If you compare anyone or anything to something that is the exact opposite, you're not just going to make people ask if you're joking- you ARE the joke.
Well we probably all knew this day would come- the day someone finally compared gay people to the Nazis. Little did anyone suspect however that this moron would be an ex-Archbishop of Cantebury: George Carey. Yes, as is increasingly the case these days, religion (a religion that explicitly commands 'Love thy neighbour' no less) has instead been used to encourage people to hate their neighbours.
Carey commented Christians who dared to speak out against the government's equal marriage reforms could face persecution similar to the Jews under the Third Reich: 'When they were called names that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state,... It's part of a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking.' A smooth move really when you think about it- comparing people who were systematically exterminated by fascists and totalitarians... to fascists and totalitarians. It's such a spectacular piece of bigoted nonsense that I'm surprised Melanie Phillips didn't write it in the Daily Mail first.
While this is the first time Carey has gone that far, he has frequently been openly outspoken in his opposition of gay relationships, let alone marriage- notably in 1998 at the Lambeth conference, 2002 on Breakfast with Frost and again at Lambeth in 2010.
I mean let's not overlook the above too quickly- comparing a previously abused minority to people who abuse minorities. Not only is it offensive in the extreme but it is also utterly redundant. Evidently Carey's nose spends far too much time poking around other people's private areas, but I don't compare it to a dildo. And why? Because they are such different things that to draw such a comparison would be nonsensical... as is comparing opposing gay marriage to Nazism.
Of course, I'm not going to deny George Carey his right to offend- being an asshole is something we've come to expect from religious homophobes. My point is only to point out how not to be taken in by such rubbish. If people can't see this bigotry for what it is then there is very little to hope for when anyone comes to vote. A minority is perceived as a prevailing opinion because they say things loudly. This is why nobody has dared make a move on gay marriage- an issue most people apparently think of as a no-brainer. 71% of the population in Britain support gay marriage. Those who do not are now a minority (a very loud mouthed stupid ignorant minority who think using God as a cover for hate constitutes an argument) and yet they cannot see this. Archbishop Carey is just the latest in an ever dwindling crowd of people who have yet to realise that their views do not empower them; they turn them into a living joke.
Let me repeat that: 71% of British people support gay marriage. Only 53% of Americans support gay marriage and yet they're AHEAD of us on this issue.
By the way, last year, in 2011, over 80 reports of clerical pedophilia hit the headlines (many of the 80 individuals accused by more than one person). Ok that's a lot of perversion when you're trying to take a stand against it. How about dealing with the skeletons in the Church's closet before complaining about who comes out of theirs.
Therefore, in the interest of mercy, I'll stop making fun of the Archbishop and leave him to his impotent rage.
So who came out in favour of the Archbishop's words at the Tory party conference? Ann Widdecombe. Someone who has openly declared that she has no need for sex whatsoever in her life now thinks they can judge others on their existent sexuality. Give her credit, though, at least she, unlike the Archbishop, has a good reason for wearing a dress to work. However, not to be too derogatory, just looking at Ann Widdecombe suggests to me that she should really start supporting gay rights. Because, dear readers, if ever there was a woman who instills men with less of a sense of heterosexuality, this is her. I rest my case.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
Tuesday 28 August 2012
In The Interest of Balance: Raging Bully
IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE: AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE!
Ok now we've got that out of the way we can talk about real issues. In the previous week, the independent columnist and author Owen Jones (or as a friend of mine likes to call him "The Thinking Gay's Crumpet") wrote a column explaining just how terrifying the recent expansion of power in the US really is.
In the wake of Bush's administration, the president of the United States can now hold people indefinitely, arrest people without a warrant, imprison people without a trial, torture prisoners and order the killing of any US citizen without due process. Yes, all of those powers were confirmed under dubya. But Obama has handed virtually none of this power back and there are those who still claim that he is the most liberal, left wing, socialist and divisive president ever.
Unfortunately, Jones does have a point. Citing his article, in "The Five" section on Fox news, their pundits spoke of his comments rightly making clear that the expansion of power is extremely frightening and and has potentially destructive ramifications. Or as they glibly put it, what he really means is "Death to America." Yes, what a perfect over-simplification of everything in the article: Jones points out the dangers of having too much power subject to abuse, and Fox news explains all it means is america must be destroyed. I don't know who could have better simplified the problem, except maybe a 6 year old.
They then went off to explain that america is awesome and people on the left only hate them for the power they wield. Of course. The problem isn't America's colossal expansion of how it can infringe on civil liberties, it's that people hate it for being awesome. The kind of in depth analysis that could only come from a complete ignoramus. Greg Gutfield thinks that "the only solution is for America to start assuming our awesome and stop apologising for it". I have a better suggestion. Why not stop insulting whoever has anything critical to say about you and take an board what is said before dismissing it out of hand. In other words: stop claiming you're the most 'awesome' country in the world and start acting like it!
