Hi, we’re totally relaxed in our office.  There’s nothing smug or awkward about this photo shoot.  That guy in the middle wearing a pink shirt doesn’t even have a tie on.  These guys must be from the north east – it’s impossible to run a company from the north east without having an image of the Angel of the North somewhere nearby.

We’re not a big scary company – in fact we’re so small and intimate the only place big enough for us all to stand is this non-descript stairwell.  Look, we’re all smiling.  We’re happy that you’re happy.

No, this is not a Depeche Mode album cover.  In fact, there’s nothing whatever to do with electronic music in our company.  We deal in financial PR.  You can tell we do this because we are stood at odd angles to each other, we’re not smiling and we are all wearing very bland suits, but not uniforms.  I don’t remember who our photographer was, but the man was clearly a genius.


The reason our company is successful is because it is run by interesting people such as ourselves.  The man on the left is interesting because he’s thoughtfully holding his chin.  The man in the centre is interesting because he’s looking quite down to earth.  The man on the right is interesting because he is looking at the camera like Boris Karloff and is insistent about profits.  And in the background, there is a very interesting plant.

Some people think that those in upper management aren’t like normal people.  Not always true!  The man on the left has bought a suit that’s too big for him – clearly HE doesn’t have a tailor.  The man at the front, staring hard into the camera is clearly the CEO and he will improve your business.  By exposing his groin like this he shows his prowess – this man equals large profits.

These are the heroes of our age.  Striding purposefully towards a brighter tomorrow, these are the men who will give your children happiness.  But please, don’t think that this was an arranged photo op.  Every morning these men take a breather from the office and take a turn around the park to discuss deep and important issues regarding money.  This is where the decisions are made.  We decided to publish this photograph for the public as a small child had just fallen off his bike and we managed to capture them all laughing.

Hmmm.

Whilst having a pointless drunken argument with friends about Gary Glitter recently, it became very obvious how afraid people are of listeners assuming the worst when words are said in defence of a particular person or idea.  Let me explain.  The point that this person was making was that there has been a disproportionate amount of media coverage given to Gary Glitter's sexual perversions over in the Far East because he is still considered a celebrity by the British tabloid media.  He explained that there were in fact many men from western countries who travel to the far east in order to satisfy whatever illegal activity (paedophilia) it is they want to commit.
A fairly simple point you may say.  Even while drunk it couldn't have taken him too long to get the message across.  However, much of his speaking time allowance (not much in this kind of situation) was taken up with him repeatedly asserting that he wasn't a paedophile and that such acts are disgusting and horrific.  It made me laugh that he had to qualify his argument in this way, while drinking with friends - we had of course never expected him to be a paedophile and the fact that he had to state as such made it seem absurd.
So it is with the subject of this blog entry.  I would much rather have just launched into a discussion (well monologue) about democracy, oppression and data protection, but instead find that I have to clearly state and justify my position in case I end up offending the sensitive and riling the bone-headed.  I am not racist.  There we go, thank you.

Now, if I may proceed.  Much as I dislike the BNP (there I go again) I can't help the feeling of slight disgust bordering on anger at the release, propogation and abuse of information relating to members of the British National Party.  Let's not forget that we live in a democracy where some things should be treated as sacred.  One of these is the secret ballot.  Don't tell me they weren't voting because it amounts to the same thing.  Another one is the right to free expression without fear of intimidation or violence.  This may seem contradictory to the more foolish, but the krux here is choice.  In this day and age, releasing (accidently or otherwise) information regarding people who hold views deemed 'wrong' and unpopular (though as it turns out not as unpopular as you thought) is a contravention of these rights and those responsible should be dealt with in whatever way the law decides.

Do I have to remind you again that I am no racist?

Browsing the websites, it is disturbing the gleeful way so called liberals are relishing the release of this information, in the hope that it may affect some sort of popular response, in the same way that Paediatricians' clinics might have been attacked by thickos half a dozen years ago.  Or Jewish property was attacked 80 years ago.
OK, sorry, I slipped in a reference to the Holocaust as these subjects inevitably will do.  But Kristalnacht was not all committed by the SA - it was nationwide and seemingly 'popular'.  The Jews were an oppressed minority back then too.

