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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?