Eric Bolling then went on to claim that Obama is the head of the occupy movement, Dana Pierno claimed it is better to be feared than liked, and Andrea Tantaros called Jones a schoolchild who had never heard of Hitler or Mussolini or that America helped defeat them, before calling Germany the most influential economic power in Europe and saying America had to police them.
Now, I'm not here simply to defend Jones- unlike what some would tell you, I daresay he's a big boy and doesn't need my praise or defence. I'm just here to cite some strange rhetoric from The Five.
So for the sake of balance for balance's sake, let's respond to some of these points. If you get to claim Obama is the head of the occupy movement, we get to make comparisons between Bush and Saddam Hussain. If you get to claim it's better to be feared than liked, you don't deserve any respect. If you think Jones is a schoolchild when he's nearly 28, I get to call you an infantile bimbo who doesn't know how to use the education she has.
Next on the agenda, however, since we need to respect America and say how awesome it is all the time, let's list a few places where America does rank number one. CO2 emissions: America has the highest rate in the world, ahead of China. Rape: America has the most occurrences of rape in the world ahead of Kenya. America sells more weapons and instruments of destruction than any other country. America has the highest crime rate in the world above the UK. They have the highest divorce rate in the world. There are more people in prison in the US than any other country. One in 38 people in the US is in prison. Harold Pinter was right co compare the prison system to the Soviet gulag, except for one thing. Russia ranks number three in stats of most citizens in prison meaning that america now ranks several times worse than the number of people in the gulag. So way to go, America, in these areas, you really are number one!
Now, don't get me wrong. The above makes me sound quite anti-American, but trust me, I am not. I am only deeply concerned and wish that the right wing media in America would really look at these concerns and not pretend they don't exist. Because the wars the US and UK put on the credit card thanks to Bush and Blair were fought on a pack of lies and the lid has been blown off it. And if a country wants respect after so many mistakes, it has to earn it and not just expect the fear of others because their missiles are bigger than everyone else's.
Ok now we've got that out of the way we can talk about real issues. In the previous week, the independent columnist and author Owen Jones (or as a friend of mine likes to call him "The Thinking Gay's Crumpet") wrote a column explaining just how terrifying the recent expansion of power in the US really is.
In the wake of Bush's administration, the president of the United States can now hold people indefinitely, arrest people without a warrant, imprison people without a trial, torture prisoners and order the killing of any US citizen without due process. Yes, all of those powers were confirmed under dubya. But Obama has handed virtually none of this power back and there are those who still claim that he is the most liberal, left wing, socialist and divisive president ever.
Unfortunately, Jones does have a point. Citing his article, in "The Five" section on Fox news, their pundits spoke of his comments rightly making clear that the expansion of power is extremely frightening and and has potentially destructive ramifications. Or as they glibly put it, what he really means is "Death to America." Yes, what a perfect over-simplification of everything in the article: Jones points out the dangers of having too much power subject to abuse, and Fox news explains all it means is america must be destroyed. I don't know who could have better simplified the problem, except maybe a 6 year old.
They then went off to explain that america is awesome and people on the left only hate them for the power they wield. Of course. The problem isn't America's colossal expansion of how it can infringe on civil liberties, it's that people hate it for being awesome. The kind of in depth analysis that could only come from a complete ignoramus. Greg Gutfield thinks that "the only solution is for America to start assuming our awesome and stop apologising for it". I have a better suggestion. Why not stop insulting whoever has anything critical to say about you and take an board what is said before dismissing it out of hand. In other words: stop claiming you're the most 'awesome' country in the world and start acting like it!
Eric Bolling then went on to claim that Obama is the head of the occupy movement, Dana Pierno claimed it is better to be feared than liked, and Andrea Tantaros called Jones a schoolchild who had never heard of Hitler or Mussolini or that America helped defeat them, before calling Germany the most influential economic power in Europe and saying America had to police them.
Now, I'm not here simply to defend Jones- unlike what some would tell you, I daresay he's a big boy and doesn't need my praise or defence. I'm just here to cite some strange rhetoric from The Five.
So for the sake of balance for balance's sake, let's respond to some of these points. If you get to claim Obama is the head of the occupy movement, we get to make comparisons between Bush and Saddam Hussain. If you get to claim it's better to be feared than liked, you don't deserve any respect. If you think Jones is a schoolchild when he's nearly 28, I get to call you an infantile bimbo who doesn't know how to use the education she has.
Next on the agenda, however, since we need to respect America and say how awesome it is all the time, let's list a few places where America does rank number one. CO2 emissions: America has the highest rate in the world, ahead of China. Rape: America has the most occurrences of rape in the world ahead of Kenya. America sells more weapons and instruments of destruction than any other country. America has the highest crime rate in the world above the UK. They have the highest divorce rate in the world. There are more people in prison in the US than any other country. One in 38 people in the US is in prison. Harold Pinter was right co compare the prison system to the Soviet gulag, except for one thing. Russia ranks number three in stats of most citizens in prison meaning that america now ranks several times worse than the number of people in the gulag. So way to go, America, in these areas, you really are number one!