The more I write about this the angrier I've become actually.  Can the so-called 'enlightened' amongst you who so hate and vilify the BNP calm the f*** down?  So you hate the BNP.  So do I.  Preach then you fuckers.  Change the way people think.  It's so easy to accuse others of being intolerant when you've got the majority backing.  If you find it funny that people's civil liberties can be discarded so playfully then you're an idiot.  Just because they don't think like you do.  Besides, do you honeslty believe the everyone in the BNP are racists?  Does that mean that everyone in the Labour Party are Communists?  You may want to look at the statistics, but the majority of BNP members are a lot older than you are and were brought up a lot differently.  Bear that in mind the next time you are spouting your 'tolerant' bullshit.  They're not like you.  They probably believe in God.  They listen to obscure Jazz.  They support non-Premiership teams.  Eventually they'll die out.

I am no racist.

Just because they hold hold views that are profoundly different from your own doesn't give you a license to piss about with their liberties.  It wouldn't be funny if it was the release of thousands of people's names who had attended Mosque would it?  Or a demonstration?  No.

I remember at school we were visited by a lobby group called 'Smash the Nazis'.  No joking.  Not a shred of irony in the name.  Yes, let's smash them up, smash them cos we're in a democracy you c*nts and you don't belong.

Lot's of things are bothering me and amusing me at the moment.  To such an extent in fact that I can't be bothered to write anything about it.  I'll tell you what, I'll post some things that are more worth your while to read and so that you will know, had I been a good writer, this is the kind of stuff I'd churn out day in day out.  The unfortunate thing is, not only am I not as good a writer as all these other bods, I am also afflicted by that most cruel of humankind's afflictions - laziness.

Bollocks, have a look at these, if you've read this far you don't have anything else to do.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/11/painting-pictures-of-poverty.html
A criticism of Oxfam (gasp) and its apprach to solving problems.  Like painting.

www.pal-v.com
This is the place I'd like to work.  It's shit like this that makes me look forward to growing old.

Also found this while pointlessly clicking on words:

"Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, "Governmentium" (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called "morons", which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called "peons". Since "Governmentium" has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every action with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of "Governmentium" can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete. "Governmentium" has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, "Governmentium's" mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming "isodopes". This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that "Governmentium" is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, "Governmentium" becomes "Administratium", an element that radiates just as much energy as "Governmentium" since it has half as many "peons" but twice as many "morons".

While I'm here, might as well say something about the death of Michael Crichton.  Never read any of his books, but I liked his style.  Good speaker, and also somebody quite sensible.  He will be missed (except by climate scientists).

Obaminators are beginning to annoy me.

I am glad Obama was voted into the Whitehouse.  I hope that a change in style will have a positive effect on the soft power that the USA wields.  I agree that the ideals that the US represent are a good thing and that they should be promoted in a positive way.  I think the US is ready for a bit of change, and I'd like to see great things come from a country whose achievements have lately been overshadowed by it's errors.  Obama I believe is the man to do this, and I believe that enough people in positions of power think this too.

It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's black.  I couldn't give a shit whether he's black or not and whenever I hear people mention it as a serious 'implication' it annoys me as there is implied racism (or racialism) in whatever it is they are saying.

I saw a video-poll on the internet today - interviews with people about Obama.

"I think he'd be good for the image of America because he's black..."  Great, so even though he was voted in by 53%, what you actually care about is the fact that his skin colour represents less than 20% of the country.

"He'll do great things for black people."  Of course he will - and all white presidents help white people - ask any white voter and he'll back that up.  What depressing about this is, the naivety of expecting someone who LOOKS like you to behave like you.  White people in America have known that for a long time.  It looks like black people are gonna have to prepare for the inevitable betrayal  of 'one of their own'.

