<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Author: Lionel Mandrake</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:50:25 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Announcement: Short-content feeds</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<author>Phillip Winn</author><description>Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we&#039;re sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable.

Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren&#039;t favorable to duplicate content, and don&#039;t always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds.

We hope that you&#039;ll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it&#039;s only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.</description>
<category>Administration</category><guid isPermaLink="false">0@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/045025.php</link>
<author>Lionel Mandrake</author><description>Black Hawk Down DVD - 2 Disc set (Amazon UK site) and We Were Soldiers DVD
I saw this film in March 2002 in California.  This is what I wrote at the time:I went to see Black Hawk Down last night. I saw We Were Soldiers a few days previously.I disliked Black Hawk Down intensely and enjoyed We Were Soldiers.Why? The two films are superficially similar. Both attempt to tell factually correct stories of parts of US history that aren&#039;t exactly shining examples of how to do it right (especially when you let the politicians interfere after they have made the decision to go in). Both reconstruct battle scenes very well - too well if you&#039;re squeamish.I realise there are things that Black Hawk Down got very wrong, that We Were Soldiers did right.

Black Hawk Down: Failed to make me empathise with the characters. We know nothing about them and, for me, that made it hard for me to care about them. There was little background about the storyline, too. I&#039;m sure many US citizens are aware of the facts - I suspect much of the rest of the world isn&#039;t. They will be none the wiser for watching this movie. Frankly, I was left wonder why the movie was made and the violence seemed gratuitous.We Were Soldiers: Gave the viewer lots of background about the men and their families, as well as about the beginnings of the Vietnam conflict. The viewer is able to care about the characters and what happens to them. A fascinating side story is that US units learning to use helicopters as airborne cavalry mounts for the first time.

So, I really disliked Black Hawk Down - I could hardly wait for the film to end. Interestingly, reviews of it seem spilt about 50/50 on the subject - which is how the group of four I went with were also spilt.Lionel MandrakeFor a look at North America and world events from a British perspective, with a twist of humour for good measure, take a look at my own weblog, over at A Letter from the Olde Countrie.
Black Hawk Down DVD - 2 Disc set (Amazon UK site) and We Were Soldiers DVD</description>
<category>Video</category><guid isPermaLink="false">809@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:50:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Billy</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/01/145432.php</link>
<author>Lionel Mandrake</author><description>Billy Connolly, by Pamela Stephenson.  I have always been a fan of Scottish comedian Billy Connolly (it&#039;s compulsory when you&#039;re married to a Scottish lass).  This fascinating and moving biography is written by his wife, who (according to Billy) as a practising psychologist, regards Billy as &quot;work in progress&quot;.The text takes the reader behind the scenes of Billy&#039;s life in a moving, yet straightforward way.  His childhood was full of abuse and was followed by a hard time in the Glasgow shipyards.  All of this served to prepare him for his comedy.This is not your usual biography (I find so many of them are vehicles to get publicity for the person written about) - it is as rugged and individual as his comedy.According to Pamela, Billy is one of the last non-family people President Ronald Reagan recognised at one of his last public appearances.  That probably says something profound, but I can&#039;t decide what.</description>
<category>Books</category><guid isPermaLink="false">340@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:54:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Queen - Platinum Collection</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/17/152758.php</link>
<author>Lionel Mandrake</author><description>Queen - Platinum Collection This collection was released back in May in the UK and I strongly resisted adding it to my hoard, even though I am a big Queen fan.  The first two albums I ever owned were A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races, on 12&quot; vinyl even.At first glance this three-CD collection looks like another blatant attempt by the record company to make more money from one of yesterday&#039;s biggest bands - they do that often enough.  Look again.  It&#039;s only £15.00 in the UK (US$22), so whyinthehell is it US$69.99 in the US?  Look again.  How many bands have enough genuine hits to fill three CDs?  There are 17 tracks on each CD - that&#039;s 51 hits.  Look again.  Each disk is a picture CD.  Look again.  Comprehensive liner notes in a slick silver slip case.  This is not a thrown together income-generator - real effort has gone into the packaging.There are a few bum tracks: I don&#039;t think much of the mixing on this version of Now I&#039;m Here; Elton John completely fails to do justice to The Show Must Go On and, on a purely personal note, I don&#039;t think We Will Rock You works unless the listener is in the audience and helping to shake the hall by joining in with the foot stomping.Queen lasted almost 30 years, changing styles along the way.  They started as a Glam Rock band in the seventies, when I was a teenager.  Remember the first time you saw the video of the operatic rock song Bohemian Rhapsody?  It is often thought of as the first pop video.  It wasn&#039;t, but it is the best remembered of the first ones.  Hammer to fall is pure rock, and shook many a stadium when they toured.  Barcelona can still sweep me away with its power today.Tracks like Who wants to live forever; I&#039;m going slightly mad; Show must go on and others seem especially poignant in retrospect (when some of those were released it was not generally known that Freddie Mercury was HIV-positive).Queen were always a great showband and, now that we can&#039;t see them live any more, this collection is a great way to remember them.Queen - Platinum Collection</description>
<category>Music</category><guid isPermaLink="false">120@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:27:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>