Joshua Funnell2013-05-25T17:28:20-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=joshua-funnellCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Joshua FunnellGood old fashioned elbow grease.Comedy Finally Gets Political, an Interview With Comedian Lee Camptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23813522012-12-29T14:22:49-05:002013-02-28T05:12:01-05:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/Mock the Week in the UK to see the soggy array of so called 'talent' that adorns our screens each week to find proof. Safe, boring, reverent comedy, that glamorises the most mundane irrelevancies of our lives and is venerated by a society that rewards it so handsomely for its blandness.
To paraphrase Bill Hicks, why do we celebrate mediocrity and ignore those with real edge, or god forbid, a message? Instead we "kill those people... and let the demons run amok". Because the killing of renegade comedians needn't be literal, you need only ignore them and deny them any airtime, hence eradicating their POV and preventing the population having their comfort zones breached by new ideas that could provoke new thinking.
To illustrate this trend in the UK I need only name the insufferable Michael McIntyres and Russell Howards of the world, who've made careers for themselves discussing the compelling intricacies of buying milk from shops - all of course for the consumption of the apolitical clapping seal middle classes. Even childhood heroes like Paul Whitehouse of The Fast Show era have resorted to selling car insurance. This is the bind the "first post-ideological generation" finds itself in, a world that isn't allowed to believe in anything, with our comedians reflecting equally nothing.
Even those who do dare to satirise the powerful in our society engage in nothing more than a ironic reactive poke at their antics, with no more sophistication to their analysis than soap opera TV critics. To counter this vacuum, the population has started overdosing on irony as a coping mechanism for their decaying surroundings. The problem with irony as David Foster Wallace has pointed out is "Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy the cage."
So in this age of war, neo imperialism, rampant inequality, the co-option of politics by the corporate world, a decaying environment and the commodification of everything, where are the comic voices to mount a much needed challenge? I caught up with the American comedian and OWS activist Lee Camp for a moment of clarity on these problems. Lee embodies an unconventional view of America that challenges the much promoted myth/lie that "America is a conservative nation". And no, he's not also Nottingham Forest football clubs No.1 goalkeeper.
What's your assessment of 'mainstream' comedy today? Bill Hicks would always decry the trend in American culture to celebrate mediocrity, because those with edge tend to challenge the status quo, how much would you agree with him?
I definitely agree. That hasn't changed. Even comics who I think are quite good, when they're finally given a spot on a late night show or whatever, they're told to slow it down, water it down, and dumb it down (maybe not in those words). So what you see on most shows doesn't challenge the audience at all. As you'll recall even Hicks final performance on Letterman was cut because of the issues he tackled. That hasn't changed.
A ongoing debate between me and my friends is the difference between a comedian and a joke teller. Do you think that comedians with politics and values are the most effective entertainers? Is the decoupling of politics from comedy healthy or should it instead be encouraged?
I think combining comedy and cultural commentary or politics is very important, perhaps crucial. That doesn't mean comedy should ONLY be that type. But I do wish we would see more of it.
Who do you think are the best comedians both past and present and why?
I don't wanna say "best" because comedians mean different things to different people. But I'll tell you the ones who influenced me the most (and therefore are the ones I like the most). Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Dennis Miller, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg, and Chris Rock. They all are/were, amazing for different reasons. Some of them are no longer amazing because they're gone. Others are no longer amazing because they turned into right-wing lunatics (you know who you are). I was also heavily influenced by Seinfeld.
How important is comedy for the left? (because let's face it, we're getting hammered, so if we don't laugh we'll drown in our own cynical tears).
Very important.
I noticed that you've recently collaborated with Peter Joseph - the Zeitgeist movement founder - and his new series "Culture in Decline". I wondered how seriously you take his vision of a resource-based economy; is there space for such radical ideas in our broken politics?
In terms of a "resource based economy," I think it's important to dream big. Is it idealistic? Yes. Does that mean it can't be talked about? No. Is a world without war idealistic? Certainly. But people talk about it and hope for it all the time. Whether it's possible to get to a point where we live by the carrying capacity of the earth or not, it's important to think about it. And let's face it, if we don't get there, many of us will die off soon anyway. I'm hoping it's all the people watching "Two And A Half Men."
Expressing the views you do can attract negative responses, how do you deal with that criticism personally and what advice would you give to aspiring young comedians apprehensive about being castigated?