But what betrayal?  Is there a suggestion here that black people need help?  One of the most accidently racist things that can be said is to suggest that 'black people' have a single agenda, or shared opinion on a subject.
Upon hearing a news report on the radio, who out of you would turn to your black friend and say "So what do black people think about this subject?", or "What do black people think about abortion/welfare/Iraq?"  You'd quite rightly get a slap across the face for reverting to a "them" mentality.

Yet that is what is happening.  People voted for/support Obama because he's black. 

But I'm being unfair - it's not that he's black Dominic, it's what his blackness represents.

So what does his blackness represent?  Please don't say the repressed underclasses - that's racist.  Please don't say minorities - that's anti-democratic, and there's plenty about him that makes him part of the majority.  Please don't say change - that's meaningless.

Progress?  Are you saying white people don't advocate progress?

Then stop going on about his skin colour.

As I've said to others, the great thing about Obama being elected is not that he's black... but that he happens to be black.  What he actually represents is not the underclass, the oppressed or 'change' but sound policies and excellent marketing.

And I'm not being naive in believing that race wasn't an issue for many, if not most of those who voted for him - I know that it was, and I have a word for it.  Idiotic.

Voting in a black man is not an achievement in itself.  It should not be a goal to get a black man into the Whitehouse, but a man who is fair, honest, and a capableleader.  The openmindedness of a nation to vote in a black man is the real achievement.

by the way, an Obaminator is an Obama supporter.  My word.

Did you know that in the Middle Ages it was believed that shorter hair was seen as a sign of spiritualism (and was neatly at odds with the longer-haired barbarians).  For this reason, monks would shave the top of their heads, and it was common to have your head fully shaved.  This lead to the belief that one could avoid hell by getting your hair cut short or “having a close shave”.

In the olden days, sailors used to believe that hell was at the bottom of the sea.  If they were ever flung over board, sailors wore heavy cotton trousers that would get very heavy and make it difficult to swim.  For this reason the trousers they wore were made very wide at the bottom so they could be easily kicked off.  The bottom of the trousers, like flairs, looked like bells found in a church tower.  If the sailor was rescued, the trousers would then sink to the bottom, becoming “hell’s bells.”

In Roman Britain, less than 10 percent of the native population could speak English.  This caused problems for undertakers who had to announce various deaths, which was quite frequent in those days.  Because nobody would be able to read the name of a deceased person, a cast was made of their face using early cement which was then put on display in the town centre or ‘forum’.  The fact that that person had died (or certainly would have after the procedure) was said to have been “set in stone” a phrase which has come to mean that something is known with some certainty.

The Three Wise men characters well known from the story of the nativity do not in fact appear anywhere in the Bible.  These characters were later additions to the tradition of the Christ’s birth after the Catholic Church split in the Medieval times into East and West.  The western church was seen as more prestigious as its centre was still at Rome.  The Eastern church, based in Istanbul created the story of Three Kings from the East or Wise Men to give credibility to the assertion that the eastern church was the one true church and to rival the western church’s fame and power.

When people say “It’s all Greek to me” they mean that something is incomprehensible or meaningless.  Interestingly, this phrase actually has historical roots.  After the collapse of the Greek culture in the Dark Ages, people stopped speaking ancient Greek and either went back to their native languages or started to speak more universal languages like Latin or English.  The problem was that the native languages hadn’t been spoken by anyone for several hundred years, so for 3 centuries before the beginning of the Renaissance, people living in Greece spoke what they liked, everybody using their own sounds and symbols.  The Greek language became synonymous with gobbledegook and nonsensical beliefs.

In 1367, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church declared war on Portugal.  He had been visiting the royal family there when one of the children the Queen was carrying knocked the Mitre from off his head.  The Queen wanted to apologize, but being a woman she was forbidden to speak to the pontiff.  Having been humiliated by a child, then not given an apology, the Pope ordered the invasion of Portugal “at the drop of a hat”.

