<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Andrew Brown</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/andrew_brown/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 10:39:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Tony Blair becomes Margaret Thatcher</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/05/10/tony_blair_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/05/10/tony_blair_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2007/05/10/tony_blair</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to George W. Bush, the man who was supposed to reinvent the Labor Party leaves office with more friends in America than in  the U.K.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tony Blair does not depart as hated as Margaret Thatcher was when she left 10 Downing St. It's not clear whether this is a measure of his success or of his failure. But the two prime ministers are profoundly linked. Both of them confronted Britain with necessary, uncomfortable truths about our diminished status in the world. And without her, <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/tony_blair/">Blair</a> could never have amassed the enormous majority of his first election, even though she had been gone from office for six years. </p><p>At this distance the huge wave of popular revulsion toward the memory of the Thatcher government and all its works seems as unreal as the Diana hysteria, but election night in 1997 had an atmosphere of national vindication that I can only otherwise remember from global sporting events. "Were You Still Up for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo">Portillo?</a>" was the title of one book on the election, referring to the question people asked one another the next morning about the symbolic defeat of one of the most loathed and Thatcherite Conservative ministers. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/05/10/tony_blair_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/05/10/tony_blair_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Diana&#8217;s last days</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2006/12/14/diana_report/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2006/12/14/diana_report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/14/diana_report</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rumors swirling around Princess Diana's death were nonsense.  But after her celebrity, the royal family, and England, will never be the same.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The release Thursday of the <a target="new" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_re_eu/britain_diana">Stevens report</a> makes clear that there was nothing tragic or sinister about Princess Diana's death nine years ago. Despite the <a target="new" href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10415168">rumors</a> that surfaced in the press earlier this week, it has been officially denied that Diana was ever the target of an American intelligence agency investigation. The night of her fatal crash, her chauffeur was drunk; Diana wasn't wearing a seat belt; she and her beau, Dodi Al Fayed, were trying to escape from paparazzi. Even the attention of the paparazzi was to some extent self-inflicted. Diana sought fame, as of course did Al Fayed, in a way that other members of the royal family just do not. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2006/12/14/diana_report/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2006/12/14/diana_report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor&#8217;s love lost</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/blair_21/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/blair_21/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2006/09/14/blair</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Britons came to hate Tony Blair and America, and why the next prime minister will pay the price.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In any disintegrating relationship there are moments of very loud, raw silence. Things have been said that can never be taken back, but their consequences can't be taken in either. Just so, the calm in the United Kingdom's Labor Party this week, after it became clear that Tony Blair is finished. It is still overwhelmingly probable that his successor will be the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, but the exposure of the party's internal hatreds has made it much less likely that Brown will win when he stands for election as prime minister on his own. </p><p>This is unfair. As the man in charge of the economy for the past 10 years, Brown can argue that all the real successes of the Blair government were his, and all the failures Blair's. But Blair had the success that really mattered: He got elected. And Iraq, his one great failure, will probably sweep Brown away just as it has destroyed Blair, because it has brought out an extraordinary resentment of America here. Whoever is in power will be tied to the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will be the victims of this growing antipathy when the election comes. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/blair_21/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2006/09/14/blair_21/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What America doesn&#8217;t understand</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/11/brown_22/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/11/brown_22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2006/08/11/brown</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Homegrown U.K. terror is a growing threat, multicultural "tolerance" can't combat it, and the war in Iraq will only make it worse.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most shocking fact about the foiled U.K. bomb plot may not be obvious to an American reader: The bombings were planned in High Wycombe, a suburban town that is a byword for middle English dullness and uneventful safety. When poet James Fenton wanted to refuse an invitation to go traveling in the Amazon with explorer Redmond O'Hanlon, he replied, "I wouldn't go with you to High Wycombe!" </p><p> That's not all Americans don't seem to understand about the crisis we find ourselves in now. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I wrote <a href="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/index.html">a piece</a> for Salon about the lessons Britain had learned in 50 years of struggle against terrorist movements, from the Stern gang to the Irish Republican Army. Don't torture people, I wrote; don't shoot the young men who throw stones. Remember that wars go on for longer than seems remotely possible when you start them, and that the really dangerous enemies are not the young men trying to kill you today, but their unborn children, should they grow up to hate you, too. These were not startling or new reflections over here. They were, however, alien to the way that most Americans seem to think of terrorism. (A day or two later, I found myself on a radio show in Oregon, where a caller asked whether it was now OK to shoot or at least intern green activists because the people trying to stop logging were like terrorists.) </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2006/08/11/brown_22/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2006/08/11/brown_22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it OK to shoot a suspected terrorist in the head?