Well, if you aren't pissing anyone off then you aren't pushing people to think beyond the norm. Sometimes it can be a badge of honor. How do I deal with it? Well, I ignore a lot of it. But some of it I use for segments and various things. I'll be filming a new project soon where a fellow comedian reads my hate mail and then argues with me from that perspective. Should be fun. But yeah, I guess I use the hate mail in whatever way I can.
I wake up most mornings, read the headlines, and can't help but conclude we're screwed. Keeping up morale seems to me to be extremely important for the left today, I wonder how you maintain optimism and fight for (not Obama like) change?
I just resign myself to defeat. Then the rest is fun and games. No, I'm kidding, but only partially. I have resigned myself to the fact that I can only have a little effect. But it's an important effect. So I will keep doing what I do and hope others do what they can do. It adds up. It really does. I was a small a piece of saving a death row inmate in Texas a few years back. I was a small piece of Occupy. I've been a small piece of many important moments. And anyone and everyone can do it. So why not? What else is life about? For me it's about being that small drop in the tidal wave. I don't want to see the tidal wave change the world and say I watched it from the hill.
To those people that still insist upon defending Barack Obama's abysmal record in office, what would you say to them?
I don't blame them. And I'll defend some of the things he's done. But I will keep fighting to get us out of this preposterous and disastrous two party plutocracy. We have a choice between center right and far right. How is that a choice? It's a choice between driving the car into the middle of the wall or the side of the wall. I guess if you vote for the guy pointing the car at the side of the wall, then you can say, "Well, we almost missed the wall." It's not a real choice.
If you had to identify the biggest issues in our world today, what would they be and why should people give a shit about them?
Money in politics. Finding a sustainable way of life so that our planet doesn't collapse. And finally I think it's important to hunt down the 100 million people who watched the video clip entitled "Girl getting her nipple pierced freaks out." Then we find them, just yell "bad human" at them while beating them with a flip-flop. ...And people should give a shit about these issues because we're better than this. We really are. We're living our lives as idiot slaves, and the best kind of slaves are the ones who think they're free.
What projects does Lee Camp have in the pipeline and what are his ultimate ambitions?
Thank you for finally referring to me in the third person. I have a strict code of human interaction and you were breaking the third person rule until just now. ...The projects in the pipeline are a new book that I'm editing--the follow up to the first Moment of Clarity book. And of course I'll keep making the free Moment of Clarity videos which people can get at LeeCamp.net. I'm also working on a new version of Moment of Clarity that will hopefully be a cool, more in-depth, larger-scale version. People should keep checking LeeCamp.net or @LeeCamp on Twitter to hear about that. And of course I'm always touring all over. I'll be in the US, Canada, and the UK at least this year.
*If you enjoyed this article, then please like, share, and retweet to bring it to a wider audience. Your support is greatly appreciated.]]>Arsenal 'on the Road' ... to Nothingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22253662012-12-01T21:22:33-05:002013-01-31T05:12:02-05:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
I remember vividly those lamentable hours I spent in my maths class. A perverse situation emerged in which my school judo teacher was also my maths teacher. As you might expect, algebra and martial arts weren't a match made in heaven. You'd sit there not knowing whether you'd have a sum thrown at you or literally be thrown on the floor. In this state of severe anxiety, I'd be forced to sit there looking like a threatened cat; my mind would switch to full defence mode as I sat incapable of creative thought or action.
I sense this same fear in players whilst I sit here watching my beloved Arsenal, who resemble more and more a team of soldiers back from a tour of Iraq suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I used to call this "Theo Walcott Syndrome", because every time the young winger/striker would get the ball in a potentially dangerous position, you'd bear witness to him freeze up anxiously and that foreboding Kill Bill music would start playing from when 'Black Mamba' Uma Thurman suffers traumatic flash backs. Invariably he would then proceed to sky a cross past every single player in a red shirt, or play a nothing pass to nobody in a bid to please every single conceivable football critic in the world. The predictable result was a complete lack of meaningful penetration, tepid water, an X Factor Christmas Number 1, and unfortunately this disorder seems to be spreading through the team.
In his book, On the Road, author Jack Kerouac describes people in life who have "it". That indescribable energy sourced from all that's good and exciting in the world and yet conveyed effortlessly through life's great characters. Thierry Henry had it... Gervinho does not.