Horatio Lord Nelson – hero of the British Empire famously only had one eye.  In those days a common replacement for the eye (glass then was too heavy) was to use wood.  However, wood would often splinter and it was difficult to keep it moist.  Lord Nelson decided that he would use a carved apple from Kent instead of wood as it stayed moist and he could shape it himself with only one hand.  He loved this innovation so much, he said it was his favourite item while at see, calling it “the apple of his eye”.

While Edward Longshanks of England was king, there were only two people who’s opinion mattered; Edward I himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Such was the rule that in court, in the market place and in Parliament, if anyone wanted their opinion to be heard they had to pay a tax.  This tax usually amounted to just 1 penny and it therefore became a common turn of phrase to say “a penny for your thoughts” when you wanted an opinion.  In London, the people collecting the money for the King and Church became well-known characters.  In order to aggrandise themselves, they’d would exchange their pennies for buttons and sow them onto their clothes, starting the tradition of the Pearly Kings.

The East End of London is known for its crafty characters and winding backstreets.  Even in the olden days, the areas from Aldgate to Mile End was a maze of narrow lanes, cobbled roads, looming houses and badly lit alleys.  In order for the habitants to be able to share this space with the horses and carts that went in and out of the city daily, they’d have to squeeze themselves up against the walls to stop themselves being run over.  The combination of this way of walking, and that fact that many an injury was incurred as a result meant that people in the area became famous for looking odd, walking strangely and being “cock-kneed”, which is where the word “cockney” comes from when referring to someone from the East End of London.

In Shakespeare’s time, when a man was said to have been a bad husband whose wife had been cheating on him with another man, he was said to have been ‘horned’.  In many parts of the country they still had the tradition that when a man had an adulterous wife he would wear a cow’s horn on his head, and should he find his wife in the act of adultery he could kill her with the weapon on his head.  The wife, being discovered, could either choose to go back with her husband (who would no doubt give her a rough time for her unfaithfulness), face death or choose to run off with her new lover carrying social stigma if she did.  This desperate situation lead people to coin the phrase “on the horns of a dilemma” when faced with a difficult choice.

The real problem, and I mean the actually root problem that has been the cause of the furore surrounding Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand is not that someone may have been hurt emotionally by their attempt at humour – it is that it just wasn’t funny.

I am proud to say, that since the very beginning of my existence on blog land, I have been saying that Jonathan Ross is not funny.  http://needfully.blog.co.uk/2008/02/11/open_letter_to_jonathan_ross~3711098

He hasn’t been funny for a long time, at least nothing that was broadcast.

Prank calls are funny.  I don’t want to deny that, practical jokes on the public are hilarious, and I have many happy memories of telephoning people and getting them irate on the other end.  But they need to be funny.  Shouting “he fucked your grand-daughter” down the phone isn’t funny, and I honestly don’t think I would have found it funny when I was 16 or 17.  Of course, as some have said, that what you expect from Russell Brand, I mean, the man was fired from MTV for turning up to work on Sept 12 ’01 dressed as Osama bin Laden.

But when Ross does it, it pisses me off, because here we have a grown man acting like a fucking tit in a classroom, all the while thinking he’s hilarious.  Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up old man.  If you weren’t aware of the fact that you piss-poor rapport was well outdated and only works on friends you repeatedly invite back to you weekend-ruining chat show, at least be aware of the viewing figures and that fact that every man and his dog think you’re an overpaid knob head.  And as if the horrific combination of your teenage hair, ‘wacky’ suit, speech impediment, charmless ego and pay-packet wasn’t enough.  Now we have to put up with you giggling and squealing like a girl, all because you’ve found another celebrity friend who’s youth and proximity to you is enough to keep your completely bland and pointless career going.  Fuck off.  It’s over.  After this carry-on, you’ll have lost every fan over the age of 40, and anyone below that age doesn’t give a crap whether your friends with Bono or Ricky Gervais, although the fact that your friends with the former sort of reinforces my point here.

