The BBC trust chairman, Lord Patten, said of you
upon your appointment,
'As
an ex-BBC man he understands how the Corporation’s culture and behaviour make
it, at its best, the greatest broadcaster in the world. And from his vantage
point outside the BBC, he understands the sometimes justified criticisms of the
corporation – that it can be inward looking and on occasions too institutional.'
As I am sure everybody would agree this is a
glowing recommendation, and exactly what an organisation like the BBC needs. According
to Lord Patten you are an individual who understands the ethos and aims of the
BBC, but who is at the same time critical of its apparent failings. Such a
recommendation however, is completely contradicted by recent events.
I am talking about the BBC’s arrogance in ignoring
the views of over fifty thousand people.On Saturday the twenty first of June there was a protest by The People’s
Assembly against our current coalition’s austerity measures.Tens of thousands of people were present in
marching against our government’s stance on austerity. For all intents and
purposes, the day was a great success!
This was a hugely enjoyable and joyous event. Not
the angry protests of the riotous students that were heavily reported on in
2010. No, according to one individual present it was, “lovely to see so many
families taking part, with the young and old marching together, and many people
of different faiths and ethnicity joining in, helping to create a carnival
atmosphere.” This was a healthy protest and a fantastic example of the public
gathering in their devotion towards a single cause.
Then why is it then that this received zero
coverage from the BBC, a neutral, non-biased public service. Well the cynic
would argue that it is because it was too much of a triumph, and unlike the
student protests there was no negative spin to be placed upon such an
affair.Such doctoring of the country’s
news would be far too Goebbels-esque to be taking place within a forward
thinking and progressive nation like the UK though, surely?
I wish I could say yes, I want to, I really do! But
in recent years it appears to me that our nation’s primary impartial news
service is anything but impartial. Take the aforementioned student protests for
example. The story was spun in such a way as to focus on the riotous
contingent, a group who were for the most part, not even students. It veered
away from an objective discussion of the issues these students had taken to
heart, instead opting into a childish exercise in finger pointing.
This appears to be a running trend within our
country’s broadcasting of the news. Take the recent European Elections for
example. The whole lead up was filled with childish attacks against UKIP and
their party members. I am not one to support their party, no, anything but. I
do however believe that such a focus distracted from the important issues that
should have been brought into discussion. The BBC should have been a platform
for “all” the parties to voice their opinions. Take the Green party for
example. Their views were completely ignored throughout the lead up, why?
Because they were real, productive views, counter to those of the centre
parties and not merely those of an easily belittled, and mocked caricature of a
party. The BBC in recent years has reported on two things, the politics of the
centre political parties, and those it can ridicule and villainise on the
outside in an attempt to distract from the real issues.
Take the Saville scandal and ongoing witch hunt.
These stories give the public an enemy and excuse the news from having to
report on other subjects deemed less worthy, or should I say; politically
convenient.
One individual at the recent protest stated how, “This
is not rent a mob. This is people across the social spectrum working in the
public sector, private individuals who care about the services that the state
provides, and standing up for all of us so that we might still have a decent
education, a welfare state when we need it, and support when we are sick or
elderly.” As they have said, this is about people across the social spectrum, the
sort of views that an organisation trying to move away from its “inward
looking” and “institutional” roots would be happy to share.
This is why I feel that you have failed to provide
on the promise made by Lord Patten. I understand your job covers a broad
spectrum of the BBC, but you are its face, and its beating heart. It is for
this reason that it is up to you to take action against such blatant
inadequacies within “our” organisation.
Because in all truth that is what the BBC is. It is
ours. It belongs to the people of the UK. It is not yours, and it most
certainly is not owned by the centre political parties of whom it appears to be
benefitting most.
The French philosopher Michel Foucault once stated
that, “I'm no prophet. My job is making windows where there were once walls.”
I feel it is
time the BBC did the same. It is time it became a window to the thoughts of the
people; for too long it has been a wall trapping us within the enclosed space
of centre political thought.