Now, don't get me wrong. The above makes me sound quite anti-American, but trust me, I am not. I am only deeply concerned and wish that the right wing media in America would really look at these concerns and not pretend they don't exist. Because the wars the US and UK put on the credit card thanks to Bush and Blair were fought on a pack of lies and the lid has been blown off it. And if a country wants respect after so many mistakes, it has to earn it and not just expect the fear of others because their missiles are bigger than everyone else's.
In the Interest of Balance: Royal Flush
IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE: The Sun must be rebranded a 'special interest' rag. It has been virtually inescapable all week: the nude pictures of Prince Harry getting naked and grinding up against a girl in Vegas that were sold to and published by The Sun newspaper. That's right the most perverse image anyone in the UK has seen since the combination of the words 'The Sun' and 'Newspaper'.
When this story hit the front page, I was heartened by a number of people of my generation all responding the same way in the face of this 'outrage': 'Who gives a shit?!'
Seriously this should not be such a big deal: he's a young man having a wild night out and letting his hair down... and in the process letting his family down. We've all had nights like that. It just isn't photographed by some over-eager celebrity hunting twonk with a phone who then sells it for thousands to a newspaper.
Since the newspaper has been in serious trouble with the press complaints commission, with many people, including royals, complaining that the story is not in the public interest. Here's the thing: virtually none of the stories in The Sun are in the public interest. We need look no further than the appalling coverage of the Hillsborough disaster that lead to the paper not being sold anywhere in Liverpool: a completely fabricated story executed in a most offensive way, exploiting the dead and knowingly insulting their families, their friends and their memory. Therefore, I think it only right to rebrand the paper a special interest paper, since it sure as hell isn't public interest.
However, I think the problem goes deeper than this. The minute the faux-outrage machine tabloid published the story, the irony was clear... and could be found on page 3.
The buck does not stop with the papers in this story. The fact that so many people were apparently outraged by this story, I think, is very telling about this country's attitude to sex, sexuality and nudity. I found myself wondering why we were so uppity pretending to be shocked and asked myself are we such an infantile people that any display of nudity or sexuality is greeted with reactionary disgust and childish tittering. Unfortunately, the answer I found myself reaching is yes we are.
Why were we so 'outraged' at the content of the image? The fact that some wannabe paparazzo snapped the photo on a mobile phone: that should be an outrage. The fact that they then tried to sell it: that should be an outrage. And, yes, the fact that The Sun newspaper bought it and ran it on the front page: that should be an outrage.
I'm going to do the criminal here and compare this nation with France. I know, I know, we like to insult France all the time in this country, because... well, it's fun. But bear with me here. Through the course of history, the European country that has seemed most comfortable with all things sexual has been France. They gave us erotic literature, art, lingereé and told us what to do with our tongues. They've been fine with nude beaches and, in recent years have had elections in which the candidates have been unmarried with children or non exclusive. Even their attitude to gay sex has rightly been way in advance of ours. Our laws criminalising homosexuality were repealed largely between the 70s and 80s. When did France decriminalise homosexuality? 1795!
You know, when I started to look into this, I thought the fact that we seem to be turning into a nation of busybodys was a new thing. But looking at it in this light, I realise this isn't true. It's just a new thing that the media is turning into a bunch of people acting like busybodys: pretending to be outraged just because a royal got his clothes off. Frankly I have no problem with the young Prince's actions, but when attitudes like this explode across the press, we must wonder what we thirst after more: morality or a good scandal we can sink our teeth into.
When this story hit the front page, I was heartened by a number of people of my generation all responding the same way in the face of this 'outrage': 'Who gives a shit?!'
Seriously this should not be such a big deal: he's a young man having a wild night out and letting his hair down... and in the process letting his family down. We've all had nights like that. It just isn't photographed by some over-eager celebrity hunting twonk with a phone who then sells it for thousands to a newspaper.
Since the newspaper has been in serious trouble with the press complaints commission, with many people, including royals, complaining that the story is not in the public interest. Here's the thing: virtually none of the stories in The Sun are in the public interest. We need look no further than the appalling coverage of the Hillsborough disaster that lead to the paper not being sold anywhere in Liverpool: a completely fabricated story executed in a most offensive way, exploiting the dead and knowingly insulting their families, their friends and their memory. Therefore, I think it only right to rebrand the paper a special interest paper, since it sure as hell isn't public interest.
However, I think the problem goes deeper than this. The minute the faux-outrage machine tabloid published the story, the irony was clear... and could be found on page 3.
The buck does not stop with the papers in this story. The fact that so many people were apparently outraged by this story, I think, is very telling about this country's attitude to sex, sexuality and nudity. I found myself wondering why we were so uppity pretending to be shocked and asked myself are we such an infantile people that any display of nudity or sexuality is greeted with reactionary disgust and childish tittering. Unfortunately, the answer I found myself reaching is yes we are.
