Wednesday 29 October 2008

Branded as bad men?!


Oscar Wilde probably said something quite pithy about shagging a friends granddaughter, but if he did I didn't hear it.

Today Russell Brand took one for the team, and Jonathan Ross made an abject apology in an effort to save his salary, or at least to do a bit of damage limitation on his career. I listened to the podcast of the Radio 2 show (as a regular subscriber to it I might add, and not an enraged Daily Mail reader who wanted to achieve a suitably high blood pressure before complaining to the Beeb) and while it crossed many lines of taste, it was actually quite funny. It seemed to me to be two silly boys stuck in a room with an old cassette recorder being rude and silly. A moderate Derek and Clive for the 21st century. It really amounted to two egos sparking off each other. Of course it was going to get 'sexual' - it always does! Jonathan Ross DID transgress when he swore. Russell Brand DID transgress when he talked about Andrew Sachs granddaughter. Yes they took it too far, and yes, they caused great offense to Andrew Sachs himself, and for that they should hand their heads in shame.

But wait a minute. Let's take a measured look at what happened.
  1. It was a pre-recoreded show, therefore someone at an editorial level decided not only to edit it, but also to release it in the form that caused so much 'offence'.
  2. There were only 2 or 3 complaints on the night of the broadcast. That swelled to 27,000 by this time today. That means that the 26,998 who didn't complain on the night must have listened to the show via the podcast, or through BBC iPlayer, or, as is more likely, 'heard' it second or third hand through some other outraged friend.
  3. You know what you're going to get with Russell Brand. That's not an attempt to excuse the content of his last radio show - there's no justification for leaving what he left on Andrew Sach's mobile phone. What he said was wrong and while his apology was late, I fell it was genuine (genuine, because it wasn't an attempt to save his job, but was made after the announcement that he was resigning). Those who listened in 'live' or who downloaded the podcast were well aware of the sort of thing they were going to get.
Are Russell and Jonathan bad men? Stupid, yes. Juvenile, yes. Thoughtless, yes. Bad, no.

We're in the middle of a Credit Crunch where repossessions of people's homes are up 70% from the same period last year. We're in a situation where Environmentalists are talking about having reached 'tipping point' for our planet. Cancer and other life threatening diseases are on the increase. War and poverty continue to wreck the lives of the most vulnerable people on our planet. Ross says "fuck" and Brand says "I shagged your granddaughter". Not good. But surely not all that bad.

Is democracy wasted on the thick?


So the National Television Awards have been and gone, and we all thank God they've gone away for at least another 365 days. This annual live televisual event continues to illustrate why democracy never works.

The majority of award shows are voted by a panel of 'experts'. Now you might well question the qualifications of such 'experts' but nevertheless they normally have some experience or expertise that allows them to make a decision regarding winners and losers. Not so for the National Television Awards. They are voted on by the great unwashed, the hoi polpoi. And it shows. It is, of course tarted up - there's no such thing as 'Soaps' in the NTA. No siree, bob! They've become continuing serial dramas. Well, excuse me!!

It reduced TV to the common denominator - the vulgar base. It was a school-yard popularity contest, except this one was conducted via text message and website. Judging from the short-listed programs in each categories there didn't seem to be a consideration for what might have actually been the best produced piece of programming. Instead, I believe, people looked at a category and thought "do I know anyone in that program?" or possibly "do I like anyone in that program?". I also noticed that there was no documentary category, however there was a "factual" section, that was occupied by Gordon Ramsey, Top Gear, and The Apprentice (I thought that was a reality show?!?).

The whole thing was a toe curling experience, and it's not just me being snobbish. It was live and so it needed to be sharp, especially if humour was going to be employed. Sadly, it wasn't. And Sir Trevor MacDonald didn't help. I've no idea why he's chosen year in, year out. He a personable fellow, but he seems to lack a personality - and the best gag writers can't do anything to help him. It's a bit like putting an Elastoplast on a severed jugular.

And that's why democracy is such a good idea - in principle! But not in practice. God knows who/what people will pick if they have a choice. You don't believe me!? Let me just say 'Arnold Swartzenegger' or 'George W Bush'. 'Nuff said?

