Neil Warnock is an Idiot

Many of my non-British readers won’t know who Neil Warnock is, or won’t even be bothered about football (Americans, read: soccer), but please don’t click the X on the browser just yet!

Here’s the background: Liverpool FC in the last two years have gotten very far in the UEFA Champions League competition. Last season we got to the final, (we won it in 2005!) and we are in the semi-finals again this season. This is actually the only silverware we’re competing for at this stage of the season, which means our league games are relatively unimportant in comparison. As a result, the Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez decided to rest several of his key players for Saturday’s game against Fulham, as the semi-final first leg against Chelsea is as close as Tuesday night.

Fulham are battling relegation, which means that the outcome of our game against Fulham is not only important to them, but other teams trying to avoid relegation too. The other teams down there would be hoping Liverpool beat Fulham and “do them a favour”.

None of which is, or should be, a concern to Liverpool. Right? Not according to the bitter cynical irrational rantings of Yorkshireman Neil Warnock. His gripe? Last season, Liverpool also fielded a ‘weakened’ team against Fulham, who actually beat Liverpool and eventually avoided the drop. Warnock’s team, Sheffield United, got relegated.

Here’s what Warnock had to say just before this weekend’s game:

“My advice to Reading, Bolton and the rest would be, if you’re expecting any favours, don’t hold your breath. They will have to do it themselves.”

Yes, and what’s your point?

“The fact of the matter is that if Liverpool were already out of the Champions League and needed to win to get fourth spot, they would play their strongest side.”

Yes, but again, what’s your point? Liverpool are in fact NOT out of the Champions League and don’t need to win to get fourth spot, so they don’t need to play their strongest side. So far, so obvious.

“Instead, I fully expect them to play a weakened team at Fulham.”

As did most people in the country.

“It’s part of a big club’s mentality. They look after themselves and they don’t bother about anyone else.”

Isn’t this part of EVERY sports team’s mentality?? Which sports team doesn’t think about just itself?

If you’re a professional sportsman and you have guilt about the knock-on effect of a game YOU WIN, you’re in the wrong business!

“The whole story that Sheffield United were going down and me having a pop at them afterwards was just treated like fish and chip paper by them. Liverpool didn’t care because they weren’t the ones getting hurt by it all.”

Well, actually Neil, Liverpool probably didn’t care because no one cares about your small-time poxy little opinions.

Of course, what Warnock fails to mention is that if Fulham would have ended up getting relegated, they would have gotten hurt. Maybe Liverpool were thinking about Fulham and didn’t want to hurt them by relegating them??

“Integrity, doing what is right for the game, comes way down Rafa’s list of priorities.”

Notice the false dichotomy: doing what is right for the game (whatever that means!) versus doing what is best for Liverpool.

What Warnock doesn’t realise (because he’s an idiot and because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about) is that doing what is ‘right for the game’ is precisely doing whatever is right for Liverpool! The only thing Liverpool should be concerned about is doing what is best for themselves. What is good for “the game” is open competition where clubs are free to play the players they want against any opposition they want.

What kind of a warped mentality could suggest that a sports team (or any business for that matter) should be interested in the wellbeing of its rivals?!

All that aside, Warnock’s Sheffield United had 38 games to amass enough points to avoid relegation. They didn’t. Boo hoo. That’s football. Warnock also forgets the last game of the season, when his team LOST to Wigan Athletic. A win would have kept them up, but they lost. Boo hoo.

What does Warnock expect: that a more successful club somehow has a responsibility to not act in its best interest in case another club could possibly incur an advantage/disadvantage as a result?? What if all clubs did this? The bigger clubs would go into games actively looking to not win where possible, after all, who wants to “hurt” another club by beating them?! Pathetic.

As always with this kind of sacrificial mentality, it’s the successful clubs that are to be penalised because they are successful; the clubs with the biggest squads should be forced to play their best teams in EVERY game in Warnock’s opinion. Why? Because they have the biggest and best squads. In other words, the better you are, the more you should be penalised and help accountable for taking advantage of your superiority!

But what about Sheffield United and other small clubs? Why doesn’t anyone talk about them pulling their finger out and wining more games?!

Liverpool did go on to lose in the final last year, but imagine if we would have fielded a full strength team against Fulham. Maybe Rafa would have said: “if only I could have rested my key players at Fulham to avoid tiredness/injury etc, perhaps we would have won the final.” People would have laughed at him probably, and Warnock wouldn’t have had anything to say.

But when a team like Warnock’s has 38 games to get enough points and then complain because Liverpool acted in their best interest, he gets his obnoxious face all over the TV and in the papers.

What is wrong with this mentality? In a word: altruism. Basically, the pathetic notion that acting in someone else’s interest OVER your own is somehow virtuous, more moral, nobler, for the “greater good”. Well, that’s nonsense. Ever club must act in its own self-interest, regardless of the effects on other clubs: play whatever team you want; play however you want. At the end of the day, you will stand or fall based on how successful YOU are – not how other clubs are!

The only people who don’t want to play by this fair and healthily competitive rule are the ones who are afraid; the ones who have something to lose by a fair fight; the ones who seek the unearned; the ones who can’t actually achieve success themselves but beg others to do the work for them; the ones who aren’t actually good enough to stand on their own merit. In other words, people like Neil Warnock.

Ben Elton Interview - Worth A Quick Look

A friend of mine showed me a 7 minute interview on YouTube of the author and satirist Ben Elton.  As an Objectivist I would have to totally agree with everything he says (apart from an incorrect use of the word “sacrifice”), and Elton manages to cram in such an intelligent and insightful critique of today’s fame-obsessed irrational faith-ridden feelings-motivated culture, into such a short time.