I feel bad because I do actually like his film program.  Don’t mind it, it keep me up to date and he has exclusive screenings.  But for fucks sake, don’t push it.  It shows just how much a huge pay packet can keep you out of touch, the fact that for most viewers he was a borderline c**t, yet he still acts the twat, as if he’s untouchable.

Proof of this?  The amount of complaints that were generated by the prank.  Any money, any money says that if it wasn’t Wossy doing this, nobody would’ve cared, which brings me back to my main point – the reason it angered people was because it wasn’t funny and that’s because Jonathan Ross is not funny.

And as for Russell Brand…  There’s not much point in saying anything about him that the gobshite hasn’t already heard, repeated in a loud voice, and turned into innuendo that all the students at Plymouth University can giggle to.

What is the difference in attitude towards sex between a 16 and an 18 year old?  Not much?  What if the 16 year old was sexually active and the 18 year old still a virgin?  Still a difference?  Okay, what about this - an 11 year old girl who has a boyfriend and who is taking birth control pills - does she have the same wisdom towards sex and relationships as a man who is a virgin or who has had only a small number of sexual partners at the age of 30 (they do exist)? Before you start to struggle with the answer, allow me to stop you.  The question is pretty much moot as, when you think about it, attitudes towards sex have nothing to do with your age, but how you are taught to think about it.  Everyone has an experience that can back this up, whether it was noticing that there were girls in school who were a bit more 'mature', or if it was you who wasn't really that arsed about sex until university, while it seemed to be the centre of the universe for your friends.

If I wanted to explain why I was less interested or unbothered by the prospect of sex in school, and why a close friend of mine was, it would be ridiculous of me to mention age, whether he was older or younger.  So why then does age seem to be the deciding factor when it comes to educating the young about sex?

Another set of so-called experts claiming to be a children's charity have managed the lobby certain idiotic members of the government into believing that the cause of our teenage pregnancy/abortion/STD epidemic is not how relationship education is recieved, but when.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7684810.stm

To an ordinary human-being, whose judgement has not been clouded by the desire to please their peers, stay in power and seek approval from the liberal press, the idea of teaching sex eduation to five year olds seems head-scratchingly dumb.  With only a few seconds thought, a normal human being will skip the moral question and simply ask "will it work?"  Now, I can't be bothered to look at the statistics, but let's assume that when the problems of teenage pregnancy and STD's first became an issue of national concern, there was a concensus that the reason for this, was that teenagers were not being taught about that kind of stuff early enough (they obviously needed a few years thought before making any rash decisions).

OK, fine.  Sex education is introduced and taught to all those in school from ages sixteen.  Since then, the 'problems' that were identified somewhere in the 60's have so far increased both numerically and in terms of their impact on families and communities.  And every time new horrifying statistics are produced, there is another cry to bring the initial age for sex education down.

Now, I am not saying that sex education has caused this.  Neither am I saying that we should back-pedal.  There is a mere correlation between the two.  At the very least this would suggest that the strategy of targeting younger ages in order to combat this problem is not working.  In fact, it suggests to me, that the idea that age has anything to do with it at all is ridiculous.  I know 10 year olds who were more sexually aware than I was aged 18 (but that's just me).

So why keep lowering the age?  It's not like we want it to happen.  Sure, if it's proven that teenage STI's and pregnancy can be combatted by simply telling us all about it at a younger age would work, then we'd acceptit - but nobody wants to have their children taught about it under, say, the age of 11. 

Of course I'm not saying that kids shouldn't know about relationships - from a young age we see our parents, Disney characters, local characters and celebrities in and out of relationships.  It is up to our parents and the schools to work in partnership to teach us what they mean and to develop in us a healthy attitude, so that when the time comes, we approach it with an open-mind and with maturity. 

To me, it is blindingly obvious that age has nothing to do with it, so please, let's not encumber our already confused young with the added weight of sexuality, disease, procreation and rejection.  Besides, these things have to be learnt, not taught... and anyway, what 5 year old is going to understand what the hell you're on about anyway?  They've only just managed to touch the top of their head, let alone understand the intricacies of stuff they can't see inside their bodies.

