Woah, Deep

This is an article about Dane Cook.

This is an article about how Dane Cook is not funny.  If you haven't heard of Dane Cook, good, this means I can predispose your mind to not finding him funny if you come across him unexpectantly.

Yes, he's the smug looking git on the left who appeared in this movie which was needless to say, awful.  Yep, even the fact that Jessica Alba had loads of screen time could not save this film.

Unfortunately, Dane Cook is popular.  I mean really popular.  His Stand-Up comedy album Retaliation went DOUBLE PLATINUM and became the biggest selling comedy album in America for 28 years.

And despite the numerous claims by other, less shit comedians that he has plagiarised material, his own stuff is appallingly average.  I mean too average.  Sometimes watching him you think he's lined up a good joke but he ruins it by being un-edgy, un-unpredictable and downright soft.
This is the amazing thing - he does observational comedy, but seems to miss the whole 'comedy' thing.  He seems to be another case of an American missing irony.  I only think this because at some point in his life he must've heard somebody say the ironic comedic axiom "It's funny because it's true" and taken it at face value.

Well it's not true.  In order to procure comedy from the mundane, one must subvert the audience's expectations.  To say "Don't you hate it when strangers sneeze on you?" is not funny, even though it's true.
To achieve good observational comedy, one must take something that is true and twist it a little, put something unexpected in there, combine it with a similar concept or if you're really struggling a bit of old reductio ad absurdum.
You also have to make the audience empathise with the subject matter.  A good comedian can make the strangest, most alien thing funny to an audience.  I have never been hunting, but Pryor's re-telling of a hunting trip with his dad cracks me up.
It is not an adequate replacement to simply use the first person plural in the hope that this kind of subtle rhetoric will get the audience on side.

Dane Cook does none of these.  He describes a situation, then expects us to laugh.

Except, the problem is of course his moronic audience DO laugh.  Why?  Apparently something to do with the huge amount of effort he puts into self-promotion.  It's all there - Twitter following, Myspace, blog and he actually replies to fan male.  It makes me sick.  It's almost like people are only laughing because of all the effort he's gone to.  At least I hope that's the truth because I really don't want this guy to mark the future of comedy.

For comparison's sake, let's have a look at some examples:

Dane Cook re-telling 'stuff' that, had he been talented, could have been funny:

Whereas, he are some talented people (providing the editor doesn't fuck up which it seems to be doing right now).

Here, have a bag of piss.

I am not sure how popular this method is, but I am now a fan of fishing in this way.

Completely inane photoshopped pictures of celebrities not riding a bicycle.

A lot of time and a lot of sheep, courtesy of Samsung (actually quite good).

And Finally, a wonderful article explaining why Commando is the best film ever.

Gosh I'm productive.

A happy thought just dawned on me.

I think Twitter peaked too early.  Now that every blogger there is and every celebrity there isn't talk about Twitter like it's actually important (and now me God have mercy), I believe soon the media will reach saturation point.

In fact, I think it is reaching saturation point now.  Anyone thinking of joining Twitter - don't bother.  You'll be laughed at in less than a month's time for bandwaggoning and generally being lame.

Thanks to this article, there is a dawning realisation why Twitter is so called.  The clue is in the first four letters (look I don't care if that joke has been done before - I thought it up before even Steven Fry joined).

Eventually the media hype will die down, just like it did with Facebook.  Except, with Facebook, which actually serves a purpose (if you're older than 14), Twitter really is an experiment into the mundane - just how much information can a human willingly absorb before it throws it back up like a bulemic at a buffet?

Not a lot.  At least, not a lot when it comes to inconsequential information.  There may still be hope.

I sincerely hope you’re all aware of this.

Actually, I am presuming you’re not, or at least nobody thinks it’s worthy of writing about.

Well to hell with that.  The transcripts of one of the initial creative meetings between Spielberg and George Lucas have been published on the internet.  They have been copied from actual tape-recorded conversations that these two behemoths of Hollywood had as they bashed out ideas for Spielberg’s latest idea – a heroic archaeologist set in the 1930s.

If that hasn’t captured your attention, then just piss off.

Yes, three hours worth of conversation is available to read HERE.  It makes interesting reading for several reasons.

First, for those of you into films and story writing, it is an insight into the creative process of two of the most influential directors in Hollywood.  However, you may be disappointed – it amounts to no more than two guys making up a story as they go along, in pretty much exactly the same way as you would with your mates down the pub.  Still, it is encouraging that at least at the earliest stages, mere mortals like ourselves could probably keep up – “He punches a Nazi in the face and the barrels of petrol explode.  Next scene.”

Such as:

Secondly, there is a lot there that sounds awesome.  Some of this stuff they included… but some of the stuff they left out, probably with good reason:

Oh, yeah, there’s also a slight racism about the whole thing – you know, the jolly kind of racism that people had back in the old days – being slightly dismissive of Arabs, making them seem ridiculous.  Referring to Germans as ‘Krauts’ (although, looking at the end product, I don’t think there was ever any doubt that Spielberg really doesn’t like Germans).

Still, read away, it is quite fun.  It’s over 6MBs though, so you may not want to download it onto a work computer.  You may not want to down load it at all, but screw you.