Although Elton is not an Objectivist, he basically identifies the dichotomy between reason and emotionalism.  Ultimately, there can be only one guide in our lives: either we use our faculty of reason (rationality) to integrate facts that we apprehend from reality using our percepts (sense experience), using a method of non-contradictory identity (logic), OR we let our feelings guide us.  Our feelings are the END result of a thought or action - they can be trained by our rational conscious mind, but our feelings are not a prescription of reality, because no act of will or emotion can ever change reality.  That is why Ayn Rand successful identified existence as always having primacy over consciousness, because our minds must conform to reality, not the other way around.  Those who live with emotionalism (of which faith is a variety) as their guide disregard this most fundamental metaphysical axiom and basically ask that reality change to meet their will.

Here is the video.  It’s only short so it’s worth a few minutes to have a watch:

Objectivist Round-Up 30

Objectivist Round-Up #30

Welcome everybody to this week’s Objectivist Round-Up. This is my first time hosting this carnival and it’s a privilege to give Rational Jenn a well-deserved rest for a week!

Here are the accepted submissions for this week, in no particular order:

RationalJenn wants to know which states are currently complying?, and says…

“Somehow, this whole thing snuck past me when it went through Congress nearly 3 years ago. It looks as if the Feds are going to come down hard on states that refuse to comply fully with the federal “security” guidelines for the issuance of state ids. Not only that, I fail to see how on earth this will protect me from Bad Guys. But I see quite clearly how much information our federal government will have about me and everyone else who wants to drive a car or ride in an airplane.”

Nicholas Provenzo at The Rule of Reason tells us Why Boycotting Berkeley is Important.

Stella Daily at Reason Pharma reckons it Would be Cheaper if You Were Dead!

Gus Van Horn presents Heartland on VanDamme

Evanescent exposes the Nihilism of Subjectivism.

That’s all for now! The next round-up is over at The Crucible & Column, where the theme will be “Best of 2007!” You can submit your articles here.

 

My Top 10 TV Shows Of All Time

Breaking away from the serious discussions of late, I thought I’d write something more light-hearted. Here is my top ten television shows of all time, based on what I’ve enjoyed through my life. (In other words, there may be shows here I don’t watch anymore).

10 Family Guy

Bizarre and abstract at times, and with no regard for political-correctness, Family Guy is one of the few shows that can make me laugh out loud time and again, even on repeats. The way nothing is safe from being parodied is hilarious and very clever too.

9 FRIENDS

I’m not a fan of FRIENDS anymore, but I had to put this in as I was for many years, and in its first 4 seasons the show really was genuinely funny, moving, and original. In its later seasons, it tries to copy itself, and episodes and jokes become formulaic and, the worst sin of a sitcom, simply not funny. But FRIENDS’ early seasons, especially the humour of and between the three men, will always make me laugh.

8 Spaced

With only 14 episodes, I can’t put Spaced any higher, but surely one of the best sitcoms ever. Hilarious, in the really clever sense of the word, and included in that is watchability. Because the show is so rich in pop-culture references and side-jokes, there is always something that you missed the last time around. I can’t think of another show with so few episodes having so much “quotability” and laughing points. How they also manage to fit in great story with some touching moments is pure genius.

7 SCRUBS

This could be higher up, if only for the length and quality of the shows to come. Scrubs is the best sitcom of all time, at least it was in a first 4 seasons. Consistently funny, very clever, abstract and diverse at times, touching, moving; with pure quality writing and acting. Very few sitcoms get the balance right between humour and solemnity – Scrubs definitely does. Without ruining it for those who haven’t seen, the episode “My Screw Up” is Scrubs at its absolute best, and probably one of the best episodes of any TV show, ever. I mean that.

6 Babylon 5

Not your typical episodic “reset-button” sci-fi bilge; Babylon 5 is a show replete with flawed and unlikely heroes, and deep villains. Politics, religion, intrigue, drama, humour, ideology, evil, good, tough decisions etc are all themes, and most importantly, they are very real human themes. Set against a background of ancient aliens, dramatic space battles, and a very realistic future vision of earth, B5 made a lasting impression with hundreds of millions, including me.

5 Angel

I really like this show, but it’s simply not as addictive as three of the shows above which is why I can’t place it any higher. Typical Joss Whedon, and by that I mean every episode is fantastically written, rich in dialogue, never short of humour be it obvious or subtle, full of action, and intriguing with its mix of villains, demons, creatures, and overriding cataclysmic themes. It’s a shame it didn’t get a full 7 seasons like its predecessor as I think it could have got even stronger.

4 Prison Break

I didn’t like the “idea” of Prison Break before I watched it, even though I don’t really know what I was expecting. But if you want a show with constant drama, and an addictiveness rating to leave heroin in the shadows, you need look no further. Prison Break is probably the equal-top most addictive show I’ve ever watched. I simply cannot express how good this programme is. I remember the first time I watched the first season, smiling with delight at having “discovered” the show, (although my arm was twisted into watching it). It keeps you going, every minute of every episode, and just clambering for more.

3 24

This is a show that I have called “the best TV show ever!!”, and for many it is. There is no more addictive show in the world. Minute to minute, episode to episode, season to season, no time is wasted. 24 is a quality show in every aspect: acting, writing, score, drama, suspense, and realism. 24 doesn’t cut corners, it doesn’t patronise you, and it will hook you from the first episode. Has there been a single greater hero than Jack Bauer?? I can’t think of one! The best thing I can say about 24 is that it could be interchangeable with my remaining two as the best ever.