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/07/british_police/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/07/british_police/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2005/09/07/british_police</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Britons debate a post-9/11 police policy that led to the killing of an innocent man.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When London's Metropolitan police force announced that it had fatally shot a suspected suicide bomber at the Stockwell tube station on July 22, 15 days after the terrorist attacks that killed 53 people in the city and one day after four more suicide bombers failed to detonate themselves and escaped without killing anyone, the overwhelming reaction of the city's residents, it's safe to say, was joy and relief. But within 24 hours it became apparent to police commissioner Sir Ian Blair that police had killed an innocent man, <img class='wp-image-10036902' src='http://media.salon.com/2005/09/story.jpg' />a Brazilian electrician named Jean Charles de Menezes. Until the shooting of de Menezes, few British citizens were aware that there are now, under a policy instituted in 2001 by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Lord John Stevens, the former police commissioner, hundreds of armed plainclothes policemen on the streets of London who are permitted to shoot dead, without any warning, anyone whom they suspect to be a suicide bomber. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/09/07/british_police/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/09/07/british_police/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A political bombshell for Blair</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/07/07/blair_20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/07/07/blair_20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2005/07/07/blair</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that terror has struck London, will the British blame their leader?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bombs exploded while the morning newspapers here in Britain were frothing in jingoistic delight that London had won the bid to host the Olympic games, and with the agenda for the G8 summit apparently set by Tony Blair. Terrorism or war was off the news radar. But at the same time, the attacks weren't unexpected. Ever since 9/11, the police have been warning that it will happen here, not that it might. The government has been saying the same thing, in private as well as in public for years; and there was a full-scale rehearsal of a chemical attack on a tube station in September 2003. </p><p> These bombs were not, thank god, poisonous. But it is already clear from the reaction of the police and the transport authorities, from the first stories about the cause of the explosions -- a "power surge" was blamed, to prevent panic -- to the little touches like ferrying the wounded to hospitals in commandeered double-decker buses, that they had prepared and rehearsed in detail for an atrocity. We are unlikely to hear of all the measures taken. But it looks as if the police, the emergency services, and the transport authorities were all less shocked than Tony Blair, whose ghastly statement as he left the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, for London completely lacked his usual fluency. Where normally he skips lightly from clich&eacute; to clich&eacute;, there were terrible pauses between each one, which seemed to extend for hours. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/07/07/blair_20/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/07/07/blair_20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A scientist for the rest of us</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/05/24/gould_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/05/24/gould_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2002 21:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/05/24/gould</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Whether infuriating sociobiologists or enchanting readers, Stephen Jay Gould liked messes and knew how to make hard thought look like fun.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen Jay Gould, who died on Monday, belonged to no particular scientific sect and founded none. Almost all his battles were fought on his own. But the happy elegance of his style and the bewildering range of his interests allowed him to recruit the sympathies of every benevolent, well-read humanist to his various causes. No wonder he was hated so. He was the scientist for the rest of us. </p><p> He gave as good as he got in his long feud with the "Darwinian fundamentalists," as he called his opponents. This term, an inspired piece of polemical mudslinging, showed that what his own invective lacked in quantity, it made up in quality, since one of the defining characteristics of the sociobiologists he was attacking was their rather Victorian atheism, and their conviction that the worst sort of human being in the world was a fundamentalist Christian. </p><p> It's hard to think of any scientist who has managed to combine Gould's professional excellence -- for you do not get to be a senior professor at Harvard by being an industrious windbag -- with his gifts as a popularizer. As a paleontologist, Gould dealt with an obscure family of Bahamian land snails, and collaborated most famously with the trilobite expert Niles Eldredge. As a popularizer, he wrote enchantingly about subjects from bacteria to baseball. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/05/24/gould_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/05/24/gould_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brits love wars &#8212; but &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/12/england_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/12/england_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/10/12/england</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Support remains high for the war in a nation with a deep militarist strain. But attitudes toward Israel, Muslims and "terrorism" show some key differences with America.