Last year, a story about George VI, the central character in the Oscar-winning The King’s Speech, began circulating on the internet, alleging the wartime monarch had Nazi sympathies.

Although it did not involve the film directly, The Telegraph reported that the campaign had been launched to affect the film’s chances, which has become common practise among studios.

Our business editor, Robert Peston, said the government paid the bonus as there was a real risk that Mr Hester and the rest of the board would leave their posts.

Dr Ruth Bender, from the Cranfield School of Management, insisted Mr Hester’s bonus was reasonable.

“We need to pay him that bonus because we can’t afford for him to leave and a million pounds isn’t very much to pay to retain him in a very demanding job which everybody says he’s doing very well,” she said.

Robert Peston is separately quotes as saying:

“I am reliably told that they feared Mr Hester and much of the board would have quit, if the payment had been vetoed by the government as the majority shareholder”

What does it *actually* mean for Peston, that tell-ee of reliability, to be told by the government that it “feared” Hester and the Board would leave? After all, there are many gradations of fear, diminishing off into insignificance: I fear getting hit by lightening but I still leave my apartment in the rain. Besides which, the idea that not only Hester but the entire Board would resign in a hissy fit because they weren’t allowed to award and receive a fat bonus is about as likely as lightening on my head, and it diminishes the political acumen and credibility of anyone who claims otherwise. And if it were a dangerous possibility, would these people really be the people you’d want running your nationalized bank anyway - the kind of people who care more about getting a fat-bonus, fat-salary combo then the vital, critical work they’re supposedly so singularly and uniquely qualified to do?

Finally, there are two problems with the idea that Hester needed to be paid massively, else he’d leave. It assumes, first, that Hester is the Michael Jordan of financial services, and that everyone else - his staff; other RBS executives; executives at other massive banks - are drooling nincompoops. Nobody else will do; Hester we must have, and Hester alone. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. It also assumes that, should Hester indeed be replaceable, that the only people qualified would be making a salary of £1.2 million already and unwilling to accept anything less, for any reason. The mere fact that someone earns (for example) £1.1 million, to this line of thinking, is a dead giveaway; they couldn’t possibly be qualified. Nor is it conceivable that there might be anyone out there earning £1.2 million or more who might take a pay cut in order to lead RBS, for any reason. The reasoning is vacuous, yet Peston seems to like it.

Fortunately, fortune gave us the opportunity to see whether Heston would indeed leave if he didn’t get his bonus.

Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Stephen Hester has turned down his controversial bonus, worth nearly £1m.

Robert Peston said the board felt Mr Hester had earned the bonus for the way he had made RBS a less risky organisation.

But when it looked as though MPs were going to vote against it, the general consensus amongst the directors was that the “game was up”, he added.

The game was up, eh? An interesting choice of words. As Peston put it:

It was Labour’s decision to put Stephen Hester’s bonus to a Commons vote that gave the RBS chief executive no option but to say he would not be taking £963,000 in shares.

No option? That’s so weird. I thought the public had no option but to pay the bonus. Otherwise they’d lose Hester, that irreplaceable man! And yet there he still is, still working, struggling on with his £1.2 million salary. How does he do it!? The sheer mystery of it must leave Peston confounded, although I assume he’s concluded that Hester is a man capable of immense self-sacrifice on behalf of his nation and his fellow man.

Yet exceptionalism need not only apply to nations. Here, the BBC reports on the funeral of Penn State’s Joe Paterno:

Ben Simasek, who graduated from the school in 2009, told the BBC that the sexual abuse case which ended Paterno’s career should not mar the coach’s decades of service to the school.

“A lot of people are focusing on negative aspects and talking of a legacy tarnished, but I don’t believe that for one minute,” he said.

“Joe Paterno will and should be remembered as a great person, a human being, and someone who was able to have an impact on a university on a great scale.”

A great person. Like Lincoln, or Jesus. If Lincoln or Jesus had harbored a kiddie rapist.

A human being? Because some folks might be tempted to remember him as a yellow-throated warbler?

At Thursday’s memorial service, Nike founder and chairman Phil Knight earned a standing ovation from a crowd of 12,000 as he offered a rousing defence of Paterno’s conduct regarding the sexual abuse scandal.

He said Paterno had acted appropriately, reported the information to his superiors and was punished for his honesty.

“Whatever the details of the investigation are, the response is clear to me: if there is a villain in this story, it lies in that investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response,” said Mr Knight.

I think that there are a few things at play here.

First, the idea that hierarchy is important (Paterno is excused from blame because he told his bosses) but that the choice of hierarchy is not. Apparently systems of authority and control are completely interchangeable; one is as good as another. So I could apparently go to the police if I don’t like the grade I got from my professor, or if my boss gives me as assignment I don’t want, or if my coach isn’t giving me enough playing time. And if I see someone raping a 10-year-old boy, maybe I should alert the local electric utility. Because, hey - as long as they’re in charge of something, it’s appropriate.