2. Star Trek

So many versions over such a long time, it would be unfair to break them into individual incarnations. Star Trek is a TV show that did, without any exaggeration, change the world. Many of the themes of television about different cultures coming together, drawing strength from their mutual differences and advantages, to meet friends and battles enemies, all started with Star Trek. In the 1960s, consider a black female officer on the bridge of a ship, a Russian, an Asian, even an American southerner; and the first interracial kiss on TV. The first NASA shuttle was named Enterprise after the Federation Starship. The Next Generation (TNG) had its moments, and it is a good show, but it is too sterile, too episodic, and the characters too flat to grab me. DS9 was a great improvement when it finally got going: darker, dirtier, more macabre; proper full-length space battles and a realistic enemy with depth, DS9 isn’t classic Star Trek, but it’s great fantasy and science-fiction. Voyager is the most like the original Trek: one ship with a determined flamboyant captain, encountering new races every week, proper banter between characters, great enemies, great fight scenes, without the same level of inane techno-bullshit that TNG regurgitated every week, and an overriding story arc makes it one of the best. The less said about “Enterprise” the better.

1. Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

I recently finished re-watching this show all the way through, and it confirmed its status for me as best TV show ever. Buffy is a show that grows up as its audience does. From 15-16 years old, the problems of the characters in Buffy mature as they do, from high school and real life issues of friendship, first crush/love, unrequited affection, social skills, unpopularity, to adult ones of death, responsibility, sex, betrayal, and sacrifice. Monsters and demons are metaphors for personal demons; we don’t have to fight literal demons like Buffy does, but we do have to fight every day at times against our own fears and the troubles that life throws at us. There are very few real-life concerns that Buffy doesn’t deal with, and for that, I think there is something in it for everyone.

Buffy has consistently brilliant writing and acting. Every episode is packed with content; no line gets wasted. And it could win awards for its humour alone! The idea of a female superhero who rescues the boy and saves the day seems acceptable now, but it was revolutionary when Buffy first came out. Tru Calling, Dark Angel, and all the others that feature a strong woman with powers, were all inspired by Buffy.

No character on Buffy just “fills in”; each has episodes of their own to shine, but the truth is that most of the characters could have entire shows to themselves, (which Angel did end up getting). Buffy has watchability, duration, addictiveness, and diversity; it can be silly, outrageous, solemn, haunting, scary, dramatic, and genuinely touching. The reason I give Buffy top spot is simply because it has all the great things that other TV shows have between them, except all in the one place and in such quantity! Quite simply, television at its best.

 

I might do a similar top 10 in a year’s time and see what it looks like then!

The Sham of TV License Fees

In the UK, like many countries, there is a Receiver License for owning a television. It is treated as a tax, and not paying it is a criminal offence. The money is collected by the BBC and paid into a Government Fund, and then passed to the BBC for services and programming. (The BBC claims to carry out electronic surveillance (without a warrant) on property to check for unauthorised TV usage (if indeed this tech exists). Despite what it may attempt, it has no right to enter homes or examine property.)

I think this is a joke. Taxing ownership of a television is like taxing ownership of a mobile phone or personal computer. (Before I go any further, let me say that I have no affiliations to any TV company and my only bias is against license fees.)

The reason a TV license exists now is simply because it always has done. The license was introduced for radios and then switched to TVs when they were invented. This was at a time when the BBC was the sole broadcaster in Britain, and license fees were necessary to maintain a national broadcasting service. I can agree with this in theory; it’s no different than paying a tax for services like police or the fire department – in other words, a modest tax is better than no TV at all.

That was the argument back then. What is it now? Why is it law to pay a “license” for owning a household electronic device for ONE broadcasting company, when there are so many out there? Why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for a “service” that they might not even use? And is it right to see the BBC as a service anymore anyway?

Here are some of the common arguments in favour of the license fee, taken directly from Wikipedia:

Supporters of the licence fee claim that it helps maintain a higher quality of programming on the BBC compared to its commercial rivals,

Does the BBC produce higher quality programmes than its rivals?? I don’t think so! But the point is it’s a matter of opinion, and hardly a convincing argument for a national tax!

… and allows the production of programmes that would otherwise not be commercially viable.

If this is right then it’s a fairly good reason, but then the BBC should limit its licence fee revenue to producing these kinds of programmes, which would also allow the fee to be significantly reduced. What kind of programmes does this include? And why doesn’t it stop the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, or Sky?

Some claim that it also leads to better programmes (and a reduced quantity and frequency of advertisements) on the commercial channels, as they seek to draw viewers/listeners away from the BBC’s output.

Better programmes? Personally, I hardly ever watch the BBC. I’m not denying there are good programmes, but are people saying the BBC has a monopoly on quality programming? Surely not. Usually, when the BBC shows a good TV show and it becomes incredibly popular, another bigger company comes along and buys the rights to it instead (e.g.: like Sky did with 24). But since Sky is a commercial company that has to work to earn its money, I haven’t got a problem with this.

The argument from quality is bogus anyway: since the BBC will receive TV license fees whether the taxpayers like it or not (!), then there is no necessary demand for a higher standard of programming; it’s not as though taxpayers can just opt out of the “service” forcing the BBC to improve quality.

Some critics claim that the licensing system interferes with the freedom to receive information, and contend that this is a contravention of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to Freedom of Expression). It should however be noted that the Convention allows for qualifications and restrictions on the Freedom of Expression, and many European countries have licence systems that are very similar to the UK’s.

This is a circular reasoning. Notice that the rationalisation is: other European countries do it too, so that makes it all right! The criticism is not even addressed!

Some regard it an anomaly that a person can be forced to pay the licence fee while not using the services it pays for. However, the licence is for using a television receiver, regardless of which channels are watched.

This again, is rubbish. If the license fee is for using a television receiver, then the license fee should be distributed between all broadcasting companies, and not collected by the government and given to the BBC.

Pretending that the tax is not directly for the BBC is gross dishonesty. Taxpayers are forced to give money to the government which is given to the BBC and no other broadcaster. Therefore the tax is to sustain the BBC and not for owning an electronic device. Of course, by calling it a TV license, the government and BBC are covered from consumers being able to “opt out” of receiving BBC programming and thereby avoiding the fee.