Horoscopes April 09

Your Horoscopes this month are brought to you by Jacques-Putain Cúni. In 1948 the landscape of French Philosophy changed dramatically with the publication of Cúni's Enfants et la Cosmos de Merde his philosophical debut. Although Cúni claimed this work was not a formal philosophical discourse (the book contains almost no finished grammatically correct sentences and three whole chapters are dedicated to his meditations on musician Django Reinhardt) it was well received in the liberal colleges around France, especially Sorbonne University where he eventually settled. He married in 1938, again in 1948 and finally in 1959 after meeting Jane Dobson, an exchange student from Somerset, England who was only 19 at the time.

Libra

Pfff. Ze English have always found it incredibly difficult to comprehend ze, how do you say - Espirit Libre. Please, zis month, try to bare in mind that there are people around you who may not come up to your standards in terms of perspectives.

Aries

Allow me to broaden your mind. Your life is like this Gauloises burning in my hand. Notice ze intricateness of spirals the fumeé creates as it dances in the Parisian air. Your life, like le smouldering embers of cigarette is slowly coming to a fin ? ze choices embodied in ze smoke, what you inhaler and what you allow to rise slowly to heavens, are ze constituent parts of your existence. Saisissez le Jour!

Cancer

Not long ago I was forced to visit les putain Etats-Unis. My friend and colleague Michel Fubar was lecturing at Berkeley College and he said something spectacularly weighty to me: "In its function, ze power to punish is not essentially different from zat of curing or educating." Our conversations are often consist of nothing more zan easily quotable profundities, although ze meaning is often surrounded in mystery. This month, before making moral judgings, sink about what Michel said to me.

Sagittarius

As the only living Trotskyist on the Earth I feel it my duty to impart some of his global socialist vision to you. Especially as zis month you will be feeling much more part of a collective than usual (thanks to Orion or something). The weakness of Capitalism has been written in the stars for some time and it is time for you and your fellow paysans to down your tools! Then pick them up again but this time use them as weapons to overthrow ze ruling class! Then once that's done go back to using your tools for the job zey were designed for.

Virgo

You English wiz your putain 'baked beans'. What is this? You have ze effrontery to claim that these mere haricot blanche avec sauce tomate is some kind of culinary achievement! It is of worry to me that France is so close to your shores. France - the country who has always held the placard for haute cuisine. It brings me to the brink of despair. Anyway, this month you will meet someone beginning with D.

Taurus

Ah, la Lune. For most people it is simply a floating orb in the sky that heralds the night. For special people like myself, it holds an esoteric beauty beyond the comprehension of yourself. Zis month, according to my colleague Meg Mystique, the moon comes into importance and compels you to use the power of logic and intuition to help you achieve your objectif. Bof. I think this extreme unlikely that you, wiz your pitiful grasp of human cognisance will ever manage to elucidate what it is your brain is telling you.

Gemini

What is life if it is not directed towards carnal pleasure? It is difficult to comprehend the emptiness of your existence without zis. Moi, I am finding no difficulty in this, bien sur. But I have come to realize that I cannot expect those personnes with a more... plebeian mind, to be able to achieve this. So go, make love, find passion but pour l'amore de Dieu, wear a condom. Only hommes supérieur like myself are allowed to express our genes - how do you say - willy nilly?

Scorpio

In ze arbitrary nature that these 'oroscopes work, it is my duty to impart zis piece of surprisingly specific clairvoyance: you will meet somebody you find attractive, and this person will probably be an excellent cook. Now, being that the majority of people reading zis 'oroscope will not be French, I find zat hard to believe.

Capricorn

You may be surprised, in a way that ill-educated people often are, to find that your 'oroscopes are being divined by moi, an elite member in a post-modern coterie of philosophers and Trotskyists. It seems it has befallen me to tell you that questioning such things is not really your place. Some people are leaders and some are followers. Myself, I float above the petit trivialities of the world and remark on its laughable futility. You, however, look for meaning in 'oroscopes. Mais OK, I am feeling generous. Go home, this month, a family matter will be resolved. Happy? Bien.

Pisces

This week, it being un lune nouveau you must take control of your money. Pfff, of course you must gitanes. Money, I suppose is ze centre of your life. Sometimes I wish to be as ignorant as you, life on this intellectual plateau can become lonesome... I cannot of course expect you to reach moi, I am experienced enough to know zat members of the working orders are not really able to comprehend things ze way a brain like mine can.

Aquarius

In zis absurd and meaningless world, what can your reaction possibly be to your own existence? Is it likely or unlikely that other people exist? Are zere any constants or absolutes? Zere is no answer to these question mon ami, so I encourage you to take the path of least resistance. The pursuit of 'appiness is your answer to zis, either that or suicide. If you find yourself between these two ends, you are doing it all wrong.

Leo

There is no inherent meaning in the objects that occupy your existence. You must find meaning in them. Zis may not be something you are able to do as so far, it is unlikely that you have even given meaning to yourself let alone the physical matter that besieges you every day. Principally, you must know yourself. Zis is best achieved by finding what are your likes and dislikes. I did zis by visiting various casinos, brothels and drug houses throughout my twenties thirties and forties... in fact, you should always set aside time for getting to know yourself. It is not too late for you.

Who would you like to write next month's horoscopes?

A 1970's Vigilante

A Russian Oligarch

A Romantic poet

Previous Horoscopes: 3 (March) 2 (Febuary) 1 (January)

What the hell prompted this?

Are you excited by this hitting the shops?

This article is about both the Graphic Novel and the recent film adaptation of Watchmen.  Specifically it discusses the differences in the ending.  So, if you haven’t read the book or seen the film you may not want to read this as it contains spoiler after spoiler.  You have been warned.