Dear Mr. Gove. As part of the 'Big Society', we feel it is our duty to discuss with you some of the finer points of your latest reforms to the English school system. Are you sitting comfortably? Good. This may come as quite a shock. As graduates in the field of English Literature, we can often be found to take umbrage with many of the current coalition government's policies, reforms, and downright troubling decisions. Student life, and the pursuit of education, has certainly not been made easier by the current regime. We were personally lucky enough to avoid having to pay the extortionate £9000 fees imposed in 2012, by only a couple of years. We have heard the government defending this decision time and again, yet the facts speak for themselves: more and more students will now be unable to ever pay off their student loans, and as this occurs, the country's financial situation will almost certainly be adversely affected. This was, of course, an outcome easily foreseeable by most people, yet the government clearly, and very surprisingly, were unable to do so, until it was too late. However, that is for another rant. The arguments over student loans have long left the doorstep of the Conservatives - the majority perceive blame as resting firmly on the shoulders of the Liberal Democrats, those who made up such a large proportion of the demographic who voted for them feeling, quite understandably, betrayed. Why is it that we mention this event, then? It had very little to do with you, after all. Well, it is the aforementioned lack of foresight involved which concerns us most at this present moment in time. The government seems perpetually inclined to think of the here and now more than the future, or, in some cases, not to think at all. It is this which bothers us most. It is a common occurrence that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats alike will condemn the Labour party for their lack of foresight, 'leaving' you to deal with the deficit, but it is a problem which seems to plague every party whenever they are in government, and governing with blinkers on, we would suggest, is not the best way to tackle politics. The radical new changes made by you to the education of schoolchildren in this country has been a controversial matter for a while now. Time and again the public has spoken out against your reforms, yet our concerns have been ignored. It does your party no credit - what do we plebeians know of what is best for our own children, after all? Yet the very core of the matter is that whenever the government makes a severe change to our lives it is us who has to live with the consequences. Politicians can afford to attend good private schools if state schools would not meet their children's needs, after all, but for the common man, this is not a perceivable option. Our schools are for all intents and purposes at your beck and call; is it not imperative, therefore, that you should consider the practical application and ultimate consequences of your reforms? Trust us as we proceed to inform you of the grave error you have committed in your latest radical alterations to our education system. It was recently reported how you have decided to 'ban' non-English classics from the GCSE syllabus, thus losing the chance to learn of the racial inequality as presented in books such as Harper Lee's 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird and the social themes of John Steinbeck's 1937 classic Of Mice and Men. Within a very short timeframe, an online petition had been set up to convince you to change your reforms, and the hashtag '#Mockingbird' was trending on Twitter. As much as many of us writing to you now detest the 'hashtag', its popularity is testament to the strength of the opposition to this unwelcome announcement. You soon bit back, however, by clarifying that nothing has been banned, and that you are merely 'asking exam boards to broaden - not narrow - the books young people study for GCSE.' Unfortunately, your logicality seems to have been turned down to a particularly low temperature that day, so as a kindness we have decided to clarify things for you. It is true that you stipulate students must study (and we quote from your article rebuffing these unsavoury 'rumours' as published in The Telegraph on 26 May) 'a whole Shakespeare play, poetry from 1789 including the [R]omantics [we have kindly added the appropriate capital 'R' for you there], a 19th-century novel and some fiction or drama written in the British Isles since 1914 [why British we can't fathom].' You go on to add: 'Beyond this, exam boards have the freedom to design specifications so that they are stretching and interesting, and include any number of other texts from which teachers can then choose.' Unfortunately, this only highlights, not refutes, the problem. While you may never have 'banned' these books per se, your reforms have put the English Literature syllabus into a situation where it would be nigh on impossible to include any additional material, foreign or otherwise. The set-up is so fixed and so challenging that there would be no space to add any additional material to the subject whether or not the presiding teacher had the will or the inclination to take on the additional challenge. One of us works for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and can confirm the continued popularity of Shakespeare - the Trust received over 800,000 visitors in 2013, and the Royal Shakespeare Company regularly sells out performances - but these patrons are usually adults and students. Children, conversely, and understandably, often have great difficulty understanding Shakespeare, not necessarily because Shakespeare's language is particularly challenging - David Crystal reminds us that 'Over 90% of the English used in Shakespeare's day has not lost its meaning' - but because it is perceived to be so. Children need to be eased into Shakespeare, introduced to it in fun ways (I would recommend in performance rather than on the page, and in simpler forms, such as the tried and tested Macbeth) and guided through his true challenges. It is for this reason only parts of the plays are usually used in classrooms: by the time a teacher has helped a class fully understand and appreciate a full Shakespeare play, it is time to move on to a 19th-century novel, a period where the form of the novel was relatively young in England and still very elitist, and thus another challenge presents itself. It will be a relief once schools can bring their pupils to the post-1914 works, and they can all uniformly rely on George Orwell's Animal Farm (1945). Where in all this, we ask, is there going to be any room for non-English literature? Anyone with a logical mind can see the problem here. The nation of origin for these texts should not be just cause for them to be so unceremoniously torn away from syllabuses. They are timeless classics that highlight historical extremes of inequality and the human condition and emphasise their continued application to modern society. Surely the core purpose of the study of English Literature as a subject is to learn about different histories, different cultures, different philosophies. Naturally, as a country it is right and just that we have our own native authors at the forefront of our studies - Shakespeare, as England's elected national poet, should have a prominent position in our education, just as Scotland should teach Robert Burns and Russia should rightly revere Alexander Pushkin - but we should have enough scope to realistically include at least one or two pieces of literature from the rest of the world in there. We are, after all, a part of the world, despite the efforts of certain quarters to cut us off as an entirely independent sceptred isle set in the silver sea which serves it in the office of a wall. Take away our syllabuses interactions with the rest of the globe and your reforms make you little different educationally to how UKIP want to be internationally.