Some critics point out that viewers in much of the Republic of Ireland, Northern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands also pick up terrestrial signals of the BBC, but do not pay a licence fee to watch BBC programmes. The counter-argument from the defenders of the system is that the same is true in reverse of viewers in most of Northern Ireland and parts of Wales, and also of viewers in the Channel Islands, who can watch Irish and French TV respectively without paying those countries’ TV licence fees, and nowadays national broadcasters from many countries are on satellite.

Yes, exactly! Is this supposed to be a counter-argument?? The fact that viewers outside the license “zone” can receive foreign signals and vice-versa is a matter of fact, and is hardly an argument in favour of a license fee! It’s basically like saying: ‘well you can get their signals and they can get yours, and it shouldn’t be that way, but it is, so we’ll call it even.’

In other words, people in other countries can watch the BBC for free but those who actually live in Britain have to pay for it! “But someone has to pay for it!” you might say. Well, that’s my point, who exactly should pay for it?

More recently the rise of multi-channel digital television has led to criticisms that the licence fee is unjustifiable on the basis both that minority interest programming can now be broadcast on specialist commercial channels and that the licence fee is currently funding a number of digital-only channels which many licence holders cannot access (for example BBC Three and BBC Four)[2]. This situation, however, is comparable to the introduction of the 625-line only BBC2 in 1964, which operators of existing 405-line television sets were unable to receive without upgrading to a 625-line or dual-standard set.

Again, this is not a counter-argument! It actually avoids the main argument against a license fee: paying for an unnecessary service to support one broadcaster over others. The defence offered above is: ‘well it’s happened in the past so it’s hard luck for those who don’t use it.’ What point exactly is the defence above supposed to be making? That those who can’t access these channels should do something about it, or they’ll be penalised??

…while a 2001 Ofcom report found that the vast majority of those it interviewed, including owners of digital television equipment, supported the principle of a licence fee funded public service broadcasting. The advantages of such funding listed by those interviewed included diversity…

What does that even mean?

…high quality

Rubbish.

Education

Then it should be funded like normal education policy by the government, or the fees limited to educational programming, even though this doesn’t stop other education and documentary channels.

Innovation

Because the BBC is the only broadcaster that is innovative of course.

Entertainment

Because the BBC is the only broadcaster that produces entertaining programmes of course.

Information

Wow. A Television Broadcaster that broadcasts information.

Original productions

Because the BBC is the only broadcaster that produces original programmes of course.

Pluralism

Who else but the BBC receives the revenue??

Accessibility

Then limit the license fee to this area, and only for subscribers.

Inclusion of minorities

Again, what does that even mean?

And free access.

But it’s not free is it?

Another reason cited is that the licence fee allows the BBC to retain independence from both commercial and political pressures.

Then why is the BBC allowed to compete with commercial companies for the rights to broadcast? For example, Sky have to pay from their own commercial pocket for the rights to broadcast a football match, whereas the BBC use taxpayers money to pay. Why should one broadcaster be governmentally endorsed against its rivals?

If the idea of the BBC is to keep it free from commercial pressure, then it should be an information and educational non-profit service only, and the license fee adjusted accordingly.

I see no evidence that the BBC is free from bias or more objective than any other broadcaster.

As for political pressures, forgive my naivety, but the BBC is a government-sponsored broadcaster; it is directly paid for by the state. This may very well subject it to political pressure from time to time when broadcasting opinions dissent against governmental ones. Either way, to actually use ‘freedom from political pressure’ as an argument in favour of the BBC seems preposterous to me.

(From here: “The government has rid itself of the BBC director general and chairman who defied Downing Street over Iraq. The BBC has never been such a handmaiden of government.”)

The government’s official response to a Downing Street Petition (the ‘justifications’ for which I have already examined) can he found here. (Notice the lack of explanation; the reply is simply: this is the way it is, therefore this is the way it is.)

There are three solutions:

1. The BBC should be a non-profit national information service only. If it chooses to supplement its programming by advertising or subscription fees, so much the better.

2. The BBC should be a subscription service, like Sky or NTL. This way, viewers can choose to pay for the BBC package, as they would make a free choice about owning any other entertainment package, and simply couldn’t pay for something unnecessary that they never use.

3. The BBC should be supported commercially, perhaps alongside subscription fees. (Like every other broadcaster that has to earn its money, pay its way, and maintain quality to prevent loss of business).

Unfortunately, the TV license is here. It is budgeted for, and there’s an entire institution built on it, which means that the government isn’t going to volunteer to scrap a tax if it thinks it can get away with it. Which of course, I’m not naive enough to object to: that’s how government and tax always works.

What I object to is taxpayers paying £135 a year to one broadcaster for an unnecessary service without the freedom to choose differently. I encourage readers in the UK to visit http://www.tvlicensing.biz/.

My Cliché Diatribe

Believe it or not, there are some things that aggravate me in the entertainment world. Two of these are clichés and a lack of irony. Now, I’m not going to tar all cliché-users with the same brush, but I’m not going to pull any punches either, and when it comes to rubbing me up the wrong way and getting on my wick, cliché-exponents are in a league of their own, and I admit I do have an axe to grind.

Commentators and journalists are the worst of a bad bunch. Just when you want someone to step up the plate and give it 110%, this group end up with their intellectual tail between their legs. Those who write for a living are supposedly at the cutting edge of journalism, yet just reading what the average critic has to say is about as fun as playing hide-and-seek in a corridor. One wishes that they’d think outside the box every once in a while.