For those of you who don’t quite remember the book, here’s a quick synopsis of the ending:

Rorschach and Nite Owl discover that Adrian Veidt is responsible for the deaths of The Comedian and Moloch, the framing of Dr Manhattan and Rorschach himself. 

Meanwhile, the US and the Soviet Union are on the brink of nuclear war.  The world in general is going a bit crazy because of the inevitable holocaust that they think is going to happen.

When Rorschach and Nite Owl arrive at Veidt’s base in Antarctica, he reveals that he has unleashed a deadly weapon on New York and transported a huge squid like creation into the city.  This is to give the impression that an alien from outer space/another dimension has somehow landed on the planet and in the throes of its own death, killed half of New York.  Veidt hopes that this utterly unprecedented and completely random cataclysm will make humans realise the futility of their petty-minded squabbles and unite in the face of a fearsome and indiscriminate Universe. 

It works.  The US and Soviet Union promise to bury their differences.  The world abandons conflicts based on ideology, power and greed and decide to progress under the banner of a united humanity.  Dr Manhattan, The Silk Spectre and Nite Owl decide to play along as they know to reveal the truth behind the deaths in New York will only perpetuate the problems inherent to humans prior to the manufactured disaster.  Even though what Veidt did was kill millions of humans, they realize that now it is done it is best to keep quiet.  Only Rorschach promises to tell the truth to the world, so he is killed by Dr Manhattan.

The film is the same, except for one small difference (though it makes for quite a different subtext).  Instead of creating an alien creature to ‘unleash’ on New York, Veidt uses his understanding of the Universe (aided unknowingly by Dr Manhattan) to create a huge explosion in New York that kills half the population.  The explosion has the same ‘signature’ as the work of Dr Manhattan who is then blamed for it.  This was Veidt’s plan – to make humanity think that Dr Manhattan did it.  The idea is the same as the book – to force humanity into a position of unity rather than discord in the face of a much greater power.  Dr Manhattan accepts his position as a scapegoat.

First of all I realise that this change may have been made as it could have been a very difficult thing to translate onto film – a giant alien squid creature suddenly coming out of nowhere.  It works well in the book but may have prompted ridicule in the film from cinema goers.

However the two alternative endings seem to give different ‘messages’.

In the book, Veidt wants humanity to realise that their wars, conflicts and selfish attitudes are rendered irrelevant when compared to the rest of reality.  Life is short and as far as we are aware, it could be snuffed out for no reason at any point.  There is no reason for the deaths.  The alien did not want to kill humans, it just did.

Like a couple arguing in a café – one minute they are shouting at each other and getting angry when suddenly, right next to them, an out of control lorry swerves onto the pavement and kills the customers sitting outside.  The shock of this tragic event makes the couple realise that their quarrelling is only stopping them being happy together.  Shaken, they set aside their differences and decide to approach life with renewed optimism and generosity.  This is what happens in the book.  The world unites – humanity does not only put aside its political differences (the end of the Cold War), but there is a change in attitude for everyone.  The world actually does become a better place.

The film is a lot less forgiving.

Instead of an alien accidentally crashing into our world and killing millions of people, as far as humanity knows, this atrocity was committed by Dr Manhattan.  In the face of this limitless power and callousness, the world unites (sort of).

First of all, humans will never know why Dr Manhattan did it.  Was it because he was rejected by humanity (when he was accused of causing cancer)?  Was it because he was abandoned by the Silk Spectre?  Or was it because he wanted to punish humanity for being so petty minded and violent?  Humanity does not know the reason and the problem here is two-fold. 

Because there was a reason for Dr Manhattan to commit the murder there is not the same incentive to change.  In the analogy of the arguing couple, had the customers been gunned down outside the café, they may not have committed to themselves to change their life - there seems to be some cause and effect – those people were chosen to die and not them.

The second problem of humanity not knowing what the motive behind Dr Manhattan’s action is that it becomes unclear as to what to do.  Do we fight him?  Is he going to come back?  What can we do to stop it happening again?  The fact that these questions need to be answered would be a point of contention (and therefore division) within humanity.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that everyone agreed that the reason Dr Manhattan struck at humanity was because he was punishing us for our appalling behaviour (which is the conclusion we’re meant to reach).  Until we can learn to get along, the Earth is his captive. 

In terms of the couple in the café analogy, in the middle of their argument the gunman burst in, shoots a random customer, points it at the couple and says “If you continue arguing, I will kill one of you.”

There is no realisation of the folly of their ways in this scenario.  Whereas in the book, it is assumed that humanity, with full understanding and knowledge will unite themselves under peace and community, in the film the message becomes: until humanity is forced under threat of annihilation it will continue down the same path of self destruction.

Essentially, what Veidt created in the film was not a united and happy Earth but an apocalyptic religion to keep humanity in check.  A religion where the Deity is some sort of wrathful Old Testament God who watches us and punishes us for our sins.  Whereas with the old religions there was the threat of Hell to keep humanity in line, in this new religion there is the threat of death and destruction.  In my reading of the comic, I do not think that this is what Veidt would have wanted.  He wanted humans to use their free will to come together and stop fighting, but he realised that this could only be prompted by a cataclysmic event that they could have no control over.

Not only that, but the world that is created after humanity realises that Dr Manhattan is responsible, seems to be more of the same.  In the film Nixon is seen saying that the US and USSR must unite “against the common enemy”.  So what – they want to fight him?  Are they going to create another Dr Manhattan?