As many of you may have heard, May 22nd is not only the date of the UK’s local elections, but the 2014 European elections as
well. For many, this is a hot topic, and something of huge significance.
However, the cynics amongst us may say, 'Why bother?'
After all, it’s not like Europe directly affects us anyway.
We’re 'Great' Britain, we don’t need them... Or do we?
'Who are you?'
Here’s a question for you. The strapping, fine specimen of a
human being shown above; who is he? Go on, think about it. Any ideas?
Well interestingly, MEP Nigel Farage was equally baffled as
he attacked Van Rompuy – ex Belgium prime minister and president of the
European Council- shouting, “Who are you? Who are you?” Farage followed this with
the statement that Van Rompuy has “the charisma of a damp rag and the
appearance of a low grade bank clerk”.
This outburst raises two important points.
1. . How exactly did Farage get his job?
2.There is a lack of stimulus within UK politics for
the public to get involved with the rest of Europe.
You see, whilst Britain is a part of Europe, we kind of hide
it. The news rarely approaches European politics, and when it does, it is from
the position of an outsider. This is interesting, especially when one thinks of
how Britain first joined the European community in 1973. Yes, the European
Union wasn’t formed until 1993, but this is merely an evolution of the Single
European Act of 1978 in which Europe became “an area without internal frontiers
in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured”.
So why is it Britain continue to sit in the closet when it
comes to our relationship with Europe. It has been forty one years now…
So why exactly is May 22nd important?
Well you see, this our opportunity to really become involved
with Europe. This date is when we as a country, we have to make a decision. Do
we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the importance of Europe, or do
we become a pro-active member of the community?
So here are some of the reasons to really think about it and
get involved:
·
The European parliament acts as co-legislator on
most EU laws; it’s our means of acting on laws in Strasbourg/Brussels.
UKIP have a made a habit of arguing how Strasbourg and
Brussels are controlling us, making laws about which we have no say. Well, with
people like Farage as our MEPs, individuals who do nothing but attack the rest of
Europe rather than get pro-actively involved it’s no surprise. EU laws are made
to benefit a European community, no wonder we feel they’re not benefitting us
when as a country we stand in a corner and insist we’re better.
·
European Parliament plays a role in the creation
of rules and regulations by which trade within Europe takes place.
Europe is the world’s largest single market. In getting
involved we’re able to negotiate a streamlined, singular regulation rather than
having to comply with a cornucopia of different regulations. England on its own
would take the role of an outsider, the red tape would only get thicker when we
as a country have no say on how it’s cut!
·
CONTROVERSY! Free right of movement for EU
citizens.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not to blame for everything wrong in the country. We’re in a recession, the minimum
wage is a joke and nobody in the UK wants to work in certain roles. This is not
the fault of free movement throughout Europe. It’s easier to pick an outside
enemy than face the facts. Take the treatment of the Jews throughout Germany in
the Second World War. People are disillusioned with politics and unhappy with
the state of the country. To give the population a common enemy is the easiest
way to make a name for yourself in this climate; it doesn’t help the underlying
issues however.
In fact, free movement within the EU has numerous benefits.
It allows our economy to keep functioning as migrants take the jobs nobody else
is willing to take.
It also allows fresh opportunities within Europe for many
British people. Take university ERASMUS for example. British students get the
opportunity to study or work abroad as part of their degree.
We don’t think of these benefits however, we’re too great to
benefit from the rest of Europe… oh no, they just sponge off us!
·
Eurovision!
Come on guys! We’ll never win
Eurovision unless we play along! Everybody knows it’s just about politics
anyway, perhaps if we get involved in Europe we may actually win one day!!!
Fucking foreigners... Their roads even killed Diana!
That’s not to say Europe is perfect. No; far from it. It
needs work, and it needs our country’s full commitment to make it work. I guess
that is what this article is about. I’m not trying to say Europe’s the best;
that we should all marry a Frenchmen (or women), and give our children names
like François and Pierre. No, we are British, and that is important.
This is about getting involved. As I have said before, up to
now we've been in the closet about our relationship with Europe. It’s time to
swing open the door and join the party, recommend a few choice tracks and get
everybody twirking along with us.
UKIP argue that we have no say as to what goes on in Europe.
Well, when you publicly abuse them and refer to their members as “non-countries”
it’s no surprise. So that’s why everybody should think about their votes in the
European elections. Surely it’s too soon to turn our backs on the rest of
Europe when up until now we've hardly got involved.
After all, if all we are willing to do is throw a big Farage
about the whole thing, can we ever expect any change for the better?
So that’s what this article is about. Getting involved…
A recent inquest has discovered that Nigel Farage may actually be a monster from some strange parallel universe, the 1993 film, Super Mario Bros.
So, not only is Mr Farage one of the worst politicians of all time, but he actually starred in one of the worst films of all time. Stay tuned for further updates on the story. In the meantime people are urged not to leave their houses at night or leave their children unsupervised, and to avoid any and all eye contact with Mr Farage as some believe he may possess the ability to steal your soul.