When I talk about clichés in almost every media form, I’m talking about the whole nine yards; movies, newspapers, sports, radio, and everyday speech. To be fair, a lot of people just wear their heart on their sleeve, and say it like-it-is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not lazy! Even the average blogger feels the need to launch into a tirade and talk in expired clichés until the cows come home. Movies these days too, are like a diamond in the rough if they don’t actually have an ending you’ve worked out by the middle of the film. Some might say that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, but personally when it comes to Hollywood, I’d rather stick with what I don’t know! Sadly, a leopard can’t change its spots and perhaps we shouldn’t expect better from a lazy overpaid community of plagiarists.

At the end of the day though, the cliché is a convenient way to speak so perhaps we can agree to disagree. Let’s face it, when the shit hits the fan and we’re groping in the dark, it’s often more efficient to just let the words do the talking, than be at sixes and sevens scratching our heads, lost for words, and incomprehensible ranting like we’ve got a bee in our bonnets.

I still feel like a fish out of water though whenever I’m forced to endure the latest “pop music” offering, “blockbuster” movie, or sporting rhetoric from commentators. Some might say I’m barking up the wrong tree, but with these “experts” who seem incapable of saying anything original, I feel it’s a case of the blind leading the blind in a vicious circle (but perhaps it’s just jobs for the boys). One hates to put the cart before the horse but let’s call a spade and spade and admit that all is not what it seems in the media world. The critics will say I’m cutting my nose off to spite my face, but I’m just playing devil’s advocate. Ok I admit my anti-clicheism is but a drop in the ocean and my harangue a mere flash in the pan, but I must fight the good fight and say what needs to be said, because the alternative is a fate worse than death. Every cloud has a silver lining however, and for all the formulaic contrived garbage that the mass media dreams up, they do put bums on seats, so perhaps I should forgive and forget.

But I see the modern languid engine of journalism and entertainment on its last legs and living on borrowed time. The writing is on the wall and soon it will give up the ghost, and how then the mighty will have fallen! Even then I’m not saying it’ll all be hunky-dory but a cliché-free life would be an entirely different kettle of fish. That may be a knee-jerk reaction, but I’m not going to pass the buck. Instead I’ll nail my colours to the mast even if I am preaching to the choir or even if it does throw a spanner in the works. I think it’s important to be original and we as consumers should demand nothing less once in a blue moon! But asking a newspaper, commentator, or movie, to avoid its staple of rote clichés is like trying to get blood from a stone.

Even if you don’t agree with everything I’ve said about clichés and irony, I hope you can read between the lines, even if I did seem to run out of steam near the end, this article might have seemed more like sour grapes than a shot in the dark – please take what I’ve said with a pinch of salt and don’t dwell too much on it! After all, tomorrow is another day.

My Random List of Annoying Things!

Here are some random things that bug me.

The phrase “An hour or two”

…or “a week or two”, or “10 minutes, maybe 20”. I hate it when people say this because what they’re really saying is “it’ll be about this long, or twice that!” What the fuck?! If I ask when the train comes and someone says “an hour, give or take 10 mins” I can live with that. But if they say “an hour or two” they’re really saying “60 minutes, or 120 minutes”. So which is it??

You see it on TV when the doctor says “he’s got a week left, maybe two.” Let me get this right: this guy is dying and he might hang on for 7 days…or maybe 14?! Way to narrow down the timeframe! Wankers.

“…as far as we know!”

Ah the favourite retort of the True Believer. You often hear people (especially theists) say this in answer to you saying something like “as far as we know life evolved”. And they’ll smile and very wittingly reply “ah, as far as we know!” Well, yes, what’s your point?? If you jump off a cliff you’ll fall, as far as we know! The earth goes around the sun, as far as we know. George Bush is human, as far as we know. (Ok bad example.)

It’s called “know” for a reason! Or do you have another word you’d like to use instead? (Perhaps believe?? It’s easy to get those two mixed up if you’re a Believer).

I think you should be allowed to punch anyone who says this, and when they say “that hurt” you should reply “as far as you know it does”.

Fahrenheit

I’m sorry what year do we live in? Does anyone seriously use Fahrenheit for anything anymore?? It pisses me off whenever a temperature is announced (like the Weather) and the presenter as an aside tells us what the equivalent is in degrees F. Why not give us it in Kelvin too whilst you’re at it, or say it in Welsh, just to fill the programme with as much useless information as possible?

It’s like when people say “oh it’s so hot out there, it’s over 100 degrees!” I just look at them with disgust and say “hmmm, shouldn’t we all be dead then??” After a few seconds of vacant retardation it’ll dawn on them what I mean and they’ll chuckle and say “ooh no ha, I meant Fahrenheit!” No shit Captain Caveman, why don’t you dance around a Totem pole to take the sun away then.

Ringtones and people who let them ring

Wow, you’ve got the James Bond theme song as your ring tone. Brilliant. I probably could have guessed that after the first 10 seconds you let it ring. The pseudo-rummaging around in your one-pocket jacket to find it was almost as embarrassing as the fact you think people really care!

I swear people really do this. They let the phone ring as long as absolutely possible so everyone can hear the tone, or hear that they’re so popular they’ve got different ringtones for different friends. I just think it’s embarrassing. (Not as embarrassing as that time I played hop-scotch with Heather Mills-McCartney though.)

People who show you pictures of their kids

I don’t have any kids (that I know of), so maybe I’m just missing something. But what is it with people who feel the need to show off their children in person or photographs to you?? I’m in the middle of eating or something, and all of a sudden this baby pic gets thrust in my face. ‘Thanks for ruining my lunch, let me put it down and pretend to say something complimentary.’

Fortunately, I’ve discovered a counter-measure: next time someone shows you a picture of their kids, just make a noise like “mmmm” and gently stroke the photograph. I promise you they’ll never do it again.

Hollywood

Overpaid parasites; overrated “actors”; shitty storylines; one tired lazy cliché after another; one plagiarised script or comic-book remake after another. It’s all crap. We should all stop going the cinema and buying DVDs until the Film Industry pulls it fat self-fellating finger out and makes something worth watching for a change.