Alternatively, humanity could accept that they are in a hostage situation.  They could accept that Dr Manhattan will strike them down if they begin again with the conflict and destruction.  But how is this achieved?  Does Manhattan favour democracy or not?  Socialism or anarchy?  How is salvation achieved?  The question of how to secure one’s salvation is what has caused so many conflicts in the past.  We are back where we started.

Or we can assume that somehow, humanity realised that Dr Manhattan struck Earth because of our behaviour and that to stop him from doing it again we have to get along (albeit that all this is forced upon us).  Dr Manhattan then writes us a list of commandment to follow as all ideas of “how to get along” are exactly the same ideas that humans have always had – anarcho-capitalism?  Democratic Socialism?  Meritocratic Communism?  And humans as much as we can, try to follow these commandments.  There’s probably ten of them.  Eventually, Dr Manhattan loses interest and starts his own eco-system in another galaxy.  With time, humans either forget about him or just stop believing he exists.  Things fall apart.

It is surprising (although, not really) that the book was a lot more optimistic for the future of humanity.  It was written in the 80s, during the height of Reagan Era politics, the Afgan conflict and the Cold War.  Nuclear war was much more of a reality then.  But the film, created in ‘00s is less hopeful.  The message is that humanity, short of divine intervention will continue to kill itself until, probably we are all dead.

The Problem With Porn

*WARNING: This article contains descriptions of graphic sexual images and acts.  Those who do not want their minds stained with these images are advised to consider not reading parts of this article.*

While this subject may come out of the blue for anyone reading this (i.e. it bears no relevance to current events) it’s something that has been preying on my thoughts for some time now and I want to get if off my chest.

In particular, I have been wanting to draw the attention of modern liberal minded people to current pornographic trends.  You see, we all support freedom of speech, freedom of expression and are vehemently anti-censorship (these values have been expressed several times over these blogs).  These values have been qualified by the idea that people should exercise a kind of self-censorship.  We would not think to silence people who make public views that are different to ours, but our hope is that popular condemnation and common sense will see these views become obsolete.  This is surely one of the major ways that freedom is understood; that in a democracy good ideas stick around, bad ideas don’t stick.  Or, in the words of many a parent: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

This works most of the time where issues are held in public forums, people are informed on the subject and there are no taboos.

This environment does not exist on the most part for pornography.  The world of porn dwells in a sort of ‘no-fly’ zone when it comes to inquiry.  This is partly because of the debacle that first arose 40 years ago with the release of now famous titles such as Deepthroat, Emmanuelle and Debbie Does Dallas.  In the end these films (and thus all pornography) were allowed to be made under the banner of Freedom of Expression.  No pundit in their right mind seeking popular approval is going to talk about censoring consensual, legal sex acts on film.  The silence surrounding porn is also down to the reason that I have taken so long to write this:  you have to admit to watching it.  Not only do you have to admit to that, but to speak with any authority on the subject, you have to be familiar with the material.  So then you create you own paradox – I want to be able to remark on some of the uglier aspects of pornography while at the same time admitting to some kind of expertise.

In my defence, young men nowadays are all experts in pornography.  There are things we can talk about that would draw blank expressions from females and mere confusion from many others (especially in regards to Japanese porn).  Nowadays a boy is exposed to pornography from the age that his balls drop.  By the time he has finished adolescence he will have exposed himself to all manner of sexual images that would have simply been unavailable to his parents.  Thanks almost entirely to the internet and the way it works, a simple, dare I say healthy interest in sex and pornography would inevitably mean seeing pornography that you would otherwise never have known existed.  There are some aspects of this pornography that worries me.  It worries me for two reasons; one, because of its content and two, because of its popularity.

A parallel debate to this emerged with the founding of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).  For those who don’t know, this is a combat sport that combines all aspect of martial arts (generally known as Mixed Martial Arts or MMA).  It started in 1993 as a no-holds-barred contest to see which fighting style was most effective.  Since then, in order to appease public sensibilities and broadcasting contracts (and no doubt to extend the careers of its fighters), the UFC has added more and more rules over the years.  Yet today it is still a very violent sports – its contestants can be unruly, its knockouts vicious and for those who are unfamiliar it can look a lot like “human cock-fighting”.  Personally I find this description shows a lack of understanding of man’s competitive spirit, but I concede this: it does attempt to satisfy the blood/combat lust that a certain type of man craves – both the contestant and the spectators.  Is this healthy?  Who knows, but the important thing is this – both men in the arena are there from their own choice, they know the risks, and both the men are treated as equals in the combat arena.  It is a bout to decide who exactly is ‘the best man’.  Similarities with pornography is that both are male-centric forms of entertainment, both are ‘fantasies’ in some way and both serve to satisfy certain manly needs – either violence or sex.

And this is where I have a problem with a lot of pornography.  Yes, the women ‘starring’ in these films are there of their own accord and they are doing what everyone else is doing in the world – using their talents to make a bit of money.  I am not here to question whether they want to be there (although it would make more comfortable viewing if I knew with certainty that she enjoyed her job) – I am questioning the equality that their gender enjoys in this medium.  As I said above, the men in the arena of the UFC are treated as equals and in this way it legitimises the otherwise brutal violence that we would never (in civilised socity) subject dogs, chickens or bears to.

The women in a lot of modern day pornography are not treated as equals.  Far from it.  In fact, I would so far as to say that a significant portion of the erotic appeal of pornography is derived from the fact that the women involved are being degraded, abused, objectified and otherwise ‘punished’ for being a female.