Why were we so 'outraged' at the content of the image? The fact that some wannabe paparazzo snapped the photo on a mobile phone: that should be an outrage. The fact that they then tried to sell it: that should be an outrage. And, yes, the fact that The Sun newspaper bought it and ran it on the front page: that should be an outrage.
I'm going to do the criminal here and compare this nation with France. I know, I know, we like to insult France all the time in this country, because... well, it's fun. But bear with me here. Through the course of history, the European country that has seemed most comfortable with all things sexual has been France. They gave us erotic literature, art, lingereé and told us what to do with our tongues. They've been fine with nude beaches and, in recent years have had elections in which the candidates have been unmarried with children or non exclusive. Even their attitude to gay sex has rightly been way in advance of ours. Our laws criminalising homosexuality were repealed largely between the 70s and 80s. When did France decriminalise homosexuality? 1795!
You know, when I started to look into this, I thought the fact that we seem to be turning into a nation of busybodys was a new thing. But looking at it in this light, I realise this isn't true. It's just a new thing that the media is turning into a bunch of people acting like busybodys: pretending to be outraged just because a royal got his clothes off. Frankly I have no problem with the young Prince's actions, but when attitudes like this explode across the press, we must wonder what we thirst after more: morality or a good scandal we can sink our teeth into.
Wednesday 1 August 2012
Mind The Gap
Up to now, Oswald has been happy to assist Zazu in reviewing and editing his posts, however tonight, its my turn to post an entry. I've decided, to rival Zazu's convention of In the Interest of Balance, to create relevant entries on Satirical Silliness. Thankfully, with the Olympic Games upon us, it seems as though Christmas has come early for satirists.
Tonight, I read the following article on BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19060095
Overcrowding? On Public Transport?! Surely not. Those outside of London will surely recognise this as a regular phenomena on many trains run during peak hours. Students and anyone boarding the train last minute may find themselves in squatting in corridors, like some technological beggar. I fortunately have had the comfort of a seat on most occasions, but I have known to take up standing room on a train where, in theory, capacity would allow a seat for me. Why does this happen? Because people catching earlier or later trains than they've booked tickets for would be expected on those trains. Similarly the assumption of open return tickets mean that capacity would be available- except on the more popular routes and timings when everyone opts to travel.
Rather than a rant though, I want to query where are all the Health and Safety officials? They seem to have vanished? UK citizens are daily confronted with the challenges and issues around prohibitive regulations along the lines of Thou shalt not block the Fire Exit and Hold the Handrail whilst on a moving walkway. Have these rules been waived in order to accommodate the Olympics to avoid penalising foreign nationals? If so, can we please have more foreign nationals visiting on a regular basis but only as long as someone holds compulsory queuing lessons as part of Citizenship.
However, this whole situation, as Mornington Crescent players will know, could easily have been avoided by the Wellington Manouevre, rather than playing Hobsons Gambit to bisect a trilateral, thus entering into Nip. If playing by Parker rules, don't forget to collect £200.00 as you pass Go
Tonight, I read the following article on BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19060095
Overcrowding? On Public Transport?! Surely not. Those outside of London will surely recognise this as a regular phenomena on many trains run during peak hours. Students and anyone boarding the train last minute may find themselves in squatting in corridors, like some technological beggar. I fortunately have had the comfort of a seat on most occasions, but I have known to take up standing room on a train where, in theory, capacity would allow a seat for me. Why does this happen? Because people catching earlier or later trains than they've booked tickets for would be expected on those trains. Similarly the assumption of open return tickets mean that capacity would be available- except on the more popular routes and timings when everyone opts to travel.
Rather than a rant though, I want to query where are all the Health and Safety officials? They seem to have vanished? UK citizens are daily confronted with the challenges and issues around prohibitive regulations along the lines of Thou shalt not block the Fire Exit and Hold the Handrail whilst on a moving walkway. Have these rules been waived in order to accommodate the Olympics to avoid penalising foreign nationals? If so, can we please have more foreign nationals visiting on a regular basis but only as long as someone holds compulsory queuing lessons as part of Citizenship.
However, this whole situation, as Mornington Crescent players will know, could easily have been avoided by the Wellington Manouevre, rather than playing Hobsons Gambit to bisect a trilateral, thus entering into Nip. If playing by Parker rules, don't forget to collect £200.00 as you pass Go
Monday 30 July 2012
Driven to Distraction?
We've all known someone who is easily distracted. We love to make fun of them in our conversation and even in our sitcoms. We've all seen this, no? Some dippy person will find themselves halfway through a thought, when suddenly... OOH SHINY!
Sadly for us, we shouldn't make fun of this kind of thing, because, as a nation, we are that person. Let's wake up and focus, people. There are now a lot of issues that we need to keep a good close eye on, because if we don't... PIGEON!