Radio

Jingles; more commercials than actual music; the same songs repeated 6 times a day; the same songs played at the same time every day; every DJ trying to be “your pal on the airwaves” or the next Howard Stern. Take your pick!

When every song that’s only halfway through isn’t being interrupted or cut off, an advert is on; “Welcome to Advert FM! We’ll be right back with the commercials after the first minute of this U2 song!” Cutting off songs pisses me off almost as much as repeating them every hour: why pretend you’re there to play music at all?!

The only thing I’ve found more offensive than listening to radio is that time I had to write an essay on the Counts of Old France without using the letter “o”.

Americans who think America is a Christian nation

These people pride themselves on being patriotic to the core. So patriotic in fact, that they haven’t heard of a little thing called the Treaty of Tripoli:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen…”

The United States was founded as a secular government. The founding fathers would probably cringe if they saw what Christian zealots had done and try to do to the liberal free-thinking republic that they founded.

“In god we trust” was added to American currency. Why didn’t the founding fathers think of this themselves?? Could it be because they saw properly that in a secular government the state is independent of a particular religion’s beliefs?? Why was “under god” added to the Pledge of Allegiance, effectively forcing Americans to pledge loyalty to a god they might not even believe in at the same time they were pledging allegiance to their country?? Why didn’t the Fathers come up with this originally themselves??

Could it be because Christian fundamentalists have corrupted what should be the greatest nation and government on earth? American Christians aren’t patriots. They’re fundamentalists. They don’t care what country they’re in, as long as they get their way. When the US added “In God we Trust” to their currency, they might as well have broken out the original manuscript of the Constitution and wiped their arses with it.

Calling America a ‘Christian nation’ is a cowardly perverse despicable lie.

Live Earth - Sat 7th Jul 07

Today sees the international event of Live Earth.

The purpose is to raise awareness of climate change and the damage that has been done to our planet.

I think this is an excellent idea. I first thought it smacked of the Greenpeace hippy save-the-whales stuff I don’t usually like, but the inconvenient truth is that there is a very real problem with the environment and anything that raises awareness of this and gets everyone thinking must be a positive thing!

We live in a critical point in human history for many reasons. But human history is inextricable linked to the planet that gave us life. How ironic that after shaping us for millions of years and giving us the technology to achieve all our dreams, we should do some much disrepair to Earth. Yet, we also have the technology to stop and change, and treat our world a lot better. I once said:

“We see our inheritors before us saying “create the world we will live in.”

A lot depends on the current generation. No one else is going to solve our problems. There is no knight in shining armour or universal overlord waiting in the wings. We’re on our own; humans will decide the fate of humans.

I encourage anyone who reads this to visit the Live Earth website and encourage others you know to do so.

 

My Sticky Web - Mon 7th May 07

I’ve been having some computer problems lately. It could be the large volumes of illegal material I download, or perhaps every computer has a built-in limit to how much non-nude teen-tease porn it can hold, I don’t know. Another likely explanation is that Windows in every incarnation is another shitfest of poorly-assembled over-written badly-coded junk, but that’s harsh and besides, Vista is so pretty if I saw it at a bar I’d ask it out, if it wasn’t for the fact that like any hot girl, it would probably ask me out first.

But is there any solution to any (computer) problem that can’t be found sooner or later in the ethereal world of the internet?? I don’t think so.

And this got me thinking how important the internet is. History is full of great discoveries that happened by design and a great many that happened by chance. The internet is one of the latter. But how does it stack up against some of the most important discoveries of all time? I don’t know. But it has gradually (yet on the human timescale incredibly quickly) revolutionised the way we work, live, shop, educate, communicate, love, hate, and entertain.

When you think about it: for a very modest fee, you can access the sum total of human knowledge, instantly, at any time of the day or night! You can meet and talk to anyone anywhere in the world! From the comfort of your home (or swordfish-esque chick-magnet luxury hi-tech penthouse suite on the French Riviera in my case) you can buy almost anything in minutes and have it delivered to you!

You can meet friends, make contacts, fall in love. The social circle for a “networked” person can in theory, be limitless!

All of the advantages of the internet can be summed up I think in one word: communication.

Communication makes the earth a small place. It brings people together. It connects us. And this is something that doesn’t happen enough.

Humans are a paradox. For all our isolationism and xenophobia, and tendency to border ourselves off by continents, countries, cities, districts, streets, and houses…and be suspicious of anyone different, all people are crying out for a connection with other human beings. Humans are nothing without communication; it is the single most important reason we have evolved to be the dominant life form on the planet. Our brain is more specialised for language and communication than any other task.

I believe the internet fulfils a human desire to be a part of something greater like nothing else before it could. It doesn’t matter if you have a hundred friends or ten. In fact, loneliness and sociability are irrelevant. The popular stereotype of the internet being for geeks, nerds, or people without real friends, is very quickly on the decline because more and more people are realising that this simply isn’t the case. Everyone is beginning to realise how useful and fun it can be!

A social networking website like MySpace is a perfect example. I was loathed to ever sign up on it. But after some arm-twisting by a friend of mine (he’s a Manc though so I’m not going to say too many nice things) I did it for a laugh and now I’m glad I did.

There are people who don’t like the internet for serious reasons. That is, they’re serious but their reasons aren’t to be taken that way. People who warn against the dangers of the internet on the grounds that it can allow terrorists to collaborate and spread information, or teach kids to make a taser gun, or anyone to buy weapons online, or paedophiles to spread illegal pornography, don’t know what they’re talking about. These are the same types who might denigrate science because “it gave us guns, nuclear weapons, exocet missiles, bio-terrorism etc.”

