Putin. Photo credit: World Economic Forum

The BBC’s four part documentary Putin, Russia and the Westhas come under fire from Russian exiles based in Britain for allegedly displaying a “pro-Putin bias” and “a lack of understanding of Russia’s recent history”.

The series, which will conclude next Thursday on BBC2, was produced by renowned film maker Norma Percy and Brooke Lapping Productions, also responsible for The Death of Yugoslavia and The Second Russian Revolution. The documentary featured over 100 interviewees, including Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, Putin’s defence secretary, Sergei Ivanov, and his press spokesman, Dmitry Peskov. Putin himself refused to appear.

Putin propaganda?  In an article on Wednesday, The Guardian reported that the renowned Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who spent 12 years in a Russian prison, wrote a heavily critical review of the first episode in a blog for liberal Moscow radio station Echo Moskvy. “The documentary makes no attempt to illuminate events critically. It turns out to be an utter apology for Putin and his regime,” he said, adding: “If Putin had asked his propagandists to come up with a film they couldn’t have done better.” And that’s not all: Former editor at the BBC Russian service Masha Karp complained of “glaring gaps” in the narrative, including the 1999 apartment bombings which paved Putin’s rise to power.

“The contrast between the high level of professionalism in the film-making and the lack of understanding of Russia’s recent history is striking,” said Karp in her review.

That’s no bog standard rock…  The second episode’s revelation by Tony Blair’s former chief of staff Jonathan Powell that a British “spy rock” was placed in Moscow made headlines, such as this one on The Financial Times (£). The columnist Victor Davidoff described the revelation as “suspiciously good timing” in The Moscow Times, occurring just as the 2012 presidential election campaign began. As On the Box reminded us, it is widely assumed that Putin will seek a third non-consecutive term as President and so circumnavigate the Russian constitution. The footage of Powell has since been featured in Russian state television attack on the most respected independent critics of the regime, who were sceptical of the Russian government’s 2006 “spy rock” allegations.

The Telegraph’s Peter Oborne quipped, “How fortunate for Putin that he has a useful idiot in Jonathan Powell and a fearful news organisation like the BBC to make life easy for him.”

Roxburgh rocks the boat.  Angus Roxburgh, the former BBC Moscow correspondent and PR consultant to the Kremlin for three years with Ketchum PR, has also attracted criticism in his role as series correspondent. Peter Oborne on The Telegraph found it “profoundly shocking that the BBC should even have considered using him”. However, Roxburgh defended himself in a letter to The Guardian after a similar sentiment was expressed by Luke Harding, labelling Bukovsky’s claim “utter nonsense”: “I have not read a single review of the BBC series that agrees it paints Putin in a favourable light – rather the opposite.” Indeed, The Telegraph’s own review by David Blair said the series offered “interviews with almost every key figure, a scrupulously neutral script, an eye for drama and the telling detail.”

The BBC bites back.  The BBC has not taken these accusations lightly, describing Putin, Russia and the West as “a thorough and multisided account of Putin’s time as President and Prime Minster of Russia.” Norma Percy argued that the subject of the series was Russia’s international role rather than its internal politics. A BBC spokesperson said: “Putin, Russia and the West was made in complete accordance with the BBC’s editorial guidelines. Based on three years’ research in Russia, United States and Europe, it is under pinned by the highest journalistic standards.”

More on Russia

• Toy protest vs. Russian police
• Oligarch to run against Putin
• Is this the year of a Slavic Spring?

Roseanne Barr in 2012! Photo credit: Monterey Media, http://www.flickr.com/photos/montereymedia/5367870718/

As if Donald Trump’s truncated bid for the Republican nomination wasn’t weird enough, now, TV comedienne Roseanne Barr is throwing her hat into the ring – she’s seeking the Green Party’s nomination for the 2012 presidential election.

Barr’s official campaign slogan, as revealed on Twitter, appears to be “Vote for me, I’ll fix this sh*t!” This is pretty much par for the course for the star of the Emmy-winning Roseanne, which aired from 1988 until 1997: After all, this is the woman who married Tom Arnold and now runs a 46-acre macadamia nut farm in Hawaii.

According to the Associated Press, the Domestic Goddess filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on January 25 seeking the Green Party’s nomination, and has since been affirmed as a candidate. She faces three other candidates, including a San Diego air quality inspector born in Papua New Guinea. In a statement discussing the move, she claimed that she is a longtime supporter of the Green Party and that the two main political parties “are not doing what’s in the best interest of the American people”. In a candidate’s questionnaire submitted to the Green Party, she said, “I will barnstorm American living rooms. Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election.”