I have no doubt that all of Arsenal's squad can probably balance a football on the ends of their penises and juggle it whilst playing a game of Fifa; they're without question technically gifted players. But they all seem presently to lack it. You can see it in the way that Arsenal time and time again pile forward after what seems an endless spell of possession, and fail to stab meaningfully in to the opposition's defence. They arrive at the edge of the 18-yard box and there's a sort of hostile stand off, not only with the oppositions defence, but with other Arsenal players themselves - none of whom seem willing to take responsibility and try something creative. They call it creating chances for a reason; because you need to take a chance to create one. Instead back we go to the defence, or even the goalkeeper, round and round the monopoly board without ever buying anything, all foreplay and no sex. We're so good at this we've even created our own commentary team cliché: "Arsenal are enjoying the majority of possession, but are still yet to score".
We've gotten away with this in the past because we had players like Patrick Viera, Cesc Fàbregas, or to a lesser extent Alex Song, who could pick out a timely wonder pass. We also had Dutch strikers who could make goals out of cereal boxes and toilet roll tube. Today, without similar HR readily available, I fear more classically functioning strikers like Podolski or Giroud will be left stranded with little to no service, and Gervinho is... well... Gervinho. Wilshere's been out of the game for a long time and there's no assurance he can deliver the same high standard we became so accustomed to, not for some time at least. This is equally applicable to Rosický , who in recent seasons has done nothing more than haunt the Emirates like the ghost of glories past with Andrei Arshavin. Arteta is a pretty player, but for me it's largely style over substance. Ramsey tries hard but his final end product is as consistent as a bipolar teenager's prescription. Cazorla is a saving grace, but he is but one man and endless frustrations with fellow teammates will slowly erode his confidence. Abou "we hope we can keep him fit" Diaby, is injured, as always.
The 'ghosts of glories past' are killing our team. Arsenal are stalling as they do so often, because they lack confidence. They're weighed down by the ever-looming spectre of 'The Invincibles' and the glory days still etched in our memories. For players, that contrived camera shot snide TV producers like to play before and after every Arsenal game - where the camera pans round the stadium's empty silverware spaces - is on loop in their minds 24/7; it must be utterly debilitating.
Yet Arsenal fans would do well to remember that comparative to rivals, 'their club' have a far more modest pool of resources. Additionally, the hyped expectations of present are due to the overachievements of the past. Mega money culture has stubbed us out of the Premier League elite, pure and simple. So when we nostalgically look back to the good old days leading up to 2005, we should consider how the situation has financially changed when bemoaning the comparative failures of now; the old rules no longer apply. And we should ask ourselves, do we want to be a club that shamelessly throws money at 'success' like an Oligarch throws £50 notes at a stripper? What do Arsenal fans - who predictably cry out for 'more spending' each season - actually believe in I wonder? As Ian Jack recently wrote, when Arsenal fans yelp "we want our Arsenal back" what do they even mean? We're currently owned by two questionable foreign tycoons and fans have absolutely no say in how the club is run, bar a token piecemeal admittance.
Arsenal's loyally capricious fans don't normally help things either, staying largely silent in their massive stadium even if the team's winning (an embarrassment), yet find the energy to passionately boo if they've been robbed a victory they feel entitled to, like spoiled children. Meanwhile the 'die hards' are either priced out of the ground or outnumbered by the passive, prawn sandwich munching, corporate box filling 'guests'.
If Arsenal want to get it back, they're going to have to start building their performances around the examples of gritty players like Carl Jenkinson. He played on Saturday as he always does; with complete commitment and newly acquired composure. Jenkinson possesses an organ that Arsenal are crucially lacking, and that, sadly, is heart - an increasingly rare find in a wider football culture that is fundamentally lacking a soul.]]>Dear BBC, More Owen Jones's on Question Time Please!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21934482012-11-26T15:09:42-05:002013-01-26T05:12:01-05:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/Question Time. Consecutive laptops have been placed in mortal danger as I watch the same poisoned formula concocted each week by the alchemists Dimbleby & co. Consequently my dad has effectively banned me from regarding it with him, due to my Peep Show (on extremely bitter steroids) style analysis of the weekly 'debate'.
Predictably, week after week the BBC wheels out what it honestly believes are a diverse panel of politicians and commentators from all sides of the political spectrum. Sadly, what the BBC doesn't seem to understand, is that in this post Thatcher land we occupy with that other lady TINA (There Is No Economic Alternative) who roams around jacked up on deregulated free market transactions, is that Question Time's 'diversity' is akin to a civilised discussion between cans of Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Coke. Liberal democracies and real choices apparently aren't guaranteed.