It is believed the monster in question comes from a strange parallel universe, and certain members of Farage's party aren't too happy with his leadership,
"Bloody monsters coming to our universe and stealing our politicians' jobs."
Some even fear that the open gateway through which Farage travelled could allow millions more to emigrate to the UK by 2016 if left unchecked.
Respond below with your opinions on the Farage parallel universe crisis and whether your happy allowing such beasts free access to British soil.
On the thought of beginning a new article for The Pessimist Chronicles, I have recently discovered why the idea for a new article hasn't really grabbed me for such a long time. Our fan base continues to grow, out hit counter still climes, but we haven't published anything new for over one year. Yes, dear readers, you read that correctly: our last article was a special seasonal offering by the unique wordsmith that is Shaun Beale, published, very aptly, on the morning of December 25th, 2012. After that, we ran into difficulties. We had dissertations to write, and a very short time left to do it in. After that came the celebrations - we had finally completed the biggest single piece of work any of us had ever done, after all, and the last thing any of us wanted to do was continue sitting at the computer writing up new material for publication. Then came the exams. So, as time wore on, The Pessimist Chronicles, that new, vibrant, side-splitting enterprise we had begun together so long ago, lay dormant. Like an old friend, the longer we left it, the harder it became to pick up the phone.
I had several ideas for a new article over the past year, but none of them came to fruition. Why, I eventually began to wonder, couldn't I write something meaningful? The jokes were there (dare I say, I often had down on paper some of the greatest jokes I had ever come up with); the time was at hand; I had managed to replace my busted laptop battery (Shaun and I have a very fond memory of my laptop's emergency warning siren blaring out in the quiet yet widely populated surroundings of the University of Winchester's multimedia centre). I had no excuse for not getting down to it. Soon, it struck me. The reason I couldn't write anything for The Pessimist Chronicles, that online magazine I begun with some of the best friends I had ever had, was very simple: it was because it belonged to a bygone age. I don't have those immediate connections anymore. Discussions late into the night with the gang can't just occur spontaneously. I can't sit up demolishing a pizza with them at three in the morning anymore. Essentially, if I were to write for the magazine again, would it be the same? Would I feel more remote this time around, without the knowledge that within half an hour of posting this I could be face to face with the one of the guys laughing about the horrendous war between nations my comments may have sparked off. In other words, would it not just make me realise how far apart we really are now?
Today, however, I felt the overwhelming need to break my silence. Ellen Page, star of X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), Juno (2007), Inception (2010) and others including the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past, andthe top candidate on that shortlist of remarkably attractive young celebrities whom I was set to propose to should all realistic romantic ambitions finally become totally and irretrievably unrealisable, was suddenly off the list, allowing Sarah Bolger, Jenna Coleman, Pixie Lott and Count von Count to each rise up a rank in my affections, and also allowing the now-vacant fifth space to be occupied by a new candidate (I am currently undecided whether to allocate it to Tamla Kari or Angela Merkel). Why was she suddenly out of the running. Because, as all my readers will no doubt by now be aware, on Friday 14th February 2014, Ellen Page outed herself as gay.
Why, therefore, have I felt obliged to write this article? Why does an actress announcing that she is a lesbian even matter? Countless reports have surfaced over the past 24 hours, each simply repeating the same quotes and comments as the last. Surely, then, The Pessimist Chronicles getting involved in the discussion won't add anything new. I would like to take the opportunity to say that, if you thought that, or if you think it now that I have suggested it, you are very, very wrong.
Because Ellen Page being gay is not news. Someone's sexuality, in this enlightened age, should not be particularly noteworthy. What makes her coming out so significant, however, is the manner in which she did it, publicly, suddenly, and in a way which didn't successfully hide the nervous tremor in her voice as she did it. Coming just weeks after David Silvester's absurd comments upon gay marriage and God's ensuing wrath, the move was filled with courage, especially coming in the context of a world where there are still extreme conservative puritans all-too prepared to shoot her down.
The following comments have shown widespread support for Page's act. Shannon Woodward tweeted her to say 'I have never been more proud of a human than I am of @EllenPage right now'; Kristen Bell followed a similar track saying 'Rivited [sic] by @EllenPage's fabulous speech [...] She shines. Happy Valentines day to ALL.' Even our old enemies the Daily Mail managed to hold back their right wing credentials, making not a single disparaging remark in their coverage of the story.
Yet what brings me tonight to write this article is not the positive feedback Page has received. It is not inspired by the inspirational nature of her revelation. It is, in fact, quite the opposite which brings me here tonight. It is those who now see this as an opportunity to come up with disparaging remarks.