“i will use the powers of the presidency to make sure that every american has a job and free health care,” she tweeted to a follower. “I’m a Jew, you dirty stupid goat f*cker,” she tweeted to another. And finally, to a twitter follower offering to be her running mate, “you would not make it through the green party vetting process. You have to be hot.”

“I will barnstorm American living rooms,” she said in a candidate questionnaire submitted to the Green Party. “Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election.”

Her platform. Barr has, during her announcement that she would run for president on the Green “Tea” Party ticket in 2010 and on Twitter, explained aspects of her platform. Those include: Instituting a “#Europeanstyle” single-payer healthcare within the first 100 days of her term; forgive all credit card and mortgage debt by “kicking out” the Federal Reserve; making war illegal and pot legal; include more women in government; and outlaw “bullsh*t”. She also wants to reshape American diets to include more nut proteins (she does own a nut farm, after all); pursue “financial terrorists”, whoever those are; and fight for gay rights.

“my hope is that america can return to the brilliant middle of the road away from all of these idealogues& radical extremists on both sides!” tweeted Roseanne.

Is she serious? Maybe not, pointed out Sarah Anne Hughes on The Washington Post’s Celebritology blog: “Does the sitcom queen really expect to be nominated? Not so much. She wrote on Twitter, ‘I run in support of The Green Party & probably of Jill Stein—hopefully I can be of service by speaking on media about a viable choice 4 voters.’ A Vice President Barr also doesn’t seem to be in the cards: ‘jill has already named a vice. i’m just in it to support the greens and their fine american message.’”

A ‘compelling argument’. Emma Carmichael, writing at Gawker, noted that Barr’s platform likely “will endear her to both sitcom nostalgics and the far left” and that her slogan makes a “compelling argument”. Of one of Barr’s campaign promises, to “outlaw bullsh*t”, Carmichael cheered, “Hear, hear. Fix this sh*t, Roseanne.”

More on the 2012 election

• Romney wins Florida
• Donald Trump threatens to run for president – again
• Perry forgets policy at GOP debate
• Obama hates Christmas, says Rick Perry

Daniel Radcliffe continues his bid to remind audiences that he is not actually Harry Potter with a starring role in ghostly chiller The Woman in Black. The film, the first from classic horror filmmakers Hammer Film Productions in more than 30 years, is an adaptation of Susan Hill’s 1983 novel, which pits a young solicitor against the titular woman in black, a spirit apparently hellbent on killing off the local children, on the deeply morose Yorkshire moors.

Hill’s novel has also been adapted for the stage, and remains the longest-running West End play after Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap. Can the movie version, scripted by Jane ‘Kick-Ass‘ Goldman, live up to the source material? Or will cinema-goers be secretly hankering for a Voldemort cameo?

Reworked material. Richard Corliss at Time praised writer Goldman’s decision to change the plot, killing off hero Arthur Kipps’ wife at the beginning of the film instead of at the end, as the novel does: “That puts Arthur in a state of perpetual mourning and establishes his kinship with Jennet [whose ghost is the supposed woman in black] and the villagers whose children she has killed. Making Arthur a young widower also plays to Radcliffe’s strengths,” said Corliss.

Is it scary? In The Woman in Black, several reviewers noted, director James Watkins avoids the current trend for full-on gore in horror films. The result “is a tasteful, old-school frightener, emphasizing suspense and foreboding over blood and guts”, declared USA Today‘s Claudia Pulg. Manohla Dargis in The New York Times agreed: “The Woman in Black isn’t especially scary, but it keeps you on edge, and without the usual vivisectionist imagery,” wrote Dargis. According to  TIME’s Corliss, the woman in black herself supplies the main scares, as she is “always a presence, like a rumor threatening to become flesh and/or bone”. But Melissa Anderson in The Village Voice agreed that the film wasn’t particularly frightening — “about as scary as the haunted house your big cousins made in the basement,” she complained — but she wasn’t as charmed by the lack of chills and suggested the film lacked momentum: “The plot is subordinate to lengthy scenes of hollow-eyed Arthur wandering in silence through Drablow’s manor.”

But what about Harry – we mean, Daniel? Radcliffe puts in a decent performance as Kipps, but he is haunted by more than a vengeful spirit, said The New York Times’ Dargis: “The ghost of Potter past hovers in his every gesture.” But that role seems to have prepared him well: “As Harry Potter, he spent literally half his life displaying both respect for supernatural evil and the grim will to confront it. That tension — that expecting the worst but never knowing when it might reveal itself — plays naturally across Radcliffe’s features and helps him carry what is essentially a one-man show,” claimed Corliss in TIME. The Village Voice‘s Anderson found that Radcliffe gave a “at least gives a moving portrayal of grief” and that his role the film “also helps keep at least one career from meeting an early demise”.