Bless the BBC, its part of the establishment and doesn't even know it, doddering around like a well intentioned - but naïve - community organiser for the Conservative Party. The ever 'objective' BBC for example, once reported that it was, 'a fact' that George Bush and TB wanted to, export democracy to Iraq. Media analysts Media Lens were stunned by this factual claim, so asked former head of BBC news, Helen Boaden, for evidence proving this as fact. She responded to this request, I kid you not, with three pages of quotes copy and pasted from Bush and Blair speeches in which they claimed implementing democracy to Iraq was their real objective... This embarrassing example of journalistic naivety provokes the image of a sex attack victim gratefully accepting a glass laced with Rohypnol from a would be predator. This incompetence could be excusable, even almost palatable as black comedy, if it wasn't for its corrosive impact on public discourse.
With these thoughts in mind, I riddle you to find a guest on that illustrious Question Time panel that harbours a mere atom of anti capitalist sentiment, or what we call, 'a real left alternative'. They're about as likely to appear as an enthusiastic anarchist at a Goldman Sachs recruitment centre. The sum total of this incessant exclusion is to frustrate and alienate a significant proportion of the population, who are televisionally disenfranchised. I feel this myself; you sit there over time thinking, 'f*ck, where do I come in to this discussion? Maybe my egalitarian sentiments are nuts after all, maybe conservative uncle Kev was right all along'.
But QT's makeup exemplifies a stagnant political clique; utterly unresponsive and incapable of bending to the needs of people over big business like an arthritically fused spine. So over time, this constant exclusion of alternative views drip-feeds an insidious lesson to the British people: 'This is the political line, don't cross it, we are the establishment and if you disagree, you're excluded from plonking yourself on one of these holy TV thrones'.
And so, Question Time bears partial responsibility for people not voting; it demoralises the public in to submission by exclusion of meaningful dissent. It has even provoked a number of online QT drinking games, presumably contrived to help viewers cope whilst watching. So thank Christ, Owen 'epic moisturizer' Jones arrived on the panel recently, shooting down zealots like Eastwood in a desert. Academic. Intellectual. Hero. Lad.
Admittedly, other than Owen Jones, the BBC does sometimes have a few too many shandys, goes mental and books someone like Jonny Rotten. The Rottens of the panel normally serve as de-facto left wingers/comic relief. For example, Rotten will say something inane and we're all supposed to think
'Haha, Mr Rotten has expressed an inarticulate stupid opinion, how naïve and foolish of him, unlike these sensible well groomed men in suits, left wing politics must equally be stupid and of little significance'
The net result, again, is to subliminally inform viewers 'this is the spectrum for serious men and women, and those outside this consensus aren't credible'.
By contrast Jones' appearance is an anomaly and makes him potentially dangerous to the establishment; he's an articulate, very well informed young man who can argue with the best of them. Most impressively of all, he gives professional cynics like me a sense of hope and empowerment, and if sales of his book, CHAVS, The Demonization of the Working Class, are anything to go by, I'm not alone.
His Question Time emergence was an affront to the cosy consensus that incubates the sheltered likes of Iain Duncan Smith. IDS - the uber Tory - was so clearly riled by this young punk ranger from the north, that he proceeded to address him like a child who'd spoken out of turn at a formal grownup dinner party, "we've heard quite enough from you" he chastised Jones like a schoolmaster twitching to use his cain. It was a symbolic moment, to witness a young individual confidently, cogently and unashamedly voicing a left alternative future to neo liberal fossils, undermining the QT clichés we're all so bored of.
IDS was driven to emotiveness because figures such as himself are rarely substantively challenged by political rivals; to do so would be 'ill manors'. Owen Jones was unwilling to conform to the rules of the game, he wouldn't sit there and reaffirm in a one sided fashion. He wouldn't stay silent when the UK's disabled are being driven to death by ATOS's 'fit for work' tests. Instead he called bullshit on the consensus: Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms destroy peoples lives - sometimes literally - pandering to the Victorian prejudices clung to by demagogues.