Facebook today, I have seen, is littered with the standard comments regarding picturing Ellen in various exclusively lesbian sex practices and those mourning the shattering of their hopes of marrying her in the future. These posts are fine - I have used the latter approach near the start of this article - and they are, for the most part, results of genuine humour, not malicious finger pointing and name calling. Yet it shocked me to see that in 2014 there are still those who would see her as anything other than an ordinary human being.
Be they internet trolls or genuinely opinionated people, it was frankly very disturbing to witness hordes of commenters arguing that Ellen was 'abnormal', 'mentally ill', a social outcast, suffering from some sort of disease, lying to make herself seem 'cooler', and, in one particularly disturbing comment I pray she never reads, that 'if there was ever a baby that should have been aborted, forget hitla [yes, he said "hitla"], its elen [yes, he said "elen"] page'.
And these weren't the only disgusting messages I found. There were a huge number citing the Bible, informing everyone that 'God hates fags', one man who wrote 'good job Ellen, now you're going to hell' and one woman who declared 'The Bible is not open to interpretation, and anyone who argues it is is trying to hide their own depravity. God tells us that homosexuals will be excluded from Heaven, that they are the most unnatural people on earth, and that they will burn for eternity for their sins, that isn't homophobia, that is clearly documented FACT.'
I could argue about the fallacy which surrounds religion. I could take the so often travelled path which mocks theists and treats them as members of some kind of mentally subnormal cult. Or I could even highlight the very well-known facts that the Bible is not a reliable source - that its messages on homosexuality are ambiguous and utterly unclear; that it has changed greatly over time, with added, altered and obfuscated passages which mean it now bears almost no resemblance to what it did a millennia ago; and that, even if we acknowledge the possible existence of an all-powerful deity, the Bible was written not by God or Jesus but by human men, who would likely have stamped their own personal and societal prejudices upon the text.
But I will not be taking that approach.
Why?
Because blaming these idiots' prejudices upon their religion is just as bad as their using religion to excuse their views. We cannot ever hope for an all-loving, all-accepting world while excluding those who follow religion from it. I am currently conducting research into religion for my current research project, and doing so has firmly made me believe that religion can be a positive thing. Religion cannot be blamed for the perpetuation of these views, but in the wrong circumstances it can certainly be an influence.
I do not write this from an anti-religion viewpoint. I do not write it from a self-righteous viewpoint. I do not even write this from the viewpoint of someone who is completely free of prejudice. Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have our little prejudices. But this matter is more significant than those prejudices. What Ellen Page did yesterday was brave, and it was noble. I asked at the start of this article why her coming out made such big news, and I think the reason is clear. It was because it was so brave - the girl was so obviously nervous during the duration of her speech, and there are still so many judgmental people in the world, that she would be perfectly forgiven for thinking that the move could have completely backfired on her. Yet I firmly believe that her actions will benefit many likeminded young people, struggling to come to terms with their own sexual identity. Why? Ellen's revelation was so different from those of other gay celebrities. She does not conform to the stereotypes associated with alternative sexualities. She isn't a 'butch' lesbian, a 'man hating' lesbian, an 'attention seeking' homosexual. Her speech shows these labels are non-uniform and largely false. There was no display of exhibitionism here, and she came across as a completely ordinary young woman. Hopefully this will show other young people that they do not have to fit into certain moulds in society and can be who they really are. If you aren't harming anyone, who can judge you for being yourself?
Other ignorant comments abound on Facebook, Twitter, new pages and other forums. Some view Ellen Page as simply trying to draw attention to herself, while others view homosexuality as a modern 'fad', completely ignoring the well-known homosexuality of Christopher Marlowe and the oft-conjectured bisexuality of William Shakespeare, both born 450 years ago in 1564, and you just have to examine the art and literature of the classical world to see homosexuality is certainly anything but 'modern' or a 'fad'. At the same time, we see those who think what she did was not brave. I am telling everyone now that it was. In front of so many people, knowing the world would see it, understanding that there was no going back once the confession was on camera, and in a world where such ignorant people could make such ignorant comments as have already been showcased here, there was nothing simple about her act. She showed true courage, and that is more important than any objections a few judgmental conservatives ad selective Bible interpreters can pose.
I am an atheist. I suppose that is me 'coming out' in a way. Religion is one personal discussion I attempt to avoid. Publicly, I often announce myself as an agnostic. My objection to the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity is not so much an unwillingness to believe, but an inability to believe. I cannot comprehend such a thing. I cannot see such a being existing in a world with so much pain and heartbreak. The plight of the homosexual community is one of the things I find most distasteful about the idea. I could not follow a God who would supposedly condemn anyone for loving someone. But I do not have anything against those who do believe in God, Jehovah, or whoever. The fact is, faith is a personal thing. But those who use their religion as an excuse to promote malicious abuse to others is frankly sickening. They don't just present themselves as ignorant, but give the wider religious community a bad name. The same goes for those who don't hide behind the concept of religion, and who simply promote their views as a fact all should understand. The world is not made up of right and wrong, natural and unnatural, real and fake. The world is made up primarily of love and understanding, and intolerance and hatred. People are scared to be themselves because of the latter, and I find it incomprehensible how the latter can have such a lasting impact upon the pursuit of the former.