Am I being overly prudish?  Am I looking into this too much?  I don’t think so because I know men – I am one.  In terms of male fantasy, many if not most of the porn you find on the internet, the protagonist (i.e. YOU, the male viewer) is treating the female as stupid, dumb ‘bitches’.  Not only is this abhorrent in today’s equality based society, it encourages men to look at women this way.  Let’s have a look at some common examples (explicit descriptions):

-         face fucking/gag jobs – a scenario where the woman does not so much perform oral sex as she opens her mouth while the male thrusts violently into her.  The aim here is to get the woman to gag and throw up, often while still receiving the penis into her mouth.

-         Situations where a man or men ejaculate onto the woman’s face only to push her face away and leave her to clean up the mess.  The camera stays focussed on the female as she wipes her mouth, tears smudge her make up and she looks used and shaken by the violent fucking she just received.

-         Writing the words ‘stupid’, ‘whore’ or ‘bitch’ onto the forehead of the female.  These kind of scenes are accompanied by very rough sex and the male repeatedly calling the female stupid and a slut, a lot of spanking and getting her to repeat the insults back to him.

-         Oral sex that is interrupted by the male slapping the girl around the face, either with his penis or with his hand.

-         After ejaculating on the female, the man will slap her around the face hard.  Many scenes end this way.

-         Many scenes involve as part of the fantasy the girls repeatedly confirming that they are stupid worthless bitches.

-         Overlooking the physical pleasure derived from anal sex, a large part of its appeal is the perceived degrading effect that such an act performed against a woman will produce.

-         Women tricked into sex.  These are fantasy scenarios whereby the woman is promised a favour in return for sex (money, getting them home) but once the males have achieved orgasm, the deal is retracted and the woman is made to feel stupid while the men laugh at her stupidity.

-         Making the women perform “ass to mouth”, i.e. going from anal penetration to oral sex in one movement.  Also seen as degrading.

-         Forced sex scenarios.  The way these scenes are filmed walk a thin line between illegal rape fantasies and legal ‘compromising’ situations.  The usual way to get around it is for the woman to be seen enjoying it (even though that is not a usable defence in court against rape).

Granted, many of these acts may be the fantasy of both the male and female performers.  They may even be the fantasy of females watching them (although this is extremely unlikely).  But if we’re going to be honest here, the vast majority of this amounts to no more than your old women hating.  If all references to womanhood were removed and replaced with something racial this kind of pornography would have been banned at its inception.

A cursory search for ‘rape’ scenarios on the web will throw up a huge number of hits.  These will not be obscure eastern European productions of something out of the legally murky waters of the Far East.  These are titles that come from the UK and America, places we regard as progressive in their feminism.

What I find really ugly about all this is, to me, it looks like a quiet, inverted negative retaliation to feminine emancipation by men.  Social commentators, psychologists and relationship experts have often spoken of a gender role confusion syndrome that pervades western society since the women’s lib movement.  It is unclear who does what, when and how.  While most people are trying to adapt, there is an underbelly movement in pornography that gives an outlet for men’s frustrations against women.  While women break glass ceilings, gain respect and power in the ‘normal’ world, in the world of male fantasy, women are treated with as much respect as a pet or, more realistically, a slave.  Modern feminism and gender equality is being undermined by this hugely popular genre of pornography where the main ‘point’ in the scene (i.e. the reason to get off on it) is not the pleasure gained from having sex, but the pleasure gained from seeing a woman be put back “in her place” by faceless, penis wielding men.

I would like to reiterate that this is not a dig at all pornography.  Filming consensual and legal sex acts for pleasure is fine, even if it does contain things that your girlfriend would never do (in fact that’s the major attraction), or as a sex aid for a couple etc etc.  What I object to is the celebration of power and superiority latent in so much of it now – the kind of porn you could never show your girlfriend as it shames all men.  I object to it in the same way as I object to Bum Fights (a line of DVDs where boys in American towns pay tramps and the homeless to fight each other for money) and not UFC.  Even though the two men fighting are consenting to this (even in their intoxicated state) there is an equality issue involved with Bum Fights.  We as spectators are invited to laugh at them and their sorry state of affairs, to regard them as pathetic and enjoy the fact that in their state, they will do anything for money.

I am unsure what action can be taken against such abhorrent behaviour, but I am pretty sure that it should not be encouraged.

Here are some titles just as a reference for those new to the subject:

Crack Whores of The Tenderloin

Fresh Meat (now in its 14^th sequel)

Virgin Sacrifice

ATM Machines (Ass to Mouth)

These are quite tame titles actually, but I didn’t want to laboriously research all the most depraved titles I could.
 

By all accounts I am an excellent person.  It’s what I’m good at.

However, I don’t claim to have a stalker.  Does that put me at odds with everyone else?

I can guarantee that if not yourself, then one or more of your friends claims to have or to have had a stalker.

Stalkers, once valued paraphernalia associated with the rich and famous seem to have had a numerical explosion in recent years.  And what happens when a product floods the market?  You get cheap knock-offs and a reduction in quality.

See, to me, stalkers are very odd people.  They follow you, know your movements, turn up unexpectedly and can be rather intimidating.  Heavy breathing, sordid letters, death threats and the fear of sodomy abound.  They can cause such a problem that they end up getting arrested, restrained or worse, actually end up marrying their celebrity stalkee.

A good quality stalker should have a history of bizarre behaviour.  People should remember them from school as being a bit odd.  Even better, they should have an odd reason for stalking their prey.  The more unlikely the reason, the better.  Their ugliness also counts for something.  Anybody being followed by a hot model does not claim they have a stalker but just a fan.