Nope – he’s still Potter and still not very good. But Roger Ebert, veteran Chicago Sun Times critic, was unimpressed with Radcliffe’s effort to rid himself of the ghost of Harry, though he found the film “effective”: “[A]t 22, he still looks like a schoolboy — or a little young, anyway, to be the father of a 4-year-old. Nor does he have much gravitas.” The haunted house, Ebert suggested, “a masterpiece of production design, crumbling, forlorn, filled with the faded and jumbled Victorian possessions of doomed lifetimes”, is the real star. Gael Fashingbauer Cooper at MSNBC, who found the film “stupid”, was also not a fan of Radcliffe’s post-Harry turn: “He doesn’t act so much as react.”

More in films

• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close panned by critics as ‘exploitative’
• Brutal but brilliant Coriolanus
• Joyful Noise brings back Dolly

Charlize Theron in Young Adult.

Theron stars as Mavis Gary, a recently divorced ghostwriter of teen fiction and functioning alcoholic, who decides to distract herself from her writer’s block by revisiting her hometown in order to win back her high school boyfriend (Patrick Wilson). Not only is he happily married, but he is also father to a newborn baby. But Mavis is not one to shy away from a challenge, and enlists the help of Matt, played by Patton Oswalt, the former fat kid at school who was left disabled after a high school beating.

A lot of love for Charlize.  The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw admired Theron’s “poignant performance” as “one of the least sympathetic heroines imaginable, and one of the funniest”. Metro’s Colin Kennedy agreed: “[Y]ou will not see a more fearless or technically flawless performance from an A-list actress in 2012 –Theron is a riot.” Mavis may be impossible to like, but David Edwards at The Mirror noted that the character seemed to loathe herself as much as everyone else – and added that the biggest of all the Oscar surprises was Young Adult being overlooked.

“It’s fascinating to see an actress immersed in a role that undermines her glamorous screen persona without requiring her to ‘ugly up’,” said The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin.

A little bit different.  Robbie Collin on The Telegraph appreciated how Diablo Cody’s “pared-down, thrillingly efficient script” subverted the standard nerd/jock/babe arrangement and the city-girl-learns-home-truths narrative. However, The Oxford Times’ Damon Smith wasn’t so sure: “Her determination to avoid convention catches the eye but doesn’t quite seduce the heart” while The Daily Mail’s Chris Tookey was more harsh: “Cody strives to be bracingly honest, but just comes across as smart-alecky.”

Too much mean?  OK said, “[T]his is deep, dark stuff with uncomfortable moments, as well as some unsettling psychological insights”, The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin (him again!) described the film as “a mouth-wateringly sour anti-romantic comedy” and Metro noted there was “no precocious cuteness to soften the sour jibes here”. But the overall impression is that this has produced a “brave, edgy comedy”. There is just one downright negative review to be found; The Daily Mail’s Chris Tookey labelled it a “satire that’s too mean to be funny” that he found “creepy and unpleasant to watch”.

“The only joke, obvious from the opening frames, is that our heroine is a cold-hearted, scheming sociopath with an unwarranted superiority complex,” complained Chris Tookey on The Daily Mail.

A little lacking in ending.  Young Adult’s edge towards the dark side keeps you guessing at the ending, but The Independent’s Anthony Quinn was disappointed to be left with “a hopeless fizzle” – as a result he described Young Adult as a very good film, “too bad it could have been a great one.” The Mirror’s David Edwards thought the “only drawback” of the film was the absence of character development; Mavis doesn’t have an epiphany and change her ways. However, it does seem that these critics might have slightly missed what the writer was trying to achieve, and what attracted the actress to the film; Charlize Theron told fem.com that “Diablo created a protagonist who learns a lesson in life but doesn’t necessarily change her life. That felt very real, very human to me.”

More in film

• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close panned by critics as ‘exploitative’
• Brutal but brilliant Coriolanus
• Joyful Noise brings back Dolly
• Steven Soderbergh’s Haywire

Chris Huhne has resigned as energy secretary. Photo credit: Liberal Democrats

UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has quit the Cabinet after being charged with perverting the course of justice. The charge relates to a 2003 speeding incident: Liberal Democrat Huhne allegedly asked ex-wife Vicky Pryce to take penalty points on his behalf in order to avoid suspension of his driving licence; Pryce now faces the same criminal charge.