On the brighter side of the impending recession - here's some MAN U fans who are fighting the good fight. Join in!

http://www.redcafe.net/f8/sign-here-if-you-beating-credit-crunch-209757/

hilarious.

What with all the doom and gloom that the BBC insists on delivering (as it has been proven before that recessions have always been saved from a depression by despair, panic and pessimism), words like 'spiralling', 'free-fall' and 'collapse' being used gleefully on all fronts - here's something that really is low on the list of priorities (except for big girl's blouses).

"The Cats Protection League said it had £11.2 million deposited in a UK bank owned by the collapsed Kaupthing.

The NCVO has held talks with the government which has promised to do all it can protect the charities' money.

But City Minister Paul Myners gave no guarantee their assets would be secure."

[BBC News UK Edition]

The Earth wobbled in it's orbit due to the collective shoulder-shrug of millions of home-owners and investors following the release of this news.

I'm not yet friends with La_Spice but I saw this little challenge floating around that place and thought I'd have a go:

Work

My father always said
Of all of us at home
That we must’ve been the laziest
Family bar none.

We always got up late
When there was no school
While he would sweat and work and trudge
For him it was the rule.

“Get up you lazy bastards,
Why has God done this to me?
I hate my life, I hate my work
And still have no money.”

His favourite phrase for calling us
I didn’t understand
But I’m ‘pathologically lazy’
And it makes me feel quite grand.

So now here is the irony
Of my dad’s reaction:
He worked so hard
And frowned so hard
And avoided all inaction.

That now I am not that lazy
But remembering my dad
I am now afraid of work
‘Cos he made it look so bad!

[bizarrely I found this on the Iceland website, which generated a new found (though not massive amount) respect for the company]

The Chief Executive's Handbook

The classic 21-point career plan for a new Chief Executive goes like this:

1. Agree an amazingly generous salary, bonus, perks and LTIP package.

2. Settle your bottom comfortably in a swivelling chair behind a very large desk.

3. Order an even bigger desk and a better-padded chair in a more luxurious office suite.

4. Recruit a surprisingly attractive PA.

5. Announce that you have inherited a company in crisis. Issue a shock profit warning accompanied by massive provisions, setting a conveniently low base for recovery.

6. Appoint highly paid management consultants to conduct a top-to-bottom strategic review.

7. Sidestep questions on what exactly a Chief Executive is for, if management consultants need to be appointed to determine the company's strategy.

8. Replace your finance director and auditors, to help cover your tracks.

9. Negotiate an even more generous salary to reflect the massive challenge of turning round the company that you now unexpectedly face.

10. Agree new LTIPs to reflect the enormous drop in the share price since your appointment.

11. Announce results of the strategic review, which has cost over £1 million and taken six months to state the bleeding obvious.

12. Botch its implementation, so that the expected recovery does not take place. Issue a series of further profit warnings (traditionally, a minimum of three).

13. Start sleeping with your surprisingly attractive PA to alleviate stress.

14. Bring in a new set of management consultants, who recommend 'focusing' the business through the sale of any remaining assets that actually make some money.

15. Achieve lower than expected returns from this fire sale.

16. Recommend acceptance of a derisory takeover bid for the rump of what was once a half decent business.

17. Exit the smoking ruins with a £1 million pay-off to cushion the pain of redundancy, and the thanks of grateful shareholders for getting the appalling company you inherited into a saleable condition.

18. Join a Government taskforce to advise on why British business is not fulfilling its potential.

19. Gain a suitable honour (CBE or above) for your important contribution to public life.

20. Apply for a new job as Chief Executive.

21. See 1.

This is, of course, a completely theoretical scenario, and any passing resemblance to any actual Chief Executive, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

Keith Hann is a financial PR consultant with few clients and even fewer friends. www.keithhann.com

I had a flat mate who was convinced that the Moon lnadings never happened. He'd clearly watched some DVD or Youtube documentary on this. I could tell because his reasoning behind this was based upon assumptions he'd never bothered to research, it relied heavily on the fact that people rarely know all the facts, it showed a very basic understanding of the circumstances surrounding the Space Race and a willingness to believe that the US is at the centre of every nefarious activity that has gone on since, well the end of the First World War.