Don't use the Bible to justify your prejudices. Don't pretend your prejudices are sensible or just. Don't act as though your prejudices are society's prejudices. They are not. They are your prejudices, perpetuated by you and others like you.
I asked why Ellen Page's coming out matters. I hope I have made my case. It could be argued that Ellen Page's coming out is a significant moment for so many areas of society. I see no reason to disagree.
Ellen: we salute you.
William Green.
Those who wish to relive the moment discussed in this article may do so below.
'I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.'
- Albert Einstein.
It's a grim thought, but a fitting way, I feel, for The Pessimist's Guide to Modern Living to hang up its cape after several months of fighting back against those little irritations and niggles which are, undeniable, the most pressing matter concerning a modern-day human being. So, with no further ado, I shall bring this most terrible of elephants in the room (or, rather, the blog) into the forefront. Let us never forget the fact that:
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE
Now that that is well and truly out of the way, the time has come to tackle the real reasons behind the fact that
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE
and decide how exactly we could avoid this fate. You know, the one which means that
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE
So, let us proceed.
It's a dark story which begins over sixty-five years ago when a German-Jewish scientist, one Albert Einstein, discovered that E does indeed equal M timed by C doubled. I mean, God only knows how he worked that out, but I assure you, thats exactly what my reliable sources have told me it equals, and they're all as believable as Orson Welles' blackface portrayal of Othello. Anyhoo, this formula managed to create a giant mushroom of smoke, dust and flame, which swept through the Japanese locales of Hiroshima and, later, Nagasaki, destroying everything in its wake. Thus was born what is perhaps the most significant invention of the modern age - the nuclear bomb. It says a lot about the excitement this invention generated - here was something to finally put an end to the carnage of the present conflict, but the excitement was not to last. Already, a certain darkness, over-confidence and - dare I say it? - frivolity came into being. Yes: frivolity. Naming the most deadly weapons in the history of time 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' is, at least to my mind, particularly sinister, as if denying the seriousness of what these relatively small objects were capable of doing. Regardless, World War II, having already raged for six years, was drawn to a close with the final surrender of the Japanese, and peace reigned across the globe.
Or did it?
My inate pacifism could produce an entire series of essays musing upon the nature of warfare and destruction. In fact, almost all fiction I write has something to do with conflict or devastation. For as long as I can remember, my creative writing has been undeniably against organised carnage, totalitarianism and civilian murder and for democratic socialism, peace and human-wide unity. I could go on for a million words discussing the righteousness of these nuclear attacks, but I am well aware my questions would generate some rather fierce debate: how can I suggest the mass murder of civilians with a weapon against which it is impossible to fight back could be unjustified, when if the War had continued more soldiers would eventually have succumbed to the might of the Japanese army? I sometimes wonder myself, but I cannot shake the feeling that we're constantly missing the key argument in this decade-old debate. J. Robert Oppenheimer recognised it when he infamously declared 'now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' The dropping of these bombs may have been a speedy resolution to the carnage of the trenches, but it cannot be denied that the device which ended the destruction of 1939 to 1945 will forever be a shadow hanging over God's green Earth, having bought us extra time before destroying us all. Even the frequently recited moniker of 'World War III' is unlikely, because how will there possibly be a war when there won't even be a chance to have a fight? It's a pretty disturbing thought, isn't it?
After the War, terror and alarm spread like wildfire. Tensions between US/USSR relations began to tighten, eventually reaching a point where we all almost died (or, in the case of most of our readers, were prevented from being born) - the Cold War, which 'raged' from 1947 to 1991, brought the world to the brink of destruction. We had seen what nuclear weaponry could do, so, naturally, utter disbelief was all that could be expressed at the fact that these terrible things actually began to be widely manufactured. What commenced was a long drawn-out period of political and military anxiety with the USA and its NATO allies sitting down frowning fiercely at the Soviet Union and the communist world, each leader with his finger poised unwaveringly over the big red button which would launch a swarm of devastation which would undoubtedly engulf the world and bring us all back to a world something like the one out of Terminator. Neither side had the guts the press the button, but neither side, likewise, had the common sense to kiss and make up.
It was a period of great cultural significance, of course. The political climate influenced Orwell's classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), telling of a totalitarian world following a cataclysmic Third World War very different to Huxley's earlier Brave New World (1932), and from then on the theme has been rammed down our throats incessantly. You can see just how bad the situation was when you realise that of Ian Fleming's twelve James Bond novels, Casino Royale (1953), Moonraker (1955), From Russia with Love (1957), Goldfinger (1959), Thunderball (1961)and The Man with the Golden Gun (1965)each deal with nuclear or Cold War-related themes, as do the films Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965), You Only Live Twice (1967), The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), The Living Daylights (1987) and Goldeneye (1995). Likewise, thinly-veiled anti-nuclear propaganda has taken the form through the ages of Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), James Cameron's Terminator series (1984 - 2009), Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968) - adapted by Ridley Scott into Blade Runner (1982) -Stanley Kubrick's comedy satire film Dr. Strangelove: or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)and many more.