The allegations emerged after Pryce told The Sunday Times last year that the MP had asked “someone close” to take the points after he was caught by a speed camera. It later emerged that Pryce may have been referring to herself, after images of her driving licence appeared to show she had received speeding points in Essex; she was apparently in London at the time of the incident. Huhne has maintained his innocence.

Lib Dem Ed Davey will take over as energy secretary, with Norman Lamb stepping into his role as business minister. But with the Cabinet reshuffle completed, what will be the long-term political effects of Huhne’s resignation?

Who will miss Huhne? The former energy secretary’s “abrasive style” means he has few friends in parliament, said Vicky Frost at the BBC, but “grassroots Lib Dems admire him because they think he’s willing to stand up to the Conservatives”. Huhne certainly won’t be missed by Conservative MPs, given that he recently twice interrupted the prime minister and has clashed with Chancellor George Osborne over the climate change agenda, said Frost. However, green groups will probably be disappointed at his resignation: “As energy secretary he claimed some policy success when he signed the government up to tough new climate change targets,” wrote Frost.

“I intend to mount a robust defence against the charges brought against me, and I have concluded that it would be distracting both to that effort and to my official duties if I were to continue in office,” wrote Chris Huhne in his resignation letter to PM David Cameron. Read the full text here (source: The Guardian).

Trial may make mockery of Lib Dems. “The biggest danger for the Liberal Democrats from this coming trial is that it turns the party into the butt of everybody’s jokes,” wrote James Forsyth at The Spectator’s Coffee House blog. Looking ahead to the next election, the Lib Dems hoped to position themselves as a “credible” party, said Forsyth; Huhne’s court appearance may jeopardise this aim.

“Chris Huhne has championed the environment in an administration that’s shown little enthusiasm for keeping David Cameron’s pledge to be the greenest government ever,” said Friends of the Earth director Andy Atkins, reported The Guardian.

Damage to Lib Dem brand. “The [Lib Dem] brand, at the moment, is apparently associated in voters’ minds with nothing at all or the intrinsic worthlessness of political promises,” said Rafael Behr on The New Statesman’s Staggers blog; having a leading party figure facing criminal charges is not entirely helpful. Behr said that Huhne has never got on with Deputy PM and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, but that the departure of the former energy secretary from the Cabinet poses a political problem for the party: “The kind of scratchy,abrasive dissent that never fully erupts into opposition – Huhne’s speciality – operates as a safety valve for the purposes of party unity,” wrote Behr.

Lib Dem Leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg did not rule out a return for Chris Huhne: “If he clears his name I have made clear I would like to see him back in government in a key position,” said Clegg, reported the BBC.

A prison term for Huhne could be Lib Dem disaster. If Huhne was found guilty and received a custodial sentence, the result would be serious embarrassment for Lib Dems, not to mention the fact that his departure has already “weakened” the party within the coalition, wrote Benedict Brogan on a Telegraph blog. What’s more, “the Tories are out to do in the Lib Dems at the next election”, said Brogan, and Huhne in prison would be a perfect Conservative weapon.

Huhne for Lib Dem leader? “Despite everything Mr Huhne has never given up the hope of one day becoming Lib Dem leader. Ironically these charges could help him fulfil that dream,” wrote Oliver Wright in The Independent. According to Wright, if Huhne is found not guilty, he will be in a perfect position to oppose Nick Clegg – and perhaps ultimately scoop the party leadership prize Huhne tried for in May 2010.

Huhne leadership dreams doomed. Huhne’s “early promise to be Lib-Dem leader may never recover from this blow”, wrote Joe Murphy in The Evening Standard, quoting a senior Lib Dem figure as saying: “He is tarnished goods now. Nobody will want him as leader.” However, Murphy said Huhne may well come back stronger than ever: “Nobody at Westminster is writing off this tough multi-millionaire, who could yet become a serious political force from the backbenches.” Murphy described the story as “a classic cocktail of sex and politics”: Huhne’s ex-wife spoke to The Sunday Times after the MP left her for Carina Trimingham after 23 years of marriage in 2010.

Gypsy Cove, Falkland Islands. Photo credit: Chris Pearson, http://flic.kr/p/4DWb95

Prince William has arrived in the Falkland Islands as tensions heat up between Britain and Argentina over the disputed territory. Thirty years after the Falklands War that saw the islands returned to British control, a war of words has broken out between the two countries. Argentina has described the arrival of the Duke of Cambridge as a “provocation” and called him a “conqueror”, with Argentine officials insisting the UK government is trying to distract the British public from the economic crisis by reigniting the Falklands conflict. US Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has denied the claims, said the BBC, and insisted the Prince’s six-week RAF tour of duty is merely “routine”.