He presented me with various ideas that he could only half remember from the convincingly deep tones of a voice over. Something about the stars being absent in the photgraphs, the foot prints, the flag and their movement on the surface. All these things can be easily explained away if one was so inclined (which he clearly wasn't), despite my best efforts.

Something he could never explain properly however: the basis for this whole thing is that the US was in a race against the Soviet Union to land a man on the moon. It all comes down to the Soviet Union.
So why was it so important to land on the moon, I ask. Well, it's to do with prestige, beating the Russians, showing the power of capitalism etc.
Right. Firstly, why did the Russians not think of this? Is it because the Americans are naturally more dishonest - that's original. Secondly, was it really that important? Did the world need to see this display of power to convince them that capitalism was better than the form of government used in the USSR? I don't think so - and frankly, the people to whom this MAY have mattered, I doubt if landing on the Moon would have mattered much to them anyway.

Another thing about the Soviet Union: if it were to be believed that the US never landed on the moon - that it was all a hoax, it was filmed in a basement somewhere and that it was a massive cover up. If none of it was real, but it made it look as if the US had beaten the USSR and now dominated Space and won over the hearts and minds of the world... if that did happen - what the HELL were the Russians up to? Did they not notice that nobody went to the moon? Did their satellites not detect the lack of an Apollo 11 rocket that escaped the Earth's atmosphere, broke into pieces, landed on the Moon while another piece orbited, rejoined again and flew back to Earth? If this was such a rat race as the theory suggests, do you not think that the Ruskies would have jumped at the slightest chance to make the US look silly? But they didn't, and the Russians actually had stuff orbitting the Earth while the Moon landing's were suppossed to have happened. They kept schtum about it.

In which case, maybe THEY were involved too...

If there's anyone who happens to find the fake moon landing story plausable, please can you explain this to me.

Can anybody think of anything cool that happened in the 60s? No? What about the 70s? Didn't think so. Recieved wisdom is that these two decades are pretty much what helped define what we now consider 'cool'. Rock n Roll, mini skirts, afros and pot.

It turns out that we've been swindled. Nope, they were not the coolest decades. What happened is we were tricked by those who had grown up in the 60s and 70s i.e., those who held power and influence in the media and of course our parents. They lied to us. It wasn't cool at all, they just wanted to make themselves feel better, so they force fed us the idea that anything that is worth anything owes all its debt to the abundance of musical and cultural pioneers that were on every street corner in those two decades.

But now we have the truth thanks to some 'survey' or whatever (I can't find a source) conducted by SkyNews. Apparently it's the 80s that was the coolest decade of the past half century.  So all you oldies who keep going on about Roxy Music or The Everley Brothers can shut up back to New Malden, raise your kids, go to church and stop telling us lies.
The powers that be - those who now hold most influence in the media world (I can't guess how old they would be) have given 8, yes 8 uncontestable examples of why the 1980s was the coolest of all the decades.  (For the purposes of sensibleness let's ignore the 90s because frankly recalling the government endorsed 'Cool Britannia' era has the same effect as smelling Champagne while battling a hangover).  Here's why:
 
- The Rubics Cube.  Undeniably cool.  It's a small toy that is impossible to solve for 99% of the population and has no less than 6 colours.  It's comparable to the first technicolour films it produces such excitement.  Seconds of fun can be had whenever you pick one up after a few years, turn it a couple of times then push it back under the bed when you remember the only way to solve it is to pull the stickers off.  Cooooool.

-  "Cult puppet show Spitting Image was also voted as one of the highlights of the decade."  Isn't it fucking great that one of the top ten things to be remembered in a decade is a TV program?  Cultish (and over-rated) it may have been, but it's still only TV.