There's nothing wrong with people having a choice and making a decision so long as they take it seriously and make a considered one. Look at the current US Elections. With only 6 days left before the vote, Republican and Democratic candidates are treading very carefully and speaking with utter care. Why? Because they know that the slightest ill judged phrase, or word out of turn can change a voter's ballot box decision. In other words, when polling day arrives they know that the hoi poloi will wander into the booths and say to themselves, "who do I like more?", not "who will be the best leader for my country?".

Youth is wasted on the young, just as democracy is wasted on the masses.

Wednesday 15 October 2008

Strictly Come Off It!

'Strictly' is one of my guilty little secrets. If anyone asks me do I watch it, I reply "I've never seen it!". The truth, of course, is much darker. I never watch it.......intentionally. I'm in front of the telly when it's on, but I'm always too busy reading, or typing to be truly watching it. I suppose it's more a question of keeping an eye on it.

It's one of those love-hate things. Bruce Forsythe gets right on my tits and I'd love to slowly throttle him with Tess Daly joining in so the two of us could look at the camera, Forsythe's near limp body in our clenched fists, while we both say, "Keeeeeeeeep strangling!".

As with most of these reality TV programs they have a habit of sucking you into them. I think it's because you get to watch people in their highs and lows, and see them progress in their desire to win, or at least improve. And I do have my favourites - ah.....Ola!

But have these shows had their day? And are they becoming more about the Panel of Judges than the contestants?

Reality is hard enough without turning it into a game show. Apart from The Family on Channel 4 which is a real reality show, most of them are actually an escape from reality. There's a cosiness and security that draws you in and says, "In this tough, tough world, where the Credit Crunches hardest, and the Winters of Discontent last for 12 months at a time, why not come into our safe little world where even the harsh word of a Judge will always be balanced out by the boos of the crowd".

And it's a temptation that many of us, myself included, find hard to resist. So come on Ola! Come on John! Eat sh*t and die Brendan! You've made my Saturday that little bit less real. Thanks.

Tuesday 7 October 2008

Lucky I'm not Superstitious

Yet more gout, so I'm stuck in with my feet up - it's a hard life I know! Have just finished watching Deal or No Deal. For those who do not the idea of the game it is very simple. People are allocated random boxes with amounts of money in them ranging from 1p to £250,000 and then one of them is selected to play. They bring their box to the front with the unknown amount in it. In each round the player selects 3 boxes to eliminate and at the end of the round 'the Banker' phones up and offers the player a sum of money to buy their box. The player can choose to Deal (accept the Banker's offer) or No Deal (continue on with the game).

Essentially it's a guessing game. There's no real skill involved other than knowing when to cut your losses if things go pear shaped. There is an element of gambling in it, but basically you pick a box at random and see how it goes.

But because humans are involved it becomes more than a game. People arrive with 'a system', either picking odds then evens, or more usually numbers that have a personal significance e.g. birthdays, anniversaries, house numbers etc. At other times people hold hands before a box is opened, or else they other contestants lean to the left or spin around. Anything to try and influence the outcome of the box opening.

B F Skinner famously did an experiment with pigeons where an automated machine dispensed food randomly. The pigeons developed what seemed like particular rituals (which he called "adventitious reinforcement") which correspond to superstitious behaviour. Some pecked at the outlet while others waggled their heads, all seemingly to try and produce food when they performed. Of course, the distribution of food was completely random and what they did had no influence on it at all. Although Skinner's results have been disputed approx. one year ago Derren Brown did a similar experiment with people. A group of men and women were trapped in a room and told that when a digital counter on a wall reached 100 the doors would be unlocked. The counter increased in fits and starts, but pretty soon it was apparent that some people thought that the increase in numbers was due to them doing something - jumping up and down, or whatever.

It's amazing how often we think that particular things that we do have an influence in the physical world. Wearing a certain pair of socks, leaving the house in the same way, touching a piece of wood, rubbing a rabbit's foot can, some say, produce a favourable outcome. Of course this is utter nonsense.

Where does superstition come from? I'm not sure what the official line is on this one, but I'd imagine that it stems from an ego-centric worldview: a worldview that believes that the Universe owes us a living, or that we can control our environment.