The situation has been further inflamed by the release of Margaret Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady, reported The Telegraph, which includes scenes of the then-PM during the Falklands War. And the Argentine government has also accused the UK of trying to “militarise” the dispute by sending destroyer HMS Dauntless to the area.

Britain has held sovereignty over the Falkland Islands since 1833, but this has been strongly disputed by Argentina.  UK Prime Minister David Cameron likened Argentina’s claims to the territory to “colonialism” earlier in the year, prompting a furious response from Buenos Aires. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has repeatedly asked for talks to discuss the Falklands’ sovereignty but so far the UK has refused to countenance giving up the islands.

Islanders overlooked. Dredging up the Falklands dispute benefits the Argentine president as it gives the country’s claim on the territory worldwide publicity, wrote Andy Beckett in The Guardian. The situation also benefits Cameron, said Beckett, as it allows him to do some “flag-waving”, and British military chiefs can use the threat of armed conflict to oppose defence cuts. But the one group of people who don’t benefit from the increased tension is the Falkland islanders: “For the 3,000 Falklanders, all this manoeuvring has brought higher food prices and a growing sense of encirclement,” wrote Beckett.

“What the Argentinians have been saying recently, I would argue, is actually far more like colonialism because these people want to remain British and the Argentinians want them to do something else,” UK Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament, reported the BBC.

The solution? Sell the Falklands. The simplest solution would be to sell the Falklands to Argentina, wrote Philip Hensher in The Independent: “We’ve got absolutely no money. I really doubt we have much stomach for another Falklands War, and then another.” Hensher acknowledged that the Falklands may have long-term worth due to the territory’s rich natural resources but insisted we need the money right now: “Perhaps we can suggest to President Kirchner that half a trillion pounds would be quite a reasonable sum for this archipelago of 778 mostly charming islands. They wouldn’t have to pay all at once.”

“We have a concept of sovereignty that ties the nation to the people and the protection of natural resources. They (Britain) are preying on our resources, our oil and our fisheries,” said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, reported The Telegraph.

Argentine public wants Falklands. “While some claim that President Fernandez is politicizing the issue, most Argentines, even her foes, agree with the underlying sentiment that the Falklands belong to South America,” wrote Sara Miller Llana for The Christian Science Monitor. Llana pointed to a recent poll that showed 70 percent of Argentines surveyed in Buenos Aires want to take back sovereignty of the islands, known as the Malvinas in Argentina. However, Llana also pointed out that only three in ten respondents supported a military solution.

“Thugs who attacked a British-owned bank in Argentina in a protest over the Falklands have threatened a repeat of the violence,” wrote Gerrard Couzens in The Daily Mail. According to Couzens, the group behind the Falklands protests is Quebracho, a left-wing “revolutionary anti-imperialist movement”.

Argentine public doesn’t care. “In contrast to the sabre-rattling of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s government, few ordinary Argentines harbour animosity towards Brits,” reported Declan McGarvey for Sky. “Many Argentines believe that while the islands should belong to Argentina, this is unlikely to ever happen,” wrote McGarvey, describing Argentine culture as “a predominantly Anglophile society” with “an endearing fascination for British culture”. According to McGarvey, most ordinary Argentines “barely registered” Prince William’s arrival in the Falklands.

Former footballer Nader El Sayed protests in Tahrir Square, 2011. Photo credit: Mariam Soliman, http://flic.kr/p/aMPMGv

Two people have been shot dead in Egypt during violent clashes between riot police and protestors who blame the military authorities for a bloody football stadium riot. Seventy-four people were killed in the riot at Port Said after a match between Al Ahly and Al Masri. Protestors took to the streets of Cairo and Suez to accuse the country’s military rulers of inciting the football violence. “This was not a sports accident, this was a military massacre,” chanted angry crowds in Cairo, reported The Telegraph.

The wave of violence comes a week after the anniversary of the beginning of the Egyptian revolution in Tahrir Square which saw President Hosni Mubarak toppled from power. Fans of Al Ahly, known as Ultras, were involved in Tahrir Square, and some have suggested the violence was an act of revenge by Mubarak supporters who remain in government. The military regime has insisted the disaster was caused by “football hooliganism”, said The Guardian.

Even before the latest violence, the situation in Egypt remained volatile. The interim government, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, has yet to hand over power to civilian authority, leading protesters to return to Tahrir Square earlier this year. According to The Telegraph, the stadium disaster protests are likely to further strain the relationship between Egypt’s “three major political forces”: “The army, which holds the reins of power, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party dominates parliament, and the noisy but outnumbered young activists.”