The War ran constantly, alternating moments of relative calm with significant near-apocalyptic moments, such as the Korean War (1950-1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959-1975) and the Yom Kippur War (1973); yet, of course, the bomb was never dropped again, and we're all still here; but the conflict remains, hidden from public view but undeniably still there. Political leaders simply haven't learned. Man will not destroy the Earth, despite what we are told about 'mankind being base and evil' and 'humanity being responsible for its own destruction'. It has to be remembered, whenever these arguments are made, how few people actually had a hand in making these bombs and how many throughout the decades (and even at the time they were first produced) have opposed them. We can all rest assured that, should be be alive when the bomb goes off, that we as a species had nothing to do with it. Who created our mutually-assured destruction? The political leaders, of course. As is always the case with them, conflict breaks out through their disagreements, but as always it is the common people who suffer. Nuclear bunkers were built across the country in response to the nuclear threat, but they were of course primarily for the safety of politicians and royalty. The rest of us would have to make do with hiding inside our houses and hoping everything goes okay. That's just the way of the world, it seems. Even the people who worked at the bunkers were disposable, placed there to measure radioactivity in the atmosphere but only given enough provisions to last for a months or so, after which time they would have been forced to step out into the world. 1980s pop group Frankie Goes to Hollywood probably said it best when they released their infamous anti-nuclear hit single 'Two Tribes', from their debut album Welcome to the Pleasure Dome (1984 - my, isn't that a date which just keeps following us around?).
If our leaders could just get into a ring and fight it out, wouldn't it all be a lot better for the rest of us? I'm not an anarchist or someone who truly believes we could necessarily do without our leaders, but I firmly believe all authority figures the world over need to look at their reflections in the mirror and ask themselves just why they keep hovering their fingers over the dreaded buttons because, really, what's the point of it all?
Every year, new wars break out; political reports keep getting worse and worse; and terrorism is increasingly coming to the forefront of society's consciousness. If you listen to the news enough, the all-powerful scaremongers that are the media would have you believe destruction is imminent, but in reality we simply can't tell either way.
I don't actually think it will happen for a long while yet, though. In fact, I feel particularly inclined to side with George Orwell, in fact, who, in 1945 published an essay entitled 'You and the Atomic Bomb', which aptly concludes with the most accurate description of what the bomb really means.
'Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured
as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into
barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national
sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the
case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it
is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging
indefinitely a "peace that is no peace".'
It is not therefore, a case of
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE
But, I feel, rather that
MAYBE IT WILL HAPPEN, MAYBE IT WON'T. WE JUST CAN'T TELL, BUT THERE'S NO SENSE WANDERING AROUND PANICKING ABOUT IT FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES. WE'VE SURVIVED SO FAR, SO WHY NOT FOR A BIT LONGER. MAYBE THERE WILL BE A GLOBAL ARMISTICE. WHO CAN TELL? NOT I. OH WELL, SUCH IS LIFE. LET'S GET THROUGH 2012 FIRST, SHALL WE?
And if it did happen, it wouldn't necessarily mean the end of the world; the world would most certainly still be there, but after thermonuclear energy had done its work, would it really be a world worth keeping?
Sorry to sound (or, rather, read) like a broken record, but if there is one thing which really irritates me today, it is the terrible subject of cooking (and, of course, by association, eating). That is not to say that I am intending to boycott food – that would simply be absurd. Instead, I intend to pose an argument as to why eating has, today, become an unnecessary exhibition/drama.
This is why.
Fast food: this is merely one of the irritating aspects of modern dining, and is probably, in the minds of some, the lowest form of eating. Yet we travel in our droves to our closest McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, etc, etc. I even went myself today with my dear friend Adam back home in Solihull.
But why, I hear you ask, did I go, if I despise fast food joints so greatly?
Well, dear readers, this is exactly what annoys me about them. They are unhealthy, their food is pretty much of the lowest quality known to man (except, perhaps, for Burger King – there’s a reason why they charge so much, after all) and the people who work there are the most miserable group of people to ever crawl out of the primordial soup that spawned mankind. So they beam warmly every time somebody walks under the giant ‘M’ and orders one of their early morning breakfast meals... in the advertisement. Why, then, can’t they just crack a smile once in a while? I know it’s probably a pretty grim existence, dealing with hundreds upon hundreds and people every day, existing from opening time until closing time in a hot back room filled with the mouth-wateringly good smell of cooking meat, chips, and onion rings, while having simultaneously to collect an immense amount of money during the course of their day with the full knowledge that they will only ever see the most mediocre amount of it in their own wallets, and also having to put together some of the best=tasting meals they have ever seen and always have to give them away to moody-looking customers who clearly have too much money and too little sense, but if they were to force a smile or two they would probably feel a whole lot better: after all, it has been scientifically proven that laughter is indeed the best medicine.