The internet is another application of science, and like science, it is a means of acquiring information. Now, acquiring information in and of itself is almost always a good thing; censorship is the first sign of a totalitarian regime. It is odd and pretty silly for anyone to blame science for the things certain people do with that information! “Joey Terrorist used a nuclear dirty bomb to kill a thousand people, so damn science for giving us nuclear technology.” Hang on a sec there pumpkin, science doesn’t tell you what to do with your knowledge. There’s a little thing called human responsibility that you can’t just ignore. Science might answer “if you want to kill someone from distance, here’s how”, just as it might answer “if you want to cure cancer, here’s how”…but these are just answers; the responsibility lies with the questioner! Don’t blame science for the answers it has, but with the people who ask the wrong questions. If a war is fought over religion using weapons of science, don’t blame science for the weapons! Blame religion for the war! Science is a means to an end – the end is the responsibility of humans; this is where the buck stops.

The internet is like science. It can be used or misused. Arguments against the internet are similar to the ones in the paragraph above, or they are based on censorship. But if someone is arguing against the dangers of the internet on the grounds of information they don’t want you to have, either they have something to hide or they don’t trust you to regulate your own life. (This doesn’t apply to parental controls of course).

But the internet is the only place on earth where free speech really exists. You can say what you want about anything for free. And you can read the opinions of anyone else, anywhere on earth.

The internet is about connecting people and allowing free access to information, and like I’ve said previously one of the biggest problems in this world is that people don’t talk enough, which means they don’t get to know each other. And if you don’t know someone, it’s easy to mistrust them and doubt their motives. This leads to suspicion. Suspicion leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. (That sounds vaguely familiar).

I don’t know if it’s possible to judge discoveries on the grand scale because you can’t always know all the far-reaching consequences for better or worse, but surely the internet, as accidental as it initially was, will go down in human history as one of the great intellectual revolutions of all time.

My Way or the Highway

You know what pisses me off? Post-watershed programmes being edited so they can be televised before the watershed!

I’m not talking about Basic Instinct either. I’m talking about Scrubs. I was watching Scrubs on E4 before about teatime and it had been edited so much there must have been at least 5 minutes of the episode missing.

Heaven forbid viewers are subjected to words like “knockers”!

Never mind the fact that any teenagers watching it already use more profanities in one hour than can be found in an entire sitcom series. Or that most of them have already got more active sex lives than the people in these programmes. No, we must think of the children!!

If a program is deemed unsuitable to be shown in full at teatime, then don’t fucking show it at tea time! What is the point? You take out large portions of the humour and the resulting edit leaves viewers bemused.

This is even worse than the way the BBC edits TV shows, not to remove “inappropriate content”, oh no, but to save time! They edit the “fade to black” so the scenes just roll into each other. This must save, oh, thirty seconds at most over an entire show! Perhaps the BBC is feeling so guilty about raping a TV license out of us every year in return for piss poor television, they’ve decided the least they can do is make sure all the programmes start on time. Well, you can keep your silly little license fee, and I’ll just wait the extra 30 seconds for my programme to start. (I’m only joking: there is nothing on the BBC I watch).

My Problem with Society - Fri 6th Apr 07

Imagine two people asked to say what they think their most impressive abilities are. Let’s imagine they are youngish people (under 30), as this will illustrate the point better.

“I can run faster than anyone I know!” says Person A.

“I can speak two languages” says Person B.

“I’m a good fighter”, says Person A.

“I can explain to you the Theory or Relativity”, says Person B.

“I’m good at jumping and throwing balls” says Person A.

“I’m good at maths”, says Person B.

Which of these people do you think would be more popular, or considered the most interesting? Which of these people is more likely to impress other people in general?

Well, if you’re a rebellious cynic like me, you’ll probably agree Person A. And this is one of the problems with people, and society. I think that human physical talents almost always tend to be admired more than mental ones. If you want to be popular and with the “in” crowd, you have a better chance (in England anyway) if you can play football or keep up drinking with “the lads” than if you are well-read, a good listener, or put more emphasis on your mental skills.

Contrary to the impression given by peer pressure, this is actually really really sad. Not only is it simply false that physical skills are better than mental skills, unless you’re going to be a successful athlete, in the real world mental skills are always more useful. Ok, given the choice, I’d love to be a world-class footballer and play for Liverpool FC. But I can’t. But at least I can spell. I know plenty of people who were popular in school and very sporty, but where are they now? Do they have good jobs, nice cars, families, good money, or are they working at MacDonalds, or smashing rocks together, or maybe they’re just selling drugs. All that pissing around in school doesn’t seem as much fun in retrospect does it?

It’s like those people who spend 20 hours a week in the gym but can’t tell the difference between “you’re” and “your”, “definitely” and “defiantly”, “to” and “too”, and how to work out a percentage.

The funniest thing about how much society drools over models, sports stars, people who can throw a long piece of metal really far, or shove their arse out for pictures whilst making embarrassing pouty faces is just how ironic this is. Of all the things humans have to be proud of, our physical abilities are nothing to shout about. Evolution has generalised mankind so that we can do a lot of tasks pretty well but we’re not particularly good at anything; not like animals are. Most animals are proportionately faster and stronger than us, have better eyesight and hearing, and have much better equilibrium with their environment.

It’s the human brain that sets us apart from animals. If you can dribble a football, have brilliant hand-eye co-ordination, can sing, can draw, can make people laugh, can talk and listen very well – these are all skills to be found inside the human head. And yet society draws a distinction between the physically expressive ones as “cooler” and more coveted.

The really rare skills that can last all your life and really benefit mankind are the mental ones. Most people consider Pele to be the greatest footballer who’s ever lived, but what has he done to further the species? Fuck all.

Can Naomi Campbell, David Beckham, Jenna Jameson, Michael Jordan, Bono, Michael Douglas, Tom Cruise, Ronaldinho amongst others, be compared to people like David Hume, Edward Jenner, William Harvey, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking amongst others?