So will the football stadium disaster and ensuing protests have any long-term effects on the political scene in Egypt?

Serious consequences for democracy? “There is clearly more to the Port Said tragedy than everyday football hooliganism,” wrote Osama Diab on The Guardian’s Comment is Free, pointing out that the Port Said stadium disaster raises questions about the attitude of the police who failed to protect supporters. “Are they unable to do their jobs without resorting to outright brutality, or are they virtually on an unspoken strike to blackmail the public into asking for the return of a police state?” asked Diab. According to Diab, some in Egypt see the stadium deaths as a regime attempt to make people believe the country is not “ready for democracy”; the long-term effects are as yet unclear: “It may pose the biggest threat so far to military rule in Egypt, or it may help the military to become even more entrenched.”

Police failure points to lack of appetite for change. “The military’s failure to undertake any meaningful police reform underlines the unwillingness to break firmly with the former regime – an attitude that characterises the whole handling of the transition,” wrote Roula Khalaf on a Financial Times blog. Khalaf said that the military regime insists the police are demoralised after the revolution and yet nothing has been done to restructure the police force.

The BBC published a round-up of the reaction of the Egyptian press to the Port Said football stadium disaster: “Privately-owned daily newspaper Al-Shuruq led with colour front-page photos of the violence and the headline ‘Massacre in Port Said’, with one image captioned ‘Unjustified lack of security allowed the fans to storm the pitch’.”

Unprecedented violence. Writing for Al Jazeera, James Montague said that football violence has been on the rise in Egypt since the fall of Mubarak, to the point that the Egyptian FA were considering the 2011 league. However, Montague wrote that the Port Said violence was unprecedented, with Al Masry supporters allegedly carrying knives – “something I have not seen once in Egyptian football over the past five years”, said Montague. The Port Said stadium disaster may have serious consequences: “Football played its part in helping to bring down a dictator. And it is now, in the aftermath of post-Revolution Egypt’s worst civil disturbance, shaking the ground on which the new regime treads,” wrote Montague.

The Egyptian domestic football league has been suspended and several Al Ahly players plan to retire from the game in the wake of the violence, reported CNN.

Football fans under pressure. The Port Said football tragedy will “further isolate militant, highly politicized, violence-prone fan groups”, wrote James Dorsey at Foreign Policy. Dorsey argued that the problem for the “ultras” is that the leadership accepts the need to suspend violence between rival fans while the “rank-and-file” wants to carry on the clashes: the leaders have “lost control of a rank and file that has swelled in recent years with thousands of disaffected, unemployed, and often uneducated youth who believe it is payback time against a police force that is widely despised,” wrote Dorsey. And this is a situation the military regime can exploit: “The riots in Port Said will likely strengthen the hand of those in the ruling military council who want to crack down hard on the ultras,” said Dorsey.

More on Egypt

• Egypt’s revolution, one year on
• Violence returns to Tahrir Square
• Islamists set for win in Egypt’s elections

Dymock Watson: Nazi Smasher!

Six dead Romanians; a night out on the town with a beautiful floozy; a tattoo with a secret in it; a midnight kidnapping; a psychopathic Geordie; and Rex Hammer, a man so cool he once managed to sink the Lusitania and bang Rita Hayworth (I think) in the same afternoon – these are just a few of the fantastically loopy yet recognisable features of Humphrey Ker’s rocket-fuelled one-man show, Dymock Watson: Nazi Smasher! at the Soho Theatre. It’s basically like the Eagle but with swearing and magical swastika jokes (don’t ask). And a talking dog.

The setting is the 1940s, and Ker plays the eponymous Watson, a soldier who is rather a likeable cove – both brash and vulnerable – sent by high command to tell the audience how he came to have his SS-smashing sobriquet. There are some well-observed asides, as when he’s in a cab (“And I knew it would be quicker to cut up Ladbroke Grove, but I didn’t say anything because he’s a cabbie and I’m posh.”)

There is a plot which drives the show like an amphetamine-crazed Vietnam veteran in a monster truck rally. The son of an architect, Watson’s the only Romanian speaker left in England after a spate of mysterious killings. The deaths jettison Watson into a lunatic world of double crosses and derring doers.

It’s a gallumphing ride, and Ker’s boisterous and best strength is the ability to bring to life the galaxy of characters that Watson meets along the way. There’s the aforementioned psychopathic Geordie, who trains Watson in the art of killing: “If someone comes up to you and says ‘that’s enough’, you’re doing it right.” Or you can slit your victim’s throat and whisper in his ear, “real creepy like.” There’s the marvellous Rex Hammer, who arrives after his weekend long leave still in white tie with a couple of female film stars making out in the back of his limo. “You’re all right, homo,” he says to Watson.

