The staff at nofear caught this cheese-eating Frenchman biting a monkey, a scene reminiscent of the antics of Mr O in his secret monkey lair. PETA are on the case...
September 2005 Archives
Young 'priced off cheese market'
Young people in Wales are finding it increasingly difficult to get a foothold in the cheese market, new figures have revealed. Research by the Chartered Institute of Dairy Producers Cymru has found the gap between wages and fromage prices is widening, making it hard for first-time buyers.
Younger working households earn 27,039 pounds of curd on average a year, the research found.
However, the average price for two and three-layered cheeses is almost four times that at 107,864 pounds of curd.
The problem is most severe in rural areas such as Ceredigion, Gwynedd, Pembrokeshire, Powys and Monmouthshire, where cheese prices are around five times more than average incomes.
"Young households are being forced out of the cheese market across the country " - Redmond Leicester, CIC Cymru director.
The ratio is at its lowest in the south Wales valleys, at 2.23:1 in Merthyr Tydfil, where the average household cheese rating is 29,259 and average cheeses are selling at 65,251 cheese units, and 2.65:1 in Blaenau Gwent (25,213: 66,939).
Jamie Holder, 18, who is renting a stinky piece of brie in Monmouthshire with her boyfriend, said they were looking for a a more substantial lump of cheddar to buy in Chepstow.
"It is too much money at the moment - even the small pieces of edam in Chepstow are around 150,000 and we can't afford that," she said.
"I work in Chepstow and if I moved away it would mean leaving my cheese and I can't do that. Mice would eat it probably."
"I think we are never going to get on the dairy produce ladder."
Redmond Leicester, director of Chartered Institute of Cheese (CIC) Cymru said the figures confirmed the problems facing younger people.
"Youngster are being forced out of the cheese market across the country," he said.
"It is particularly bad in areas where wages and salaries are low yet demand for cheese is high. Some kids out there are trying to get hold of curdled milk, anything to get a foothold.". "It is so bad that cows are being abducted into cheese labour", he added.
My cultural adviser and I headed down to London for the most recent "Late at Tate" event. Held every 1st Friday of each month at Tate Britain this gives ticket holders the chance to view exhibitions, and the other galleries, in quieter than normal circumstances.
As well as the late opening (until 10pm) of the gallery, there are also special events and features held during the evening, even the chance to drink and snack in the galleries.
Our first stop was at the Joshua Reynolds exhibition. Reynolds was a fine British portrait painter and the first director of the Royal Academy. I thought I would mention two points that crossed my mind during my viewing of his work:
1. Reynolds seemed very self obsessed - there was a whole room of his own self-portraits.
2. His paintings appeared to popularise different elements of society. No longer did only aristocrats or higher members of the social classes appear in an idolised way on the canvas.
After this viewing we proceeded to one of the large room galleries in the Tate, here amongst great paintings of the "Battle of Trafalgar" and other famous works we sat and listened to some great synthesizer music, played at concert volume alongside stills of 1970's synthesizer hit cover art. This was simultaneously surreal and culturally intriguing.
Trying to squeeze as much in as possible to the evening we proceeded to another annex of the gallery, in a film auditorium, to see some films by Alex Bag. Not having seen her work before I was intrigued as to what I might find. I was expecting a fully experimental film showing, but Alex's work was more like low-fi "Fast Show" meets David Larcher in a lollipop to the moon. Briefly the works shown were as follows:
Semester 3 - A typical NY student explains why she is "psyched" to be starting semester 3.
Lecture - A dull self-important artistic film director explains about her work called "Purse".
A Calls SE Johndon Wax - A 80s throwback MacEnroe-esque female tries to convince a corporation to produce another flavour of gum.
Teenage Boys - Alex plays two stereotypical teenage no-hopers.
Special K-umentary - A couple try some drugs.
Shop Girls - Typical sales assistants give their view of life.
Semester 6 - The same(?) girl now explains her development which has lead to fundamental insight into art for semester 6 at college.
The Van - Three up and coming artists spar in the back of a van driven by a sleazy red-neck promoter.