Apart from the rudeness of the employees, however, the most annoying thing about the fast food is that it tastes so damn good! Why would I be complaining about this?’ I hear you ask. Well, simply that the reason Britain is beginning to rival America as a country of heavyweights is because the worst food is made so addictive – stick a few thumb tacks in there, perhaps, and we certainly wouldn’t come back and, thus, lose so many calories we’d probably begin to prosper as a nation once again!
Of course, not all fast food is bad – Subway, for example, is bloody banging, and not too bad for you either. But, speaking in general terms, this modern way of acquiring our meals could be a whole lot better. Agreed?
But there is another problem with the over-commercialisation of food: No, it isn’t the risk of human rights violations – it is that, if major corporations frequently trick and diddle us, then fast food companies must surely do the same.
And now for the real moan.
About a year ago I acquired what is commonly known, I believe, as a ‘subcard’ – each time you buy a meal from Subway, you earn points, and if you earn enough you get a free sub. Pretty straightforward, yes?As time progressed and my points slowly but surely built up, I came very close to earning this free meal. However, disaster befell me, and due to a system error, my card was cancelled when I only had to buy one more sandwich to get a free one.
Well, accidents happen. I got a new card and started the climb once again.
Exactly the same thing occurred.
Suspicious much?
On to McDonald’s: while walking through Winchester, I was handed a voucher for a reduced-price meal. ‘Fantastic’, I thought, ‘I’ll use that!’
When I got home, however, I noticed the use-by date on the voucher: 31/12/11. This was, incidentally, mid-February.
Being a pleasant sort of chap, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt: accidents do happen, of course – perhaps they had just picked up the wrong bunch of vouchers before they came out.
However, yesterday, me and dear Adam went t McDonald’s and were given some more vouchers with our meals.
Awesome.
Until we checked the use-by dates again, of course. I invite you to look at the picture below, and then to check the date this article was posted – do they seem a bit far apart to you?
Deciding that poor people are being diddled by this global corporation, I decided I would not longer stand for it and, in true British style, wrote a strongly-worded letter to head office: the response, if I ever receive one, will be posted on here for all to see as soon as possible. It will be a bit of fun for us all, if nothing else.
Now to move on to the world of culinary hierarchy: I don’t know about you, but when I eat, I want to eat rather than make a huge ceremony out of it. This is seemingly not the case, however, for ‘proper foodies’. These people will go into a restaurant, fork out a huge sum of money for their most expensive, medium-rare gammon et œuf à la coque avec des puces (get over to Google Translator, everyone) and be presented with the smallest meal you have ever seen, framed on a spotless square plate.
Why????
This kind of strange elitist eating ceremony has even extended to the humble world of cake – on taking a trip into Starbucks the other day with a couple of dear friends of mine, one of them bought two miniscule square cakes. When first I noticed, of course, that there were no prices displayed for them, alarm bells began to ring: ‘if you need to ask how much this is, you can’t afford it’.
So he bought them. It cost him about £3 – I’m not sure if it was each or collectively, as I was too appalled to say much.
Was it worth it?
Well, take a look and decide for yourselves:
Sorry about the brightness from the windows, Josh... but the cakes are visible and that's what's most important for the article, after all.
As for my friend Josh, after consuming them, he gave me this exclusive interview.
‘They were quite nice actually. Softer than I expected – like a really nice soft brownie covered in chocolate. And the strawberry one’s kind of like a cakey cheesecake.’
So, in other words, no, they were pathetically-overpriced excuses for nouvelle cuisine.
In the end, of course, it doesn’t really matter where we eat – it will all kill us some day by giving us cancer. Did you know, for example, that eating more than three slices of ham per day gives you bowel cancer? Were you aware that sausages and burgers do the same? As does soup, apparently. And wine. And chips. And Pringles, Hula Hoops, Prince Charles’ Organic Crisps, red meat, chocolate, all bagged snacks, as well as a whole host of other non-food-related items I can’t mention here because they don’t fit in with the topic (check this if you want to see the rest: http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/02/19/20-strange-things-the-daily-mail-say-will-cause-cancer/).
But, it’s not all doom and gloom: in good news, it looks like carrots and potatoes stop you getting cancer!
Despite what I was taught at school about potatoes, of course.
So, my message is, you might as well just eat like a normal human being and not some sort of pseudo-aristocratic Eton-educated French-wannabe modern day Bertie Wooster.
Tuck in.
Anyway, that's me done for tonight. I'm off to prepare for the Facebook challenge. Yikes!
William D. Green
Just in case all that talk of cancer scared you, by the way, I will leave you with this delightful song from everyone’s favourite comedian, Russell Howard (taken from BBC Three’s Russell Howard’s Good News, of course).