There’s Joanna, the Southern ingenue who might be hiding a terrible secret (who Ker brings to life with just a little skip of his combat-trousered legs.) And there’s the dog – Uncle Trevor – who would give the one in The Artist a run for his money. Best of all (to my mind) were the Nazi fans of a magician that Watson had to impersonate (it’s too complicated to explain) – Ker got perfectly the mixture of awe and embarrassment, made all the more piquant by the fact that the fans were savage jackbooted soldiers who’d kill at the drop of a hat.

Inventively silly, joyously ridiculous, and yet with a plot line that wouldn’t look out of place in an airport thriller, this is beautifully crafted and craftily bonkers, revealing both Ker’s obvious love of the genre and his playful twisting of it. And Stephen Fry was in the audience too. You’re all right, Ker!

This post first appeared on philipwomack.blogspot.com.

Young Don Cornelius. Photo credit: Pants Pants http://www.flickr.com/photos/reefflop/1647938/

Don Cornelius, the creator and producer of American dance variety show Soul Train, was found at his mansion in California in the early hours of Wednesday morning with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. He was later pronounced dead at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Clinic. He was 75.

Soul Train ran for 35 years, starting in Chicago as a local programme and later airing nationally to become the longest continuously running syndicated programme on TV. As host of the show, Cornelius was, according to The Washington Post, “the epitome of cool”, known for his deep baritone voice and stylish dress sense. He stepped down in 1993 (quoted in The New York Times as saying, “I took myself off because I just felt that 22 years was enough and that the audience was changing and I wasn’t”) but continued to act as executive producer.

Don Cornelius was born on 27 September 1937. He served in the Marines in Korea then worked as an insurance salesman, before following his childhood dream to become a radio DJ. He used $400 from his own pocket to launch Soul Train in 1970. He also set up the Soul Train Awards and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He is survived by his children from his first marriage.

The presenter became known for his catchphrase at the end of every show: “…you can bet your last money, it’s all gonna be a stone gas, honey! I’m Don Cornelius, and as always in parting, we wish you love, peace and soul!”

The Soul Train effect.  The Daily Mail credited Cornelius with helping to break down racial barriers and “broaden the reach of black culture.” As The Washington Post said, it is now “hard to grasp the magnitude” of Soul Train’s impact as a “pioneering outlet for a culture whose access to television was strictly limited.” Soul Train showcased R&B’s biggest stars, from Marvin Gaye to James Brown, and provided crossover white artists like David Bowie and Elton John with a platform to reach a black audience. Cornelius invited civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King on to the show, but according to John Pareles on The New York Times, “for the most part Mr. Cornelius didn’t preach about civil rights or the marvels of African-American art. He was manifesting them.”

“He brought soul music and dance to the world in a way that it had never been shown and he was a cultural game changer on a global level,” said the civil rights campaigner Rev Al Sharpton, who appeared on the show when he was 19.

Twitter tributes: #SoulTrain has been trending in America with some big names paying their respects –”It meant more to me to perform on #SoulTrain to win a Grammy .. Loved U So Much Don,” tweeted MC Hammer, “Thank U RIP #DonCornelius”. Rihanna offered “R.I.P Don C”, Paula Abdul sent “”All my love, prayers & condolences go to the family, friends & loved ones of #DonCornelius, creator of #SoulTrain” and ex-basketball player Earvin ‘Magic’ Johnson wrote “Soul Train taught the world how to dance!”

Later life.  Sadly Cornelius’ more recent years were blighted by domestic disturbance. In October 2008 he was arrested on felony domestic abuse charges, and pleaded not guilty to spousal abuse against his estranged wife, Russian model Victoria Avila-Cornelius, who filed multiple restraining orders against him. He later changed his plea to no contes’ and was placed on 36 months’ probation. During the 2009 divorce proceedings, Cornelius was quoted as saying, “I have significant health issues. I want to finalize this divorce before I die.” He was believed to have suffered a stroke and undergone brain surgery, leaving him in significant pain. The Daily Mail reported that he will leave his “hated” ex-wife around $300,000 in life insurance. Kevin Powell lamented his involvement with violence on The Guardian; “The ultimate tragedy is that I doubt whether this man ever completely grasped how much joy and sunshine he had brought to others in his lifetime.”