A good stalker should construct their life around their obsession.  The object of their obsession should take precedence over their job, their family, their social life, even their personal hygiene.

But now it seems everyone has a stalker.  Both males and females boast of a ‘stalker’ they had at school or university, or the ‘stalker’ who lives in their building.  It seems that the definition of stalker has been reduced from a person who is a very real threat to your lifestyle and livelihood to being a person who merely crops up every now and again.

“I saw my stalker today.  He was walking his dog and he waved at me.  What a freak.”

Jesus, it’s just as well I’m not stalking you babe.  I use ladders.  I go through your rubbish.  I be-friend your kids.

Nowadays, you have the ultimate in all barrel-scraping attention grabbing devices:  The Online Stalker. 

Gimme a break.

We all know that it is easy to throw someone off the scent online.  You don’t have to answer messages.  You can change your settings to give you more privacy.  But judging by the amount of completely useless information you display on your profile page, it looks as if you’re expecting strangers to come visit you.

That person is not your stalker, they are merely the kind of person your vapidity attracts.  That person is, in fact, the kind of person you will end up spending the rest of your life with.

This is a collection of people who will never understand friendship.  Guaranteed, they all have extensive 'about me' sections on their numerous profile pages, hundreds of friends and thick parents.

This is what a proper friendship looks like

Horoscope 6 March – Next Time I Feel Like it

Your Horoscopes this month have been brought to you from world famous clairvoyant Aaron Broflowski.  Aaron gained notoriety in 70s San Francisco for his advocacy of psychedelic music as a medium for “understanding unity”.  He now lives above a cigar shop overlooking San Francisco Marina and makes most of his money selling tie-dye fabrics.

Libra

You know, scales have a lot more meaning than you think, man.  All I gotta say to you is, like, keep shit balanced, you know.  Don’t get mad about shit dude.  Keep that shit on a level, y’know?

Aries

Oh man.  Your chart is so complex.  I guess that reflects your complex personality.  Ok, ok, we’ve got Mars coming in on the side, while Jupiter and Orion’s belt is keeping your shit steady.  Just beware that, you know, something might happen that’s like, totally out the blue or something.

Cancer

Shit’s so fucked up nowadays man.  I remember the 60s, everybody was just so cool y’know?  There was this one time, after about three days on acid, we got pulled by five-O.  Man, they were cool with it though.  Shit has changed man.  People should remember.

Sagittarius

Remember The Eagles?  Well fuck them, man.  Don’t be anything like The goddam Eagles.  Sorry for cursing.

Virgo

Look around you, what do you see.  Exactly dude.  Exactly.  Think about it for just one second.  Is it a coincidence that you’re not where you wanna be?  You’re doing what you want right?  Shit don’t fly under the government’s evil eye, man.  Listen to some Grateful Dead.  On Acid.  Then buy some of my tie-dye shit.

Taurus

Nobody’s trying to fuck up your shit man.  That’s called paranoia.  Don’t worry, there’s ways of combating that vibe.  You’re English right?  You ever heard of Stonehenge?  Man, that shit is fucked up.  Go there right now, this afternoon.  It will totally clear your head.

Gemini

I never bought in to that whole ‘office’ vibe you know?  I can appreciate that the people I am talking to are part of the ‘machine’ sitting in your building blocks looking at your word processors, man.  Don’t process your thoughts though dude.  Your thoughts are like a web that connect with other people.  Grow your hair.

Scorpio

I remember this one time, where Quicksilver Messenger Service were having a jamming session in my parent’s kitchen.  If you don’t know who they are then fuck you, man.  Sorry.  But they were part of a movement back in the 60s.  Gary Duncan said to me “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  I never forgot that.  Artists like him make sure we humans aren’t all dead.

Capricorn

Oh yeah, your chart.  OK, the thing is, your chart looks kinda cluttered at the moment.  There’s circles n shit all over the place, and there’s some shit I ain’t never even seen before, man.  Don’t let that worry you though dude.  When I go out of focus, the chart kinda looks like a steel drum.  That’s gotta be meaningful, right?

Pisces

Think outside the box, man.  In ’72 or ’77.  Maybe ’68, I joined the Black Panthers.  My brothers respected me for my work, man.  I did everything I could to get marijuana legalised.  Try doing something like that.

Aquarius

Visit San Francisco, man.  I don’t wanna go on about it, but this place makes London look like, the… fucking Moon, man.  All the great things in this world came from San Francisco.  

Leo

People think that Lion’s are fierce creatures.  But really they are just brave.  Be brave, man.  Roar.  ‘Cos in this world of money and surplus goods, you have to be brave to say “No, I’m going to drop out and listen to some Electric Prunes.”  Peace.

Thanks Aaron! 
Who would you like to see guest our horoscope section next month?
- A Reagan Era Patriot
- An French Philosopher
- A Russian Oligarch

Please vote!
[ previous horoscopes 2 1 ]

Look, I don’t mean to be insensitive but let’s admit, we’ve been kinda stupid.

Watching Question Time last night (you know, cos I’m like, well clever) the tired mantra of ‘blame the bankers’ is becoming clear for what it is:  embarrassment.