All joking aside, this is a serious problem. A wise man once said "The real axis of evil in this country is the genius of our marketing coupled with the stupidity of our people." I believe he was talking about America but this goes for the UK just as much.
This week, the British Government quietly passed a law which would allow them and other security service more access to monitor social media and emails. When this motion was first proposed, people were outraged and with some fair reason. Many asked what this would do to people's freedom and civil liberties, however the government response at the time was that it would not be able to access the content of emails or social network communication, but only be able to see the names of people contacted. This would seem to suggest something far more worrying, however. Namely: what makes anyone think that seeing who people communicate with is any kind of grounds to interrogate or condemn a person?
What actually got this half-arsed and not very thought through piece of hackery into law so easily? A nice big distraction full of shiny things and loud noises: The Olympics.
Now should we be angered by the assumption that such a trick has been played? Yes, of course, but we are in no place to point the finger purely at the government about this. After all, it's not like they've not done this kind of thing before. Ever since the coalition government got into power it has been official political practice to cover much of their tracks with big lies. Saying things like Labour is guilty of causing the recession- because what better way to get the heat off the banks?
This is quite brilliant political bullshitting to get what you want. You want to push something through that is meeting with massive amounts of opposition and controversy- not least because what is being pushed is a barely thought through idea- what do you do? Change the subject, then push it right through when everyone's back is turned. Distract the opposition, do whatever the hell you while they're not looking. It is a tactic that has served this government very well, but what is worrying is that so few people have seen through these smokescreen tactics.
At the time of the Royal Wedding, while the nation was busy watching the big spectacle of gold, military uniforms and ridiculous hats, this government quickly and quietly pushed forward and passed part of their controversial NHS reform plans ending a year of heated debate and outcry from the NHS itself that there would be hell to pay if the plans did go ahead with a simple method. Wait until the nation is distracted with a nice big show, then we will never notice the postman slipping in the back door.
Again, should we be angry about such underhanded dealings? Yes, absolutely. But, again, save a little blame for ourselves. After all these examples of backdoor policy pushing are just under this government and the above are just three examples... and we have fallen for every last one of them.
Folks, this is not a game. If you lose out in this climate you really lose out. And this is not a time to be fooled or to allow ourselves to be distracted by a big show. This is very clever governmental behaviour: when they're under almost overwhelming pressure from another side, what do they do? They change the subject. This is why labour is blamed for the recession and two giant glittering extravaganzas are used to hold our attention to push forward policies without being interrogated too much.
We really are that easily distracted. All it takes is a Royal Wedding, an Olympic Ceremony, or telling a lie so often that people start to think it's true. Why not just blinker the nation, dangle a giant carrot in front of them and tell them to walk?!
We have to see past this kind of thing and see both these tactics and our easily distracted nature for how dangerous they are.
And if we cannot manage this, we need to get rid of the lions on our nation's crests and replace them with this guy.
Sadly for us, we shouldn't make fun of this kind of thing, because, as a nation, we are that person. Let's wake up and focus, people. There are now a lot of issues that we need to keep a good close eye on, because if we don't... PIGEON!
All joking aside, this is a serious problem. A wise man once said "The real axis of evil in this country is the genius of our marketing coupled with the stupidity of our people." I believe he was talking about America but this goes for the UK just as much.
This week, the British Government quietly passed a law which would allow them and other security service more access to monitor social media and emails. When this motion was first proposed, people were outraged and with some fair reason. Many asked what this would do to people's freedom and civil liberties, however the government response at the time was that it would not be able to access the content of emails or social network communication, but only be able to see the names of people contacted. This would seem to suggest something far more worrying, however. Namely: what makes anyone think that seeing who people communicate with is any kind of grounds to interrogate or condemn a person?
What actually got this half-arsed and not very thought through piece of hackery into law so easily? A nice big distraction full of shiny things and loud noises: The Olympics.
Now should we be angered by the assumption that such a trick has been played? Yes, of course, but we are in no place to point the finger purely at the government about this. After all, it's not like they've not done this kind of thing before. Ever since the coalition government got into power it has been official political practice to cover much of their tracks with big lies. Saying things like Labour is guilty of causing the recession- because what better way to get the heat off the banks?
This is quite brilliant political bullshitting to get what you want. You want to push something through that is meeting with massive amounts of opposition and controversy- not least because what is being pushed is a barely thought through idea- what do you do? Change the subject, then push it right through when everyone's back is turned. Distract the opposition, do whatever the hell you while they're not looking. It is a tactic that has served this government very well, but what is worrying is that so few people have seen through these smokescreen tactics.
At the time of the Royal Wedding, while the nation was busy watching the big spectacle of gold, military uniforms and ridiculous hats, this government quickly and quietly pushed forward and passed part of their controversial NHS reform plans ending a year of heated debate and outcry from the NHS itself that there would be hell to pay if the plans did go ahead with a simple method. Wait until the nation is distracted with a nice big show, then we will never notice the postman slipping in the back door.
