe’s” true feelings towards Britain when relations have been severely strained by the budget row at last month’s European Union summit.
The Live 8 concerts are being held with the best of intentions, all would agree. But not all agree that they will have the best of outcomes. We’re seeing asome cautious questioning of the celebrity strategy for world change in print and online.
Ethan Zuckerman, the American blogger who knows Africa well, raises some questions and concerns and says, “This is yet another reason why I don’t get invited to cocktail parties.” Among Ethan’s concerns:
No matter how dumb you think the leaders of the G-8 nations are, they’re not dumb enough to conclude that people are flocking to a rock concert because of their passion for reforming trade policy. Perhaps if thousands of people were marching in the streets to demand an end to EU dairy subsidies rather than to see U2…
… But in the age of citizen journalism, it’s pretty easy to hear what smart, opinionated Africans think about Live 8 directly from their blogs. I just did a roundup of African bloggers writing about Live 8 over at Global Voices. You may be unsurprised to discover that, generally speaking, there’s less enthusiasm for Live 8 on the continent than there is in the US or UK.
While it’s admirable that thousands of bloggers have added Technorati badges to their pages to promote Live 8, to support African debt relief or to try to revive Bob Geldof’s career. But it would be a damn sight more useful and transformative if bloggers would go a step further and start reading some African bloggers… perhaps starting with some of the folks who are justifiably skeptical about the value of yet another rock concert. Allow me to recommend Thinker’s Room’s “Live Aid? Please!“, Sokari Ekine’s “Live 8419″ or Gerald Caplan’s brilliant piece in Pambazuka.
Go read those links at the end. Go read this, too on British concern: “This is simply an exercise in white, Western megalomania.” And keep up on more links at Global Voices.
: Even The New York Times issues a dose of skepticism about celebrities change agents:
Aid specialists are not nearly so confident, however. “It’s a good thing, in that the focus is on Africa,” said Richard Dowden, leader of the Royal African Society, a private policy research body. “The danger is that it concentrates on one big push, and if you don’t get what you are asking for, you are setting yourself up for disillusionment.”
Indeed, some fundamental assumptions of the campaign are also being challenged. Will good intentions be thwarted by corrupt governments? Can African administrations cope with a surge of increased aid? “The future of Africa is not going to be decided by rock concerts but by African politicians making good decisions,” Mr. Dowden said.
Sir Bob dismisses those concerns. “I am withering in my scorn for the columnists who say, ‘It’s not going to work,’ ” he said. “Even if it doesn’t work, what do they propose? Every night forever watching people live on TV dying on our screens?”
In fact, there are those who argue that doing something for the sake of it can be as damaging as doing nothing. Even the Live Aid concerts 20 years ago “did harm as well as good,” said David Rieff, a New York-based writer and authority on humanitarian aid. “The Live 8 phenomenon is part of this Western fantasy of omnipotence,” Mr. Rieff continued in a telephone interview, “a politically correct version of the imperial impulse to give some money and all will be well, as if the problems of Africa are just the results of our not paying enough attention.”
: I listened in on a conference call about Live 8 for bloggers and I’ve been reading about the attempts to make it a blog cause. But something bothered me about this, too: Bloggers were offered a chance to cover the concerts but there were conditions: They had to sign the pledge and advertise the concert. But will they require The Washington Post to sign the pledge and promote the concerts before being allowed in to cover them? If not, why should bloggers be treated differently from other media? Doesn’t this just guarantee that blog coverage will be sympathetic? Is it sufficient that the bloggers’ views on this will be as transparent as the Live 8 badges on their sites? Or is the promise of backstage access an attempt to influence their views?
: I’m not trying to dismiss Live 8 or the blogging efforts and certainly applaud the motives. But it’s good to see that the strategy is open for questioning.