Let’s imagine an episode of The Real Hustle.  With this show, half the time is spent thinking “Does this really happen?” and the other half thinking “That would never happen to me”.  But the truth is, like the hustlers prove every week, that normal people can be hoodwinked pretty easily by preying on their desires.  Those victims end up looking rather silly (unless it’s one of those episodes where the stunt is so overly elaborate it’s less a hustle and merely a short term business plan).

Now, I don’t wanna let the bankers off the hook, but let’s be honest – they were doing what bankers do.  With a problem this big, there is never just one group of people to blame.

The government allowed it to happen.  Our government was the bankers dancing partner in all this, swept off its feet from the drama of prosperity and growth.  They encouraged irresponsible lending and created the conditions for it to happen.

The media played its part.  How any of those involved in the countless property shows can show their faces in public or on the TV anymore is beyond me.  These programs out and out enthused about the liberal fiscal policies that we should all adopt – buying to let, buying three houses, indenturing yourself to debt for 25 years on the presumption that you’ll be buying and selling as we go.

But come on, we played our part too.  If it wasn’t property, would we really have spent money on something that we knew was massively over inflated in price?  I bet we wouldn’t.  We were doing what the bankers were doing – trying to make a quick buck.  We figured, Sure, this house is expensive, but when I sell it in two years time, I’ll make it back – maybe I’ll even buy another even bigger house. 

It seems that constantly blaming the bankers is a sort of projection – putting all the blame on them because we’re too embarrassed to admit we were trying to do that same thing.

You may argue “But that’s not true – according to free market economics, something is worth exactly what we pay for it.  If I buy that house for 400k, then it’s worth 400k.”

This is true – but we weren’t paying for it were we?  And that’s the problem.  We asked the bankers to do it for us.  We offered them 25 years of service, a cut of our wages and the threat of repossession if we fell behind in our payments.

Geez, sounds like a raw deal.  What kind of idiot would get hustled into that.  Hmmm.

The history of nations is splattered with the blood soaked glory of invasion, conquest, defeat and defiance.  At the same time, every nation has a slightly embarrassing episode in their military history when their exploits were less than impressive.  Some are famous, some so spectacularly half-arsed people have forgotten them.  Here is a collection of some of those historical gems.

#3 Italy Invades Southern France June 1940

Intended Outcome: Taking a bite of the invasion pie, increasing influence and flexing military muscles

If some of you are surprised to hear that Italy also invaded France in WW2, nobody blames you, this episode is worthy of ignorance.

There was no strategic importance to the invasion – after all, the majority of the French and British forces were being routed in the north of France.  So far, Germany had invaded Poland, Belgium, Holland and France and was at war with Britain too, but due to a well equipped army and frighteningly effective tactics they were whooping ass. 

Mussolini on the other hand had only held a few military parades through Rome and had been seen folding his arms aggressively once or twice. His input had been no more substantial than acting in the role of “substitute that will never, ever be used unless victory is certain”.  Feeling a bit jealous of his buddy and convinced of an easy victory over an already beaten France (who in desperation had offered an armistice the day before) Mussolini ordered the invasion.

Actual Outcome: Heavy casualties, embarrassment, relegation to the Hall of “Let’s Just Not Mention That Shall We” Fame

At this time, even though Mussolini had attempted to convince Hitler otherwise, the Italian army was totally useless.  The last time it had seen any proper action was when Mussolini had ordered (in another act of brazen cowardice) the invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia).  He should have heeded the warning when the Italian army actually found it kind of difficult.

Badly equipped, badly trained and made largely of conscripts, the Italian Army would have struggled to invade the Vatican. 

The invasion resulted in little success, even though there was only a skeleton defence force. The soldiers who would have normally been there were attending the party to the north, and the elite Alpine troops had scuttled off to Norway (yes, Germany had invaded them too). 

After delays following a storm in the Alps, the Italian army was held up at the Cote d’Azur by an NCO and seven soldiers (which I suspect was actually the JLA’s initial foray into the war).  The invasion was a totally retarded attempt at gaining credibility that actually resulted in more casualties for the Italians than the French.  The Italians continued to occupy (in the most minimal sense you can imagine) the tiny part they had taken over until 1943, when they capitulated and Germany stepped in.

                                                                                                                                            Crippling Shame

What They Should Have Done

Watched German invasions on replay and copied them.

#2 James IV of Scotland Invades England September 1513

Intended Outcome: Alleviating pressure on Scotland’s ally France, general glory and plunder

What is slightly more depressing about this infamous episode in Scottish history is the fact that it wasn’t important until they made such a cock up of it.

Henry VIII of England had recently taken an army over to Europe with a view to pissing off the French.  This was in retaliation to the King of France pissing off the King of Spain and pissing off the Pope.  France decided to invoke the ‘Auld Alliance’ they had with Scotland as they were getting a bit tired of fighting three people at once by themselves, and asked James IV to piss of Henry by invading the hell out of England.  James IV happily obliged as England had been pissing Scotland off in the same way that they have been doing ever since and he figured he could also take the opportunity to extend Scotland’s borders a bit while indulging is some good old fashioned pillaging and looting which was very much in vogue at the time.

Actual Outcome: Death of James IV and practically all the nobility of Scotland, an Archbishop and 10,000 Scots

Underestimating the English is a common mistake.  Germany did it (1940), Napoleon did it (1815), Argentina did it (1982), and even Zanzibar did it (1896).  In this case, tragically so did James IV. 

But it wasn’t like England was simply kick-ass awesome on the day.  The English didn’t try any harder than usual.  Cruel as it may seem (and the reason it appears on this list in the first place) the reason the Scots lost so badly was due to mistakes that they made themselves.