The only reason why Phil Knight and others like him are so eager to infantilize or mock Paterno’s capability for sound judgment is to excuse him from an even greater sin - the fact that he coddled a rapist of children. Paterno didn’t report what he knew to the police. He didn’t recline in his chair, years later, and think to himself: “Oh, yeah, isn’t my assistant a rapist? Maybe I should tell the police.” He didn’t fire the guy. He continued to work with him as if nothing had happened. Because apparently Paterno believed that kids are made of stern stuff, and if they get raped now and then, they’ll get over it. The real tragedy would be a Penn State football team without that rapist as an assistant coach.

Sadly the same pattern repeats over and over again. Sports fans are eager to overlook Paterno’s cruelty because he won lots of football games. Movie fans rush to Polanski’s defense; he could rape as many 13-year-olds as he likes, so far as they are concerned, so long as he can continue to make great movies. Progressives rush to Assange’s defense, because he represents their ideals. Whether or not they broke the law is irrelevant because they are above the law. And I don’t care for that line of thinking with people any more than I do with nations.

Fireproof and Courageous focused on Christian values in the home but October Baby takes on a larger, more political issue - abortion - and appears to do so well. The trailer looks beautiful.

The film was made and promoted - partly - for political reasons:

October Baby will eventually be released nationwide, but the initial release in Alabama and Mississippi comes with an added bonus. In November, Mississippi voters will consider Amendment 26, an amendment to their state constitution which would acknowledge the personhood of every unborn child. The release date is no accident. Directors John and Andrew Erwin are strongly pro-life and hope that their film will help to bring the pro-life message to Mississippi in a powerful way as voters consider this issue. They have also committed to giving ten percent of the film’s proceeds to organizations that help women in crisis pregnancy situations.

That ballot measure, incidentally, went down to a surprising 58-42 defeat (a few interesting explanations why are available here). I have a few things to say. First, I don’t have any particular problem with movies like this being made. I’ll probably watch it myself, if I can find a way of doing so without any money of mine making it to the film-makers; it looks well-made and I’m very very curious. And jealous. I wish progressives were making more films like this; we certainly make enough sad and depressing documentaries. I don’t want to decry conservative films; I want to decry progressives for not doing the same.

That said, I obviously disagree with the message, skillfully as it may be portrayed (notice the feet in the ad from itunes above - a dog-whistle to the evangelical community). First, every life is not beautiful, and many conservatives would be the first to say so. This movie - about a girl who discovers that her parents are not her real parents; she was adopted following a failed abortion attempt by her real mother - is not about a serial killer. The protagonist is not bin Ladin; it is a beautiful girl who I am sure will prove to be very heartwarming and sympathetic. “Isn’t the world a better place with her in it?” you’d be bound to ask yourself, and answer in the affirmative. It would defeat the purpose of the film to show a kiddy rapist like  Jerry Sandusky as an abortion survivor. Some pro-lifers may actually believe that every life is beautiful; I do not. Some people we are better off without.

But that same pro-life argument - that life is good and that you should always choose life, because it is beautiful and precious and adds love, joy, and sparkly unicorns to the world - doesn’t just apply to the question of abortion. By that reasoning, we should all be fucking each other like jackrabbits, making the most of our brief time in the sunshine of fertility. The filmmakers of October Baby ask you to imagine how wrong and terrible it would be if that beautiful, heartwarming girl in the film didn’t exist. The reason why she might not exist doesn’t matter to the argument; an abortion or a headache could have prevented her sweet face from seeing the light of day. If abortion should be condemned because it prevents beautiful girls from being born, contraception and abstinence should be condemned for the same reason. Apparently we should be encouraging 11-year-old girls to have sex, so that they can create more life; the logic of the argument as stated leads inevitably to this conclusion.

Of course a better logical argument could be made, and is made - that life begins at conception, and that it is a crime to take it afterwards. But making a philosophical argument about the timing of life doesn’t lend itself quite so heart-rendingly to movies as the idea of life. It’s easier to make a film glorifying “life” than one glorifying conception, especially for conservatives. Because there are already a lot of movies that glorify the process of conception, and they are called porn. And I doubt that any pornographic film made by Christian conservatives would compete very well.

Conservatives have convinced themselves that Newt will be the better nominee because he’ll crush Obama in debates. In fact, Newt is fueling this fantasy by claiming he’ll demand seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with Obama.

I actually think this would be fantastic, and good for our democracy. It’s the way debates should be conducted. Not with answer times that keep getting shorter. I can see a future where debates are conducted in 15-second intervals, allowing time for half-sentence ripostes, and I hate it. Ideas need room for explication.

Gingrich will cost Republicans the House and maybe the Senate. They know it, they fear it, and as of right now, they’re trying to figure out if there’s anything they can do about it.

I hope he does. It’s a lot of fun to watch him emerge from the political grave.