Again, should we be angry about such underhanded dealings? Yes, absolutely. But, again, save a little blame for ourselves. After all these examples of backdoor policy pushing are just under this government and the above are just three examples... and we have fallen for every last one of them.
Folks, this is not a game. If you lose out in this climate you really lose out. And this is not a time to be fooled or to allow ourselves to be distracted by a big show. This is very clever governmental behaviour: when they're under almost overwhelming pressure from another side, what do they do? They change the subject. This is why labour is blamed for the recession and two giant glittering extravaganzas are used to hold our attention to push forward policies without being interrogated too much.
We really are that easily distracted. All it takes is a Royal Wedding, an Olympic Ceremony, or telling a lie so often that people start to think it's true. Why not just blinker the nation, dangle a giant carrot in front of them and tell them to walk?!
We have to see past this kind of thing and see both these tactics and our easily distracted nature for how dangerous they are.
And if we cannot manage this, we need to get rid of the lions on our nation's crests and replace them with this guy.
Sunday 29 July 2012
In the Interest of Balance: Tweets, Twits and Mitt...
Well, no matter how hard you try, you can never escape the Olympics and us Penguins are no exception. In the run up to the games they have probably been more inescapable than they probably will be during the games (despite them being broadcast over 3 BBC channels). We have heard everything: in the year of the olympics it seems to have been official political dogma that nobody is allowed to criticise the games on the basis that it is unpatriotic to do so. This, of course sparked a whole outcry of anti-olympic sentiment, some of which is justified. The Olympics have too much power, it was a complete fiasco that the building of the park rose to double budget before it was finished, the corporations are running the show, G4S will soon be relegated to organising piss ups in breweries (which will probably still fail) and that some of the worst aspects of Britain will be on display. The history of the Olympics held in other nation states sadly has a track record of massive underbudgeting in the planning stages, overspending to meet the objectives, and debt lumbered with the host nations... Seoul 1988 and Athens 2004 anyone?
The Opening Ceremony of the games at least proved some of these concerns right. The organisation, as far as could be seen went pretty well. The financial situation the games found themselves in was a total mess. The Olympic brand does have too much power- which should have been demonstrated when some lady had her knitting confiscated because it included the Olympic 5 ring logo. Its now extended into the catering- you can only buy McDonalds in stadia and Pepsi gets confiscated on the orders of Coca-Cola. The whole show is an exhibition of corporations. The worst of Britain on display? Not exactly. You might have noticed that the industrial revolution centrepiece of the show quite neatly glossed over the worst of what could have been displayed: child labour, slave labour, appalling conditions that killed the workers, some of the worst pollution and worst poverty ever seen in Europe. However, this did still prove to be a time of remarkable progress for this nation, so how do we reconcile the best we offered and the worst we've done? The solution of this show: ignore it. After all people in harsh situations doesn't make for a good show- just ask anyone who has seen "Oliver!", "Les Mis", "Miss Saigon" or "Evita".
It would seem right to suggest that, in the mode of the Emperor's New Clothes, those who dared not criticise were swept up with the craze. As a result, constructive criticism may equally have been hindered from being voiced. Naturally, we don't wish to be doomsayers and hope the Olympics does pass off well. However it comes to something then the Army are involved in the running of security checks and installing anti-aircraft weaponry under government mandate.
So what happened to all this criticism? I mean apart from the truly and undeniably outstanding spectacle of the opening ceremony? Was it the demonstration of our own organisers that they really could do great things with their organisation skills? No, not at all. what was it? Or more accurately who was it that made people throw more support behind the Olympics?
Mitt Romney and Aidan Burley. The Robot versus the Nazi stag do organiser. Alien Versus Predator.
Absurd though this sounds, however, it is true. Mitt Romney dropped a bombshell on Cameron and, evidently, London Mayor Boris Johnson when he expressed concern about the poor organisation. This was doubly unfortunate for both sides of the issue (as is usual for the Mittbot). The unfortunate fact for the Tory gang was that there have been legitimate concerns for the organisation of the event from the countdown clock breaking a day after it was unveiled, to the colossal messing up of the security and the games finding themselves unable to pay anything to the thousands of people appearing in the ceremony save the super wealthy. That said it was also unfortunate for the critics of the games, who could really have used a good intelligent voice to express these legitimate concerns, who instead ended up with a man so two faced that he is able to wear both simultaneously.
And then there was Burley. The tweeting twit of the twenty twelve games. This man tweeted that the ceremony was "multicultural crap" and that it was "the most leftie opening ceremony I've ever seen, more than Beijing the capital of a communist state! Welfare Tribute next?". Wow. Now, I know this is meant to be a satyrical blog and all, but that is such powerful stupidity that even we can't compete!
I mean really when you've been disgraced and lost your job for throwing a Nazi stag do (which I'm for, by the way as long as it makes the fascists look as sick as they actually were) and you're trying to save face... don't side with the fascists. I mean that is so extraordinarily dumb even Mitt didn't think of it. Seriously if you think it's communist to have a ceremony so head over heals in love with corporations, franchise and exports you need your head examined. If that was communism it was lousy communism.