-  Shell Suits.  The only reason I could have had any justification for saying that these were cool is because I had one.  I also had one of those big pack of felt-tips that went from black to white with all the colours in between.  That doesn't make it cool, it's something my mum bought be to keep me entertained.  Shell Suits were not cool - they were ugly, flammable, cheaply made and extorsionate - not cool.  A Triumph Bonneville ridden by Marlon Brando is cool.  Shell Suits are not.  Or irony.

-  Michael Jackson.  OK, I'll give you this one.  Though we all know how THAT turned out.  And there was a lot of stuff he did that was seriously NOT cool.

-  The 60s and 70s had people like Lou Reed, Bruce Springsteen and Serge Gainsbourg (just to pick a variety).  Fuck them, the 80s had Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits.  The kind of band people don't admit to listening to.  Guitar playing that amounted to no less than public masturbation.  A sweat band.  And I hate swing music, so any sultans can fuck off.

- OK, I kind of have a soft spot for Reagan Era action films, but Dirty Dancing and Rocky II, III and IV can go away.  And Commando is a bit silly.  In fact, there's a lot of films I like from the 80s, principally because I was shown them when I was ten years old, but that doesn't make it cool.  And I NEVER found ANY of the Police Academy films funny, so shoot me.

-  VHS was introduced.  So?  It allowed you to take movies home and ushered in the age of the 'video nasty'.  The films were cool.  The actors were cool.  A bit of magnetic strip isn't cool, it's usful and fun, but it doesn't stay up all night drinking rum and playing the mouth organ and slowly killing its brain.  That's cool.  Just because it's old doesn't make it cool.

-  The Tube on Channel 4.  I'm too young to know whether or not this program is cool, but I'm damned if Channel 4 is going to let me know otherwise.  Seeing as Channel 4 is now the mouthpiece of the youth nowadays (they make them feel old by putting their favourite programs on the 'grown up' More 4, whatever they say is cool, is cool.  Countdown is cool.  Time Team is cool.  Cricket is cool.

-  Live Aid.  Not convinced.  'Cool' must surely consist of something that is downplayed, untroubled and relaxed.  Hence 'cool'.  Bob Geldof is not cool, therefore neither was Live Aid.  And a fat lot of good it did anyway.

I wonder, given 10 years, the people with influence will start to bang on about how cool the 90s were.  Song's like Eiffel 65's "Blue" and Bewitched will make a startling come back and people will start collecting MiniDiscs.  Probably.

Here's the stupidly long link for those of you who have nothing better to do:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Eighties-Voted-Coolest-Decade-With-Rubiks-Cube-Live-Aid-And-Spitting-Image-Named-As-Favourites/Media-Gallery/200809115094001?lpos=UK_News_Third_Picture_Gallery_Teaser_Region____1&lid=GALLERY_15094001_Eighties_Voted_Coolest_Decade_With_Rubiks_Cube%2C_Live_Aid_And_Spitting_Image_Named_As_Favourites

Just for the record, so there's no confusion over my red-blooded masculinity and my testosterone fuelled tastes, my favourite films all involve punching and kicking people.  I'm a man, don't forget.

But here are the films that I'll watch with my girlfriend that are really rather good. But don't have that much punching and kicking. I console myself with the idea that a lot of it is probably mental punching and kicking.

Before Sunrise / Before Sunset
Aah, young love.  The first film describes the perfect encounter between to young people without, I found, being squirmishly fluffy and feel good.  The female lead is a genuinely interesting person who captures the elements of a fustrated youth perfectly... and Ethan Hawke presents a slightly awkward but eager to please late teen that I imagine stricks a chord with many.  The second film Before Sunset is more indulgent, but does not lose any of the first's charm.  And really sad too.  Well written, excellently directed and with a really interesting and absorbing soundtrack to both, this is well worth dropping the beer for and clutching your girl.

True Romance
I actually think it was this film that got my girl to go out with me in the first place.  You see, I'd just accidently stolen a suitcase full of cocaine while rescing her from a pimp.  At the time it was all very traumatic, but watching this film put a romantic glean on t