Bjork - Our Icelandic friend explains about how the TV works and how an Icelandic myth led her to be scared of the popular consumer item.
A Calls Gatorade - Alex, in yet another guise, calls the American version of Lucozade to ensure that she (and fellow in background) are utilising the best remedy for a drug-induced hangover.
Segment 2 (from Gladia Daters) - This horrific look into a bar away from the big cities contained a hilarious homage to the video of "Firestarter" by "The Prodigy".
Pierce Brosnan BMW Promo (Acid Trip Test Drive) - Somehow Alex and her colleague have blagged their way into a free BMW test drive around Central Park in New York. Of course it would not be the same without dropping acid before getting in the car.
Coven Services - This more ambitious work satirises American culture (such as it is) and the corporate menace in the media.
Then it was time to get some drink and listen to more Moog music before the galleries shut, and head back home. Great fun, and very civilized.
Apparently writer/director Paul Haggis has previously made work for TV, and this, his cinematic debut, has been well received by audiences and critic alike.
The patronising tagline; "You think you know who you are. You have no idea.", immediately grasps the emotionally starved public into thinking that this film will uncover some fundamental truth about human nature. This is okay, but then the plot synopsis (or at least the one I have seen) proudly states; "A car accident brings together a group of strangers in Los Angeles". This is an oversimplification! Crash - not to be confused with David Cronenberg's titled movie, or indeed the 1922 comedy - is a much larger patchwork of stories with at least four car accidents to its credit. Using the now familiar "multiple characters, interrelated short stories" formula (MUCHISS) our attention follows the action between the different plots, all tied together by a few coincidences and the emotive theme of race.
This last paragraph does not give a great reason to see the film, but the movie is well constructed, and well acted. The script, or dialogue, is also very amusing, or shocking, depending on how sensitive one is to racial etiquette.
To attempt to summarise the film plot there are 7 different sets of characters. These are as follows; the African-American detective and his South-American partner and lover, another duo of white police patrolmen - one racist the other not, a DA and his wife, a couple of gang bangers, a South-American electrician trying to improve his life, a TV series director and his wife, and a struggling Persian corner shop owner battered by crime. Only some of them come into direct contact with each other. To complicate matters there are other supporting cast members - including an Eastern-European, or maybe Russian, car ringer - who all have a variable amount of input into the plot. Matt Dillon steals the acting limelight in a potentially difficult role as the racist cop. As there are many other good actors and actresses in the film to list them all would be tedious and unnecessary.
Going back to the film construction, Haggis' technique seems very designed for TV, and whilst I felt this was a little bit of a waste for a cinema release, the effect is a more attention grabbing piece which adds more than a little claustrophobia. This latter point is almost certainly a direct translation from the feeling that people often get from living in a huge, sprawling city like LA.
Returning to my original point about the film, and its tagline. Its message seems to be (IMHO) that everyone is racist to a degree but common humanity can, sometimes, overrule prejudice. It is interesting to use this review as an excuse to comment on the entire issue of racism. Racism, once again IMHO, seems to me to be a symptom of a more fundamental human behavior trait, which is for groups of people to form based on arbitrary points of commonality, and then compete with other groups. This could then be reduced still further to different biological species competing for desired resources. Currently as we consider ourselves to be civilised people, racism is regarded as a bad thing. It is important to remind ourselves that racism is an ever present threat which in not so recent history has sometimes been positively encouraged. One also can see the similarity between racism and other conflicts between peoples of differing religion. Even the unimpressive "Goths vs Chavs" teen conflict is an example of this overwhelmingly natural influence. It is right and proper to condemn and prevent it, but sensible to understand the reasons for it.
Overall an entertaining piece about the human condition with a slight hint of emotional pornography slipped in to wow the crowds.
**** (out of 5)
(A bit of tasteless humour anyone?)
Dear Katrina,
Thanks for turning up to my housewarming last week. Having you around was really a blast. I think I drank too much though and I felt dehydrated for a few days afterwards. I'm glad Al Nino turned up this time, unlike last year, when he failed to make an appearance. He's a funny guy and can really bring the house down!