Peace, love and soul.  In recent years he may have hit the headlines more for his troubled private life than his contributions to music and media, but the legacy of Don Cornelius will only be positive. Aretha Franklin said in a statement, “It’s just so sad, stunning and downright shocking… a huge and momentous loss to the African-American community and the world at large.” Patti LaBelle called him “simply a genius”, “the contributions he made to music and our culture are second to none.” These sentiments were echoed by music producer Quincy Jones, “His contributions to television, music and our culture as a whole will never be matched. My heart goes out to Don’s family and loved ones.”

More notable deaths

• Rapper Heavy D dies
• Notable deaths of 2011

Warren Buffett is thought by some to have an autism disroder, possibly Asperger. Photo credit: Wikipedia commons

The American Psychiatric Association is currently putting the finishing touches on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as the DSM and even better known as the psychiatric community’s Bible. Among the changes the Association is considering is a narrowed redefinition of what constitutes autism, especially as diagnoses of autism and Asperger syndrome, a disorder on the autism spectrum, skyrocket.

But, as The New York Times reported last week, that has some experts worried that changing that definition would make it more difficult for people suffering from autism to get the care they need. At the same time, some claim that a narrowed definition of what autism is will eliminate some of the vagueness around autism diagnoses and ensure that those who are told they have the disorder actually have it. A new debate is emerging: Is autism over-diagnosed?

Asperger is over-diagnosed. Asperger syndrome, a disorder characterized by difficulties in social interactions, is coming in for particular questioning as it tends to be on the higher functioning end of the autism scale. Paul Steinberg, a psychiatrist, wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times, noted that the syndrome has long been a popular and often incorrect diagnosis for children and adults who are just a bit quirky. “The downside to this diagnosis lies in evidence that children with social disabilities, diagnosed now with an autism-spectrum disorder like Asperger, have lower self-esteem and poorer social development when inappropriately placed in school environments with truly autistic children,” he wrote, adding too that adults can be denied opportunities for work based on this incorrect diagnosis. “We can only hope that better physiological markers distinguishing between the autism-spectrum disorders and pure social disabilities can stem this tide of ever more pathologizing.”

“Under the rules in place today, any nerd, any withdrawn, bookish kid, can have Asperger syndrome,” said Benjamin Nugent, former Asperger sufferer.

I had Asperger – briefly. Also in The New York Times (it’s Asperger day over there), writer Benjamin Nugent explained in an op-ed how he was diagnosed with Asperger as a young adult because he had few friends and spent most of his time reading, writing poetry, and playing the guitar. But he grew out of it. “The biggest single problem with the diagnostic criteria applied to me is this: You can be highly perceptive with regard to social interaction, as a child or adolescent, and still be a spectacular social failure. This is particularly true if you’re bad at sports or nervous or weird-looking.” Nugent welcomed the upcoming change to the DSM, noting, “Under the rules in place today, any nerd, any withdrawn, bookish kid, can have Asperger syndrome.”

No biological test. Jacob Sullum, writing at Reason, highlighted Nugent’s piece, but noted that just because he doesn’t now have Asperger doesn’t exactly mean he never had it, being as he met the previous DSM criteria. “As with drawing a line between normal grief and ‘major depression,’ there is no biological test that can verify the diagnosis. It is all a matter of how psychiatrists choose to label (or not label) certain patterns of behavior, which nevertheless can have a serious impact how people perceive themselves and live their lives.”

“Everyone who thinks that the autism or Asperger diagnosis is being handed out like candy can suck it, suck it, suck it,” said Joslyn Gray, mother a son with Asperger.

Calling BS on ‘over-diagnosis’ claim. Joslyn Gray, a mother of a son with Asperger at Babble’s Strollerderby blog, called shenanigans on the claim that Asperger is over-diagnosed: “Everyone who thinks that the autism or Asperger diagnosis is being handed out like candy can suck it, suck it, suck it. Because I am 100 percent sure anyone who says that has never tried to get a child evaluated, diagnosed, and treated for something like autism. It takes months, people. Months and sometimes years. And paperwork. And appointment, after appointment, after appointment.” An autism diagnosis is serious business; ignoring autism, she wrote, won’t make it go away.

DSM redefinition will have serious impact on families. For families with children who at some point go off the rails of normal child development, the DSM’s new definition of autism is problematic, wrote Laura McKenna at The Atlantic, parent of a child diagnosed with autism. Her son, Ian, was diagnosed with autism after wandering lost “through the forest of disability labels” for three years; but after his diagnosis, he was able to get the treatment he needed. Narrowing the definition of autism will exclude children with real problems. “For those of us whose lives are inextricable from the politics of autism, it is the label — the one that was so difficult for us to accept at first — that has been the key to getting help for our children.”

More on Asperger, children

• Pox pop reignite debate over vaccinations
•  Should fat children be taken into state care?