The Battle of Flodden Field should have been won by the Scots.  They had the larger army (30,000 vs 26,000), newer weapons and the strategic advantage of being the first there allowing them to get into a better position.

These advantages eventually lead to their downfall however.

The problem was that the Scots were in a much better position by the time the English arrived over the horizon.  Their position was so much better in fact that the Earl of Surrey who was leading the army invited King James to come join him on a more even playing field.  In those days, battles were neatly arranged, could be planned days, even weeks in advance and apart from the carnage and death that took place, were an altogether civilised affair.  Naturally James declined, forcing Surrey to out flank the Scottish army.

The fact that the Scottish army also had newer weapons meant that those using them weren’t actually trained with them.  They were long pikes from Switzerland that were most effectively used in rigid and well disciplined formation – something the Scottish conscripts lacked.  They were also on top of a hill facing down, diminishing their effectiveness even more.

What They Should Have Done

Firstly, I wouldn’t advise any invading army to bring all their most important leaders into a fray that, on the scale of things was not that important.

Secondly, they should have left James behind.  Brave and bold though he was, he failed to capitalise on his advantage and was simply out-generaled.  His tactics were crap basically.

#1 Italy Invades Greece October 1941

Intended Outcome:  Nothing Strategic or Ideological, just in an invasiony kind of mood.  Probably something to do with the Roman Empire.

No really.  There was no need for the Axis to open up a front in Greece.  Hitler wasn’t planning anything with it, it held no significant strategic importance and as long as it remained neutral (although at most friendly towards the allies) it just simply wasn’t a problem.  Mussolini managed to manipulate Balkan politics in a way that made his invasion inevitable, but prior to that, everything was fine.

The best answer people can come up with was that Mussolini was jealous of Hitler’s success.  Blinded by his ego, he figured that conquering Greece would be a feather in his cap – never mind that he still had a mostly unproven army or that way more important things were going on else where.  I think old Benito thought that, just being on the side of the Germans guaranteed him some kind of victory, obviously not fully appreciating the strategic and tactical genius that was the German high command.

Actual Outcome:  Initial invasion floundered. Had to call in Germany to help them, resulting in a delayed invasion of Russia, Germany being caught out by Russian winter, losing Stalingrad and Moscow and eventually the whole war.  Worst ally ever.

The story of the invasion reads more like a list of mishaps and mistakes occurring one after the other.

Immediately after the initial conflicts the Albanian troops allied with the Italians deserted or defected.  One of the generals, Spiro Moisiu, would actually lead the Albanian Anti-Fascist Army after the war, so clearly there was a conflict of interest.

The Italian tanks also found the rocky terrain of Northern Greece difficult to negotiate which slowed the attack.

In writing this, I am trying to turn what happened into something amusing, but really this paragraph from Wikipedia sums it up (yet is still hilarious):

On October 31 the Italian Supreme Command announced that "Our units continue to advance into Epirus and have reached the river Kalamas at several points. Unfavourable weather conditions and action by the retreating enemy are not slowing down the advances of our troops". But in reality, the Italian offensive was carried out without conviction and without the advantage of surprise (not even for air action which was rendered ineffective by poor weather), under a leadership uncertain and divided by personal rivalries, and was already becoming exhausted. Adverse conditions at sea made impossible to do a projected landing at Corfu. By November 1, the Italians had captured Konitsa and reached the Greek main line of defence. On that same day, the Albanian theatre was given priority over Africa by the Italian High Command. However, despite repeated attacks the Italians failed to break through the Greek defences and the attacks were suspended on November 9.

In the end the Italian army found themselves actually being beaten by the Greeks.  The Italians ended up having to take defensive positions against the Greeks until the Germans turned up to help in March 1941.  It is from this date that history records this as the beginning of The Battle of Greece which just goes to show how piss-poor the 5 months of Italian invasion really had been:  it wasn’t even considered worthy of a battle.

By the time the Germans managed to conquer all of Greece and Crete (if one doesn’t include the awesomely effective partisans) it was late Spring of 1941.  Having delayed his planned invasion of Russia, Hitler then dedicated a significant portion of his army to occupying Greece before invading Russia. 

Hitler is reported to have been well pissed off with Mussolini at this point and was beginning to doubt his effectiveness as an ally.  Meanwhile, Britain and France were beginning to think that Mussolini had been bluffing the whole time and secretly hated Hitler and Nazism – he had after all posed the greatest threat to Nazi dominance so far.

With the invasion of Russia delayed, the Wehrmacht were unable to secure Moscow or Stalingrad by the winter.  They basically lost the whole frickin’ war because of Mussolini.  In the words of Hitler himself (someone who was prone to spread-blaming):

"if the Italians hadn't attacked Greece and needed our help, the war would have taken a different course. We could have anticipated the Russian cold by weeks and conquered Leningrad and Moscow. There would have been no Stalingrad"

Personally, I am surprised Hitler bothered to sacrifice his own elite SS troops in an effort to rescue Mussolini after he was captured and held by Italian partisans.  Seriously.  Mussolini was so shit, while still ‘leader’ of Italy, he gets captured and held in a fortress by his own people and has to be rescued by the SS.  I’ll say it again:  worst ally ever.

What They Should Have Done:

In fairness, in the end the Italians did the right thing.  They got rid of Mussolini (although their methods were somewhat un-modern).  So really it goes without saying that what they should have done was not let him pretend he was any kind of military leader in the first place.  And neither should’ve Hitler.