What would Burley's ideal opening ceremony be? In fact why would he even have an opening ceremony? When people arrive let's just put a big electrified fence up guarded by alsatians with a big sign on it saying "You're in Britain. We're better than you, now give us your money and f*ck off!" I daresay that would please this man.
But I do not come here to make Burley look even more stupid because A. That's impossible and B. I'm here on a mission of mercy.
Yes I'm here to be merciful to people like Burley and not just because he converted so many people to sympathising with the Olympics. I want to start a movement to prevent Burley from ever looking at anyone else's tweets on the subject or googling The Guardian, The Independent or even New Left Review. Why? Because I want to save lives, not destroy them (even the morons). Now am I for saving Burley's life, yes, but his career, no. Life's rich tapestry has a few dropped stitches, (well they make it interesting don't they?) but we shouldn't put the dropped stitches in government and if Burley ever catches a glimpse of one of the aforementioned publications, the poor man's head might explode.
So please, people, shield this child from the real world. Let him live in his fantasy land and as long as he's there, lock the wardrobe door and keep him in Narnia.
The Opening Ceremony of the games at least proved some of these concerns right. The organisation, as far as could be seen went pretty well. The financial situation the games found themselves in was a total mess. The Olympic brand does have too much power- which should have been demonstrated when some lady had her knitting confiscated because it included the Olympic 5 ring logo. Its now extended into the catering- you can only buy McDonalds in stadia and Pepsi gets confiscated on the orders of Coca-Cola. The whole show is an exhibition of corporations. The worst of Britain on display? Not exactly. You might have noticed that the industrial revolution centrepiece of the show quite neatly glossed over the worst of what could have been displayed: child labour, slave labour, appalling conditions that killed the workers, some of the worst pollution and worst poverty ever seen in Europe. However, this did still prove to be a time of remarkable progress for this nation, so how do we reconcile the best we offered and the worst we've done? The solution of this show: ignore it. After all people in harsh situations doesn't make for a good show- just ask anyone who has seen "Oliver!", "Les Mis", "Miss Saigon" or "Evita".
It would seem right to suggest that, in the mode of the Emperor's New Clothes, those who dared not criticise were swept up with the craze. As a result, constructive criticism may equally have been hindered from being voiced. Naturally, we don't wish to be doomsayers and hope the Olympics does pass off well. However it comes to something then the Army are involved in the running of security checks and installing anti-aircraft weaponry under government mandate.
So what happened to all this criticism? I mean apart from the truly and undeniably outstanding spectacle of the opening ceremony? Was it the demonstration of our own organisers that they really could do great things with their organisation skills? No, not at all. what was it? Or more accurately who was it that made people throw more support behind the Olympics?
Mitt Romney and Aidan Burley. The Robot versus the Nazi stag do organiser. Alien Versus Predator.
Absurd though this sounds, however, it is true. Mitt Romney dropped a bombshell on Cameron and, evidently, London Mayor Boris Johnson when he expressed concern about the poor organisation. This was doubly unfortunate for both sides of the issue (as is usual for the Mittbot). The unfortunate fact for the Tory gang was that there have been legitimate concerns for the organisation of the event from the countdown clock breaking a day after it was unveiled, to the colossal messing up of the security and the games finding themselves unable to pay anything to the thousands of people appearing in the ceremony save the super wealthy. That said it was also unfortunate for the critics of the games, who could really have used a good intelligent voice to express these legitimate concerns, who instead ended up with a man so two faced that he is able to wear both simultaneously.
And then there was Burley. The tweeting twit of the twenty twelve games. This man tweeted that the ceremony was "multicultural crap" and that it was "the most leftie opening ceremony I've ever seen, more than Beijing the capital of a communist state! Welfare Tribute next?". Wow. Now, I know this is meant to be a satyrical blog and all, but that is such powerful stupidity that even we can't compete!
I mean really when you've been disgraced and lost your job for throwing a Nazi stag do (which I'm for, by the way as long as it makes the fascists look as sick as they actually were) and you're trying to save face... don't side with the fascists. I mean that is so extraordinarily dumb even Mitt didn't think of it. Seriously if you think it's communist to have a ceremony so head over heals in love with corporations, franchise and exports you need your head examined. If that was communism it was lousy communism.
What would Burley's ideal opening ceremony be? In fact why would he even have an opening ceremony? When people arrive let's just put a big electrified fence up guarded by alsatians with a big sign on it saying "You're in Britain. We're better than you, now give us your money and f*ck off!" I daresay that would please this man.
But I do not come here to make Burley look even more stupid because A. That's impossible and B. I'm here on a mission of mercy.