Yet I don’t see many kids growing up wanting to be the person who cures AIDS, or cancer, or finalises a quantum theory of gravity, or be the first human to land on Mars, or invent a new form of clean cheap energy.

Society has brainwashed people into thinking that success is getting on Big Brother, being a celebrity, looking like a model, having the perfect figure, kicking a ball, acting, singing, shagging, or just being famous for famous’ sake.

There is nothing wrong with any of those things. There’s nothing wrong with bettering yourself in any way. You can be whatever you want, as meaningful or as capricious as that might be. I’m not saying what anyone should be. And I’m not saying that being a scientist is better than being a rock star.

My problem is that this Western Culture we live in (still better than the Eastern one though!) has a profound lack of respect for the really important long-term skills that actually mean something and will better the human race long after the top models have grown wrinkly and the sports stars can’t run anymore; when nobody is listening to U2 and the Killers, 50 Cent and Eminem (the sooner the better), Oasis and Coldplay, ABBA and the Spice Girls, or watching the last 20 years of Hollywood shitfests – yes when all these people and things are long dead in the cold cold ground, people will still be using electricity; still talking on their mobile phones; still be vaccinated from smallpox, polio and TB; still able to talk to anyone anywhere in the world; still be able to drink clean water at will; still have access to medicine and food at will; still have the right to vote; still curing diseases and coming up with new technologies; and hopefully making society and people more enlightened and mature.

Let’s just get things in perspective people. I wish this shitty arrogant condescending attitude to mentally-challenging skills and professions would end. The sort of veneration given to the superficial entertainment world of looks and physique is out of all proportion with what it actually does, the skill level involved, and what it really contributes to the world.

Yeah, being a top-class sportsman requires skill. Not many people have the looks and figures required to be a model. Not many people have the self-righteous egotistical demand for attention required to be an actor. But the talent required to be an expert in Maths or Physics pisses on anything the entertainment world has to offer. The skill, concentration, dedication, creativity, and talent necessary to be a world-class musician far outweighs the luck of being born pretty enough to have your picture taken for a living, or having the capacity to punch someone unconscious in the shortest possible time.

I’m not against the entertainment world as a whole, nor being as impressive a physical specimen as you can be ; I’m just calling for a modicum of perspective. Let’s have some respect for the rare and even more important talents out there.

My Message to the Messengers - Thu 5th Apr 07

Here we go again. Another supernatural thriller movie. Zzzzzzz. Just like the teen “comedy” that comes out every year, the perennial Gladiator / Roman / Troy / Spartan CGI-generated million people fighting each other, cheesy action-blockbuster, or “romcom”, the supernatural thriller movie is another in a long line of regurgitated clichéd shit that Hollywood excretes every year.

“THE MESSENGERS” – (cue man who puts on the same deep voice for eeeevvvveeeerrrry fucking film that comes out).

There’s a kid who can see things no one else can. Sound familiar? There’s lots of screaming. Lots of shocked looks. Bit of eerie lighting. Play some creepy music. Oooooh!!! Am I supposed to be scared yet? Yet people just horde around this garbage like flies around shit. Ghosts from the past are tormenting people of the present in the same house. That’s not been done before has it? The crows are actually some kind of supernatural avengers for the good guys (well duh!), and the bad guy gets dragged away by spirits and sort of melts into the shadows. Where have I seen that before?

What do I know though? Hollywood doesn’t make films to tell stories. It makes films to make money. The Messengers made over $14.5m in its first week. And I’m sure the next supernatural “thriller” that comes out will make at least as much. And same for the next one.

I think the secret to so many rubbish films (read: 99% of which are supernatural movies) being successful is because they appeal to all the true-believers and wishers out there. The headline says it all:

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES OF CHILDREN REPORTING SUPERNATURAL ACTIVITY!

Ooooh! I’m captivated! Because the media in general has a good reputation for not embellishing any story that sounds good or playing up to peoples’ ignorance if it means making a lot of money, doesn’t it?

My new movie is coming out soon:

-DÉJÀ VU ABOUT MESSENGERS OF 13 GHOSTS WITH SIGNS OF THE UNDEAD THING FROM THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL 2: What lies beneath the shining of the Amityville horror of beetlejuice that knows what you did last summer-

And the promo-script (just imagine that annoying deep voice guy saying it):

“Are you afraid of death? Do you believe in Tarot cards and psychics and crystal-healing? Do you really want to believe that spirits are talking to you, or perhaps you’re convinced that crop-circles are really caused by intelligent life centuries ahead of mankind that has nothing better to do than travel one-thousand light-years just to sneak down in the middle of the night and piss off the local farmer by landing their spaceship in the middle of the cornfield? Wonder why your kid keeps making strange noises and looking past you? It’s not because of ADD or Tourette’s, or the fact you smoked whilst having him or dropped him on his head twice – could it be “visitors” (ooooh!) from the nether world trying to communicate with him? Or perhaps you’re one of those “this life can’t be all there is!” types which of course means because you don’t like the fact that you will die one day, life seems sooo much more magical if you get to come back as a ghost and do what all the other ghostfolk do, namely: almost-kinda-sort of appearing to people who already believe in ghosts when they’re half-asleep or mentally incapacitated?

Well this film is for you! It’ll satisfy all those wishful yearnings of yours about ghosts and the spirit realm and not make you feel so bad about spending £1000 on a pair of healing crystals with ‘Takionics Inc’ written on them.

Feeling a bit down that your yin and yang don’t seem to be balanced? This film has your name on it! Wondering why ‘nana-from-beyond’ doesn’t seem to be able to provide the clairvoyant with any real information that the clairvoyant couldn’t have known herself? This film will assuage all your doubts! There are ghosts! Honestly! Oh you can