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> When Tony Blair told some British troops whom he was visiting in Oman that one of his own sons wanted to go into the army, it's quite possible he wasn't lying. The militarism of British culture is so deeply embedded that it is hard for us even to notice. Though Britain is the only country publicly fighting alongside the United States at the moment, the British position in this war is more complicated and more defeatist than may at first be clear. But our hesitations don't spring from a notably pacifist spirit. We take it for granted that the monarch is not only commander in chief of the armed forces, but that male members of the royal family will have done real, hard time as serving members of the armed forces abroad. The first indication that Prince Edward was going to turn out as a useless parasite came when he bailed out of Marine training on the grounds that it was too much like hard work. What gave Mrs. Thatcher her second term was the Falklands War. It may have been pointless and very expensive, but it was by God a war and a prime minister who can win one becomes extremely popular. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/10/12/england_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/10/12/england_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lessons on how to fight terror</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/fighting_terror</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A message from the United Kingdom: Don't torture. Don't shoot boys who throw stones. And don't imagine for a moment that there is any guarantee of success.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Britain has been fighting wars against terrorism for most of the years since the end of World War II. The longest war has been in Ireland; but British troops have also fought Jewish and Arab terrorists in Palestine, from 1945-47; Greek terrorists in Greece and Cyprus, Arabs in Aden, Yemen, Oman and Dhofar; Chinese communists in the Malaysian jungles in the 1950s, and so, almost endlessly, on. We've lost some, we've won some. In Ireland -- our most publicized grapple with terror -- I think we've fought a draw, despite being incomparably richer, more numerous and better armed than our opponents. </p><p>Here are some of the lessons we have learned: </p><p>We have learned something about wars: They go on for longer and are more expensive than anyone imagines when they start. No one could have believed, when the first troops went into Northern Ireland in 1969, that they would still be there 30 years later, still ready to fight. But the only short wars against terrorism are those that the terrorists win. So accept now that you will still be fighting in 10 or 20 years' time, because you will. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Flameproof racism</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/30/evpsych/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/30/evpsych/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Darwin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Shirley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/08/30/evpsych</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the Evolutionary Psychology mailing list, dangerous ideas thrive -- without the usual online rancor and hatred.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are blacks programmed by their genes to be promiscuous? Can we read any morality off our genes at all? Is religion pernicious nonsense? The field of evolutionary psychology attempts to illuminate such inquiries into human nature with the insights of modern Darwinism. It raises questions that have a prickly, intense and scary quality. To get inside them is like putting on a hair shirt with explosives strapped to it. Even in sober academic journals, the discussion can rapidly become a screaming match. On the Internet, home of the flame, any attempt at a reasonable discussion seems completely futile. </p><p>Even respectable academic online mailing lists often melt down into reciprocal accusations of Nazism and censorship, as did the mailing list of the Human Biology and Evolution Society, the trade body for evolutionary psychologists, five years ago. </p><p>And if the Nazis don't get you, the nutters will. I once watched a list on Darwinism disintegrate into a series of arguments about Karl Popper's philosophy of science, a subject that can make otherwise civilized people argue like fundamentalists who think they have identified the antichrist. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/08/30/evpsych/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/30/evpsych/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ghosts in our machines</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1998/10/06/books_21/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1998/10/06/books_21/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 1998 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science Fiction and Fantasy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/books/1998/10/06/books</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Erik Davis' new book 'TechGnosis' traces the secret mysticism that motivates our love-affair with technology.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>I</b>n one of the metaphors on which Western civilization was built, Plato suggested that we are all in the position of prisoners, chained in a cave. Things we believe we see in the world outside are -- if we could see the truth -- only shadows cast on the walls of our prison. The real things, whose shadows we see, can never appear to us unless we crawl from our caves of illusion and embodiment. </p><p>In a more thoroughly technological world than Plato's, the myth needs a little updating. So imagine us still huddled in the cave, but this time, behind us, are the machines we have made. The light comes from the fire we have made in the middle of the cave. It is flickering and partial, and casts tall shuddering shadows on the wall. It is these shadows, not the machines themselves, that we see and believe are real. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1998/10/06/books_21/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1998/10/06/books_21/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bottom Feeders of the World Contrite</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/09/16/media_201/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/09/16/media_201/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Murdoch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/media/circus/1997/09/16/media</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[British tabloids have nothing to lose but their shame -- and maybe their circulation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>| <font size="+1" color="#000000">the</font> week that the British tabloid press was blamed -- not least by its readers -- for killing Diana, its circulation rocketed, as the commemorative supplements appeared. They were determined that St. Diana would never be forgotten ("Now you belong to heaven, Angel on high" said the funeral caption in the News of the World ); but it was just as important for the papers to ensure that that their own behavior would never be remembered. On the morning of her death, the newspapers printed the night before were on sale, carrying on as if she were still on earth: "Loathe us if you like, Diana, but please act your age" (Jessica Davies, a columnist in the Mail on Sunday), "Diana on the couch ... and her mother-in-law too" (Oliver James "attempts a daring royal psychoanalysis" in the Sunday Times), "Sad Wills wants Di to ditch Dodi" (the News of the World's weekly Royal Exclusive).