Yes I'm here to be merciful to people like Burley and not just because he converted so many people to sympathising with the Olympics. I want to start a movement to prevent Burley from ever looking at anyone else's tweets on the subject or googling The Guardian, The Independent or even New Left Review. Why? Because I want to save lives, not destroy them (even the morons). Now am I for saving Burley's life, yes, but his career, no. Life's rich tapestry has a few dropped stitches, (well they make it interesting don't they?) but we shouldn't put the dropped stitches in government and if Burley ever catches a glimpse of one of the aforementioned publications, the poor man's head might explode.
So please, people, shield this child from the real world. Let him live in his fantasy land and as long as he's there, lock the wardrobe door and keep him in Narnia.
Tuesday 3 July 2012
In the Interest of Balance: CLEVERDUCKS
IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE:
Ann Widdecombe, a childless anti-socialist, has now been considered an ideal candidate to not only be a nanny, but also a quiz show host. On that basis, is it time to let a real nanny or quiz show host take over the job of running the country.
Ann Widdecombe, a childless anti-socialist, has now been considered an ideal candidate to not only be a nanny, but also a quiz show host. On that basis, is it time to let a real nanny or quiz show host take over the job of running the country.
After dancing with Anton du Bec, the diminutive diva has taken again to the stage as hostess of the latest quiz determined to clone the success of the Weakest Link.
Widdecome hosts the new quiz show Cleverdicks on Challenge TV and seems like one of the latest attempts to show our politicians as men and women of the people. Unfortunately the ‘people’ they are supposed to be represent are those on reality TV shows: indulging in the cult of celebrity, where people are solely famous for being infamous. This is now typical, of course, of the media, so we should not be surprised about this. Credit where credit is due, however, like or lump Ms. Widdecombe, she is, at least, famous for something other than just being famous and pursued this career AFTER retiring from a lifetime in politics
Sadly, this is not what TV shows will have you think. Independent thinkers standing as politicians will undoubtedly be cast aside in the interest of admitting politicians who have achieved notioriety through obtaining 'celebrities' status: people who will debase themselves to any extent, such as trying to deal with parents who don’t realise the reason their children are arseholes is because they allow them to be, present documentaries that investigate lifestyles they have never experienced, yet have stood to represent and charge exorbitant fees for people to take photos of them.
Attempts by politicians to inflate their ego through appearences on popular television shows cross the floor. For instance, some of the more recent characters of notoriety are Neil and Christine Hamilton (Tory) who surfaced from the scandal of cash-for-questions on a host of shows and comedy programmes lampooning their disgrace. George Galloway (Lab), infamously set aside his credibility whilst appearing on Big Brother to mimic a cat. Various politicians have been invited to appear on Have I Got News For You, either as guests or Celebrity chairpersons: however, as this is a current affairs programme, it may be said be said by some that this should exclude them from consideration for the gig.
Boris Johnson, however, may otherwise have been relegated to a backbench eccentric, but, if it was not for his appearences on HIGNFY which have bolstered his popularity and fame, and so he may not have found himself becoming London Mayor. Except then, much to the conservative's disappointment, Boris (to borrow a metaphor from Bill Maher) turned out to be rather like his hair style: ridiculous, untameable and impossible to understand.
Boris Johnson, however, may otherwise have been relegated to a backbench eccentric, but, if it was not for his appearences on HIGNFY which have bolstered his popularity and fame, and so he may not have found himself becoming London Mayor. Except then, much to the conservative's disappointment, Boris (to borrow a metaphor from Bill Maher) turned out to be rather like his hair style: ridiculous, untameable and impossible to understand.
So let’s not stop here, if this is what people want of our TV soap opera politicians. To avoid tax evasion scandals, let’s say MPs can claim as many homes as they want on expenses as long as they install 24 hour cctv cameras in all of their homes so that every detail of their lives will be public and there will be ultimate transparency. At the end of the week, we will then be allowed to vote off the person we think is the most useless.
Likewise, there must be a reality TV show for animal lovers from cctv installed in the duck house. This week on CLEVERDUCKS: “Day 8 in the duckhouse and Mr. Quacker is in his last legs. If he does not get his feathers smoothened out this week, chances are he will soon be taking the waddle of shame and be doomed to life in the pond with the normal ducks.”
Having said all that, maybe these pleas for popularity will fail to be popular. After all, there is a reality TV show in which politicians are allowed to shout and posture in the hope of the approval of their peers and their public and it is called Live from the House of Lords and BBC Parliament in general. The BBC do a fantastic job to allow our democratic processes to be scrutinised, but it never hits the ratings. Thanks to this show we now have the opportunity to stream a continuous view of this week’s f*ckups at any time we wish and, unpopular as the current government seems to be at times, we have to ask, would they be considered so unpopular if it wasn’t for the cameras in the discussions. It’s a bad thing for them that we’re allowed to see so much and in the light of the unprofessionalism so often on display, and so it can come of little surprise that our politicians have no desire for greater transparency. After all, we all know that the only thing that tells more lies than the cameras are the politicians... or is it vice versa?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)