Unlike that couple from up North, can't remember their name, I think it was George and Laura? They left in a hurry and I hadn't heard anything from them in five days. Then, they suddenly called me last Friday and asked if they could stay for a few days while they were down in the region. How rude! I told them, "over my dead bodies!"
It has been pointed out to me that both the $10.5 billion emergency funds for Katrina disaster relief and the legislation to keep Terri Shiavo alive were rushed through after getting senators back from their vacations. What has also been pointed out that more senators turned up to vote through the Teri Shiavo legislation, and that with the Katrina bill, the voting was done via a "voice vote" that means there is no record of who (or how many) voted.
Being unfamiliar with the minutae of the US legislative system, it is unclear to me if there was even a quorum present for the voting of the Katrina funds. If you're more knowledgable with the ins and outs of such things, the bills are H.R. 3645 (Katrina) and H.R. 1452 (Shiavo)
Of course, I doubt it is true because the US Congress would never value the life of a brain dead woman with no hope of a future over a predominantly black population left homeless and desperate.
I've seen many comments on websites (such as BBC News, and numerous blogs) grumbling about why no foreign countries are offering aid to the US, when the US is always first to help abroad (! - e.g. when the present administration got shamed into upping their pitiful donation to the Asian Tsunami disaster fund).
Easy to mouth off without knowing the facts of course. For so far at least 30 countries (along with the UN, WHO and UNHCR) have offered humanitarian assistance to the USA, including somewhat suprisingly Venezuela.
What did George Bush have to say about these generous offers of foreign aid? On the 1st September he indicated that the USA had not asked for foreign help, and didn't need it.
''I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we haven't asked for it," Bush told ABC's ''Good Morning America." ''I do suspect a lot of sympathy, and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country is going to rise up and take care of it. You know, we love help, but we're going to take care of our own business, as well."
By the time the extent of the damage, and the incompetence of the administration became clear, some backpeddling went on at the State Department:
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spoken with the White House and decided that ''we will accept all offers of foreign assistance. Anything that can be of help to alleviate the difficult situation, the tragic situation of the people of the area affected by Hurricane Katrina will be accepted."
In addition, 60 million barrels of oil have been loaned to the US from overseas reserves (which I gather are held by the International Energy Agency).
Are the critics happy now?
So with the destruction wreaked by Katrina, one might expect the church to rally to the help of those in need.
Not so, according to the chaps at "repentamerica.com" (who I am not going to dignify with a link)
Just days before "Southern Decadence", an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city."Southern Decadence" has a history of filling the French Quarters section of the city with drunken homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets and bars. Last year, a local pastor sent video footage of sex acts being performed in front of police to the mayor, city council, and the media. City officials simply ignored the footage and continued to welcome and praise the weeklong celebration as being an "exciting event". However, Hurricane Katrina has put an end to the annual celebration of sin.
[further rants about homosexuals being the target of god's wrath deleted]
Of course, in a breathless display of duplicity, the same website elsewhere "[calls upon] Christians across America to pray and fast for those affected by Hurricane Katrina."
Schadenfreude is almost certainly too strong a word for it, but it has to be said that whilst feeling the utmost sympathy for the individuals in distress at this time, many people outside the USA are probably thinking "well know you know what it's like elsewhere matey".
Certainly the request from my employers US management to donate money to the Red Cross raised eyebrows across the company today. Notwithstanding the fact that I am quite capable of choosing where and when to donate my money without prodding from others, isn't it about time people were questioning why they have to rely on charity when their government has so far spent almost $200 BILLION on fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq? One may also question whether your government is there for you, or for perpetuating terror in the Middle-East, but we'll set that question aside for another day.
Aside from the obvious Iraq reference in the cartoon, you will find plenty of other instances where many many more people have been displaced or died after disasters, both natural and man made with far less media coverage, donations and support. Guess it's all down to where you live as to whether anyone gives a toss.