In Deal or No Deal, when a superstitious behaviour "produces" a favourable then it is hailed as a good system. When it fails, it isn't really mentioned or dwelt on. The reality is that it's neither a good system, nor a bad one as the process is entirely random. The lady who won £75,000 today stated that she'd had some sort of dream in which she wrote herself a cheque for £75k. And she did. The dream was hailed as something special. If she hadn't won £75k but the £5 instead I'm sure it wouldn't have been mentioned.

I find this sort of behaviour with regards to prayer. People, very genuine people I might add, do believe that prayers changes the physical world. This is especially true when it comes to illness. People pray for the sick person, and if they recover it is hailed as the result of their prayers, but if it doesn't then it's ignored or an alternative positive spin put on it. Again, I think, this is a manifestation of a human/ego-centric worldview: that in this massive Universe of ours the Deity would want to intervene to help us find our car keys.

For me, prayer doesn't change the world around us, but rather it changes us. It helps us to cope with all the crap that life throws at us. It gives us hope, and strength, and a sense of purpose. But does it change a diagnosis, or alter an exam result, or secure a job? No. But it does give us the inner resources to deal with such things. Brown did a similar type of experiment with humans trying to win enough 'points' to get out of a room. Brown's results with people mirror those of Skinner's with pigeons.

Friday 3 October 2008

It's going swimmingly


Today I was with Ben and Amanda for a quick dip in the rather chilly baby-monkey pool at our local Baths (how old am I!!!). Swimming is not something that comes all that naturally to me. And that's strange, because physically you'd think I'd float without a problem, what with all the fat surrounding me. But oddly it seems that my legs float to the surface of the pool. My arse sinks, but my legs float. It is the oddest thing!

Humans have always been fascinated by water. Not me mate! I can swim okay and I have the Badges to prove it, but I don't like being out of my depth. And I don't like the idea of all sorts of beasties swimming unseen beneath my feet (this, of course, applies to swimming in the sea, but not always!). Maybe it's a control thing. Very possibly. Not being able to put your foot on the floor puts you in a very pivotal situation - either you swim, or you sink. Maybe not as grave a situation as that, but the general principle is sound. John Ortberg's book could be easily retitled "If You Want To Have A Nice Swim, You've Got To Take Your Foot Off The Bottom".

Feeling safe is one thing, but it can only preserve life. Pushing off can be scary, but it's the only way to experience real living.

Wednesday 1 October 2008

No-one's going to make a monkey out of me...........again!


I don't know why I do it?!? It happens time and time again, and every time I say the same thing to myself - "I can give it up! It wouldn't cost me a thought!". But here I am again. Feeling just as sullied and unclean as before.

I seem to be obsessed with a particular Evangelical Forum. When I read the posts my blood boils and my faith in intelligent Christians fades. For a while I stopped posting stuff, mainly because I was so disgusted at the attitudes and illogicality of those who were keen to air their opinions. And I did stop posting anything for about a month, until tonight! A sweet, but rather dim-witted woman was deriding Evolution with the usual "if evolution is true why are monkeys still monkeys?" Oh the high level of ignorance displayed.

Recently I've been reading up Evolution, and more especially reading stuff that tries to square the avalanche of evidence for Evolution with new thinking on God. When I say "reading" I really mean of course "I've just ordered it from Amazon". When I receive it, and actually read it, I'll post my thoughts.

In my modest research around the subject I'm amazed how many people (mainly Creationists I have to say, though not always) have a binary attitude to the Evolution debate - you have to either accept it or reject it. This seems to be a rather draconian outlook. In Process Theology there is no real problem with Evolution - indeed, it is heartily embraced. But PT does require you to adjust your view of God. No harm with that, says I!

To my mind, the case for Evolution is massive. There is no case for Creationism, as you cannot claim that finding fault with an opposite argument in any way validates your own - the fallacy of false dichotomy I think it's called.

Why not embrace the Science, bite the bullet, and reject the Bronze Age thinking. Surely it takes more faith to move forward with new knowledge and adapt beliefs accordingly, than clinging desperately to ancient irrelevancies no matter what the facts are?!