Mr Rubio is a rising star in the Republican party, and is often suggested as a viable vice-presidential choice for this year’s Republican presidential nominee.

If that nominee is Romney, Rubio would be an excellent choice. As a Senator from Florida (a huge swing state), as a teabag-powered elected official (Romney will have to choose another Sarah Palin, but less stupid) and, perhaps most importantly, as a Latino.

Finally, around 8am we are given our instructions for the day, a schedule of where we were to be and when, and were split into two groups. My group of 6 was put in a nice corner office, with windows and everything, and we commenced our group exercise. The basic idea is that you are given a bunch of information about a fake country and projects that your embassy “task force” will be considering. Everyone has a different project and the goal at the end is to come to consensus on what will be funded and what will not, because of course money is tight. You have time to present individually (about 5 mins each) and then 20-30 mins to come to agreement on what to fund given your budget. Our group got along great, and our discussion was easy, logical, and organized. I felt I had done well on this, but no better than anyone else, even though in the end my project had the most support (maybe I’m a better negotiator than I give myself credit for J).  One down, two to go.

To enter such a high performing team, a person must prove their competence. Any group worth its salt will test for skill when enrolling new members. But most groups, especially elite groups, require bonds of trust and will test further. Such groups build a culture and will create traditions of initiation rites. These rites will establish:

1) Whether an individual deeply wants to join the group.
2) Whether an individual will emotionally commit to the group and its cause.
3) Whether an individual will be loyal to the group above other commitments.
4) Whether this desire manifests in emotional and physical strength to suffer to gain membership.
5) Whether the person can hold the secret with other group members.
6) Whether an individual will respect a hierarchy of the elders.

Groups that celebrate their special status will strive to achieve all the above.

They will create tests of membership and I do mean tests. A test means that the person must prepare, endure and prove him or herself. A person can fail the test and fail to exhibit the emotional or physical strength to earn privileged membership. This failure is not about skill but commitment to the group as a group.

Hazing evolves naturally from this. Hazing involves the infliction of potential harm or suffering on the initiate. It creates a barrier that must be surmounted to prove worthiness. It usually requires a form of humbling to prove the group is more important than the individual. Conquering the suffering and humiliation earns acceptance. Many rites can be silly or stunts. They can be easy, hard, ritualistic, demanding or soft symbolic actions. It once looked like a gendered male phenomenon, but sororities and women’s teams and groups have demonstrated their own competence at devising rituals and hazing on their own terms.

A person proves him or herself and becomes “one of us.” Passing the test proves their worthiness and trustworthiness—they enter the group in a deeper way beyond competence. The harder the test, as the Marines or Special Forces prove, the more abiding the loyalty. The challenges or tasks often establish a hierarchy to remind new entrants that they are entering at the lowest level and offer obeisance or “pay their dues” to gain higher levels. Ideally this should really occur on the field  in competition or task performance. Over time it does; on good teams people earn their spurs by reliable and trusted showing up that the others can rely upon.

But the deeper more atavistic belonging demands the initiation. For many athletic teams and organizations these rites drift off campus and out of sight of coaches or authorities. These are non-sanctioned informal initiations that the students have created and kept alive over time, not the inventions of transient coaches or authorities.

Their hidden and illicit nature make them all the more valuable. These tests of the young by the young degenerate easily into hazing. Peer pressure and the desire to be acknowledged drive people join in stupid, demeaning or dangerous behavior that the entrants would not indulge on their own. They can involve tests that may make sense to a nineteen year old—chugging a bottle of vodka—flashing a random group—running a gauntlet. Often they may feel funny to the perpetrators but feel humiliating or demeaning to those experiencing them.

If the hazing is done in secret, team members share a secret. Secret sharing seals them tighter and obligates them to not tell. Secret hazing cements their membership. Its very danger generates pride at having succeeded at something hard. It also means that next year they can impose the same hazing.

Hazing, initiating, rites of passage speak deeply to sealing membership  and consecrating belonging  with value beyond technocratic proof of competence and skill. It gives shared pride in passing a test, being worthy. Sharing suffering and sharing a secret bond them as much as the rite does.

The moves were described as an “abuse of power” by one of the highest profile supporters of the anti-piracy bills.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging,” said Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America.

“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information… A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.”

First, he’s not a sitting Senator anymore, which the BBC story doesn’t make clear, but should have. Secondly, I know you’ve gotta make a living, but dude. Come on. That’s no excuse for trying to break the internet.

It seems like the internet is constantly under attack from one kind of legislation or another. Either attempts by big media companies to develop a rich new revenue stream by soaking content producers for access to customers (their existing revenue stream charges customers for access to content) by gutting net neutrality, or these over-reaching, over-broad, vaguely-worded attacks on “piracy” that, in actuality, provide a legal basis for attacking many things besides. What excites me is the growing power and political unity of the forces created by the internet, standing up for it.