I have two semi-connected rambles to post, which seem to have taken totally different directions and will probably make me look like a stinking hypocrite.
The international response to the London riots.
I find it darkly amusing that Iran and Pakistan are expressing concerns about human rights and the government’s need to listen and understand.
I'm also raising an eyebrow at the Daily Mail's insistence that it is actively irresponsible to, in any way, suggest that the riots may have anything to do with the cuts. Half of the Guardian's CiF seem to agree. I can't help but feel the urge to comment that whilst the kids in hoodies who are looting for Nike trainers probably aren't doing it as a part of a complex and well thought through political strategy, there were no mass riots in London prior to the cuts. And, in fact, the last lot of riots on this scale were, in fact, in London in 1981, when there was also a recession and a Tory government.
I also believe that if you tell poor people constantly that they are scum, that they don't deserve homes, or jobs, or any kind of safety net, and that things will not get better, then they might actually listen.
And yes, Daily Mail. I am talking to you.
Elsewhere, I have also stumbled across all the drama surrounding a US couple’s
’Hobo’ themed wedding. For those who want a quick summary, a couple of people in the US were getting married, and decided to have a theme wedding (which, as a note, I have been totally a fan of, ever since I encountered the first ‘Harry Potter’ wedding where guests got wands instead of favours. Friends in committed relationships, please take note!) and as their theme took some kind of pseudo-1930s setting, whereby they and their guests apparently turned up to re-enact the Great Depression as portrayed in
The Journey of Natty Gann. The groom wore dungarees, the guests feasted on 'moonshine', and had a giant big BBQ and there were cute vintage clothes all round.
Afterwards, flushed with contentment, they posted their wedding pictures on
Etsy, only to find that not everyone found their wedding really as cute as they did. In fact, it featured in
on a snark blog, and was thoroughly bitched about for having a wedding which took 'poor people' as its theme when the bride and groom weren't really poor, and, in fact, spent $15,000 on their wedding when there were people leaving comments on the blog who only earn $2.99 per year, and who's grandmother was a hobo who had to eat her own children to survive and they crawled over broken glass to leave those internet comments and don't they see how offensive it all is! (or something like that).
As you may be able to tell, my sympathy wasn't entirely with these outraged commentators. First of all, Weddings cost a lot of money. Like...a lot. This couple spent around £9k on their wedding, which, in all honesty, is pretty small for a proper big wedding. And I don't care if you got married for £50 wearing a dress you bought from Oxfam on the way there, shortly before eating a Gregg's pasty for your reception dinner. Congratulations! You had a small cheap wedding. I'm sure someone out there can tell you that they got married for £2.99, wearing a dress made out of broken glass and with a reception dinner made up of cyanide. And all of you (including those spendthrift hobos) will have paid less than Paul McCartney and Heather Mills who spent £3million on their nuptials, and then proceeded to get divorced in acrimony however many years later.
And, yeah, it was a slightly random choice, but it isn't like they weren't doing something that hasn't been done a million times before. We've been glamourizing miserable bits of history forever. History is not sacrosanct. History is full of nasty miserable bits (and by the way, all you people with your cute celtic weddings, you're aware that the people who made all those lovely knotwork designed also liked to sacrifice people?) and it's full of heartwarming, hopeful, beautiful bits which speak to people in some way or another.
I mean, was I the only child who used to bounce around her living room cheerily singing "Down Down Down" in sonourous tones along to Bugsy Malone? Did anyone else watch and re-watch Disney's plucky Depression era heroine, Natty Gann, snog John Cusack and quietly wish that they would get that bit over and done with so the film could go back to showing me more of her dog?
One fairly sensible website offered up
this take on it. I think my sympathies went a little closer to the couple getting married. Indeed, I think the main lesson I took from this is that the internet is full of judgemental pricks. And, to be fair, no one looks good in dungarees.