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/09/16/media_201/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/09/16/media_201/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Circus</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/17/media_33/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/17/media_33/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/media/circus/1997/07/17/media</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Britain&#039;s press mourns the dazzling talents of Gianni Versace the man who gave them celebrity Page Three girls.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="-1">LONDON --</font>  <font size="+1" color="#CC3300"> if </font> <i> de mortuis nil nisi bonum</i> ("Of the dead, say nothing but good"), then Gianni Versace is a case for nil. But it's too late for that here. His murder dominates the front pages of the broadsheet papers and most of the electronic news too. If a planeload of Nobel prize-winners had crashed into a children's hospital, it might have made a bigger story -- but not, apparently, a greater loss to humanity. Princess Diana pronounced herself "devastated" by the news from Miami. There was no word from the queen, whose appearance in Versace really would have made news.</p><p>He was described by the Independent as a "renaissance man," and the Times of London solemnly reported his "intellectual credentials." When Hugh Hefner dies, I doubt he will be remembered as a great philosopher or a renaissance man, even if he could suck his pipe and walk at the same time -- but then Hefner was far less successful than Versace at what is obviously the most important business in the world: selling newspapers by giving them an excuse to print pictures of beautiful women's tits. All of the Versace obituaries are of course lavishly illustrated with pictures of his models, on a sliding scale: The less she is wearing, the bigger the picture. This is an old tradition. A few years ago, the conservative Daily Telegraph, traditionally read by retired colonels, decided to rejuvenate its readership: Pictures of Liz Hurley in That Dress, as it is reverently known, were its chosen weapon in the struggle. They appeared somewhere in the paper almost every day, either to attract younger readers or in the hope that the excitement would kill off a few of the older ones.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/07/17/media_33/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/17/media_33/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Circus</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/16/media_34/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/16/media_34/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/media/circus/1997/07/16/media</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Britain&#039;s press mourns the dazzling talents of Gianni Versace the man who gave them celebrity Page Three girls.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></font><br />
<hr noshade size="1" width="200"> <p><font size="+1" color="#666633">"so</font> I was smacked out on the prime minister's jet, big deal." Thus British author Will Self, whose past has earned him the hyphenate title "author-former heroin addict," summed up his shenanigans on then-Prime Minister John Major's campaign plane last April.</p><p>Big deal, indeed. For days, during the rough and tumble election, the question "Did he or didn't he shoot up on the PM's plane?" dominated the British press. Originally, Self denied "acting oddly" and spending "a long time in the lavatory." But later he told journalists, "I had a bad patch with smack and I did take a tiny nub end of gear on the fucking flight."</p><p>The controversy surrounding Self's alleged shooting spree nicely dovetailed with the publication of his latest novel, "Great Apes." "Great Apes" could use all the hoopla it can get: Beyond an astonishing resemblance to the "Planet of the Apes" movies, there isn't a hell of a lot to recommend it. Self, author of "The Quantity Theory of Insanity" and "My Idea of Fun," among other works, has a certain literary reputation, but it's hard to separate it from his personal notoriety. As Lesley White noted in the Times of London, "Most of us have never met Will Self, nor read his novella about a woman who sprouts a penis; but we are all aware of his pose, his junkie past, the naughtiness that once declared it was as easy to get crack as a rail ticket at King's Cross station."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/07/16/media_34/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/16/media_34/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The meme hunter</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/10/meme/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/10/meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/1997/07/10/meme</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A British psychologist prowls for hard evidence that memes -- ideas that reproduce genetically, like viruses -- actually exist. What&#039;s one of the prime habitats? The Internet.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="+1" color="#FF3300">suppose</font> that every thought you have -- including this one -- is an autonomous parasite in your brain: a pattern of brain cells that copies itself from mind to mind.</p><p>Congratulations! You've just caught a meme.</p><p>A meme, according to Richard Dawkins, who coined the word in his bestseller "The Selfish Gene," is anything a human can remember and transmit. Memes are meant to be the brain's equivalent of DNA. A meme could be an idea or a snatch of music or a dance. So long as it gets copied between brains fairly accurately and competes with other copies for survival, it will do as a candidate for evolution. If memes exist, they have modified the world just as genes have: Genes have made the biosphere; memes have made the memeosphere, the place where human beings exist.</p><p>The idea is catchy -- the "meme" meme is particularly popular online -- but controversial. Dawkins himself has withdrawn from it a little. He said last year: "There are people who take memes seriously and there are people who don't. I sort of sit on the fence, and don't mind seriously one way or the other. That wasn't my purpose in producing them."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1997/07/10/meme/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1997/07/10/meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