Voices like Jones' are an essential antidote to a putrid politics that fails to address human need. Censorship needn't be redacted passages crudely covered in black ink, or a conveniently pulled microphone cord; instead it is to simply exclude and filter out alternative views. Question Time and media content more broadly, must open it's doors frequently to the likes of Owen Jones, or mainstream media, much like mainstream politics, shall deservedly become redundant.
* If you agree with this article then do something original; contact the BBC and positively complain about Owen Jones inclusion on Question Time, demand more similar voices instead of the consistently unrepresentative public discussions we are currently granted. Make a positive complaint here: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor]]>Skyfall: A Political Reviewtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20760132012-11-05T08:49:33-05:002013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/puff pastry.
But then you get older and become more aware of the world characters like James Bond actually represent. As Matt Damon put it in 2007, only to be slammed:
"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it"
In a more reasonable world, it would be hard to argue with this assessment, in fact, there's 22 films now in a DVD Blu-ray box set, an extended testimony to Damon's assertion.
Man feelings
The way out of this 'charming part time sociopath with a gun' conundrum in the past, was to draw attention to Bond's troubled childhood. The implication being that his relentless binges of killing, sex and alcohol, was real life escapism from his emo traumas of old, with benders filling the empty voids between missions - 'Go easy on the lad, he's had a hard life' was the sentiment.
But Skyfall seems to of decided it's time for Bond to 'get over' his hang ups about his babyhood, to 'man up' - the lads rallying cry of our epoch. In one of the least subtlety symbolic final set pieces in movie history (*spoiler alert*) Bond goes about (with the aid of the films Latino villain) obliterating his family home, in a manor that trigger tears of joy trickling down the cheeks of the joint chiefs of staff at the US DOD. The message this transmits is: 'Bond, man the fuck up and get over it, only by doing so can you continue to function and do-people-over abroad in future movies in service to the empire.'
This kind of violence and destruction seems to be the only way mainstream male culture is able to deal with feelings, or by bottling them up until they drive us from within like high joy riders. Skyfall's therapy session is no different, not taking place on a psychologists elongated sofa, but fired out the barrels of a Mingun from a helicopter gunship. Bond's painful childhood memories are literally blown to pieces in front of him. I felt like the director was sitting in a chair next to me, winking reassuringly: "not to worry Josh old friend, in the next film all this male emotion stuff will be permanently buried, and James can get on with what he does best: getting on it, fucking and shooting to her majesties satisfaction".
The A-Team
Then you have the A-Team syndrome throughout. The heads of British intelligence are constantly pestered by pesky bureaucrats demanding, outrageously, to hold them to account to the very democracy they funded by and supposedly serve. So during a scene at a government hearing, where M is questioned, the standardized bureaucrat Play-Doh mould is wheeled out; a self serving careerists who rambles on for self aggrandizement. How dare she question M, the head of MI6 only made the small mistake of losing data pertaining to the whereabouts of every single imbedded NATO agent in the world....
Instead what we're supposed to do is place our faith in the public school network of the righteous and allow them to go rogue and take all necessary measures to secure the commonwealth. This is the same crap wheeled out to justify torturing people in the States, or providing the government extraordinary powers like the Terrorism act or the Patriot Act. 'Trust us with life or death powers, we know best, let the grown ups get on with the dirty work whilst you enjoy your consumer paradises'.
This exceptionalist theme is all the more insulting when you consider the dirty history of both MI5 and MI6. One key example is the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 by MI6 and the CIA. The government was replaced by the Brutal regime led by the Shah. All this in order to allow British and American oil interests back in to a sector recently nationalized for the benefit of the indigenous population. A scene at the start of the film, set in a Turkish market, in which Bond and co conduct a real life Team America operation, culminating in crudely crashing in to a stall at an exotic food market, is all to reminiscent of the above historical belligerence.
In terms of the accountability explored in the film, it is portrayed as nothing more than a nuisance. Former MI5 agent, Annie Machon - who left the service as a disillusioned whistleblower in 1997 - recently said in an interview, discussing her recruitment at the end of the cold war:
"they...at that point had just been put on a legal footing for the VERY FIRST TIME (my emphasis) in their 80-year history. So they reassured me that they had to obey the law, just like the rest of us"
She went on to say:
"they were established in 1909, and until 1989 they didn't officially exist. There was no oversight. No member of Parliament could ever question what they got up to. They could do what they wanted."
So is this what the new Bond is really asking us to indulge? The favoured myth of any generation, that nothings like 'the good old days'. Lets go back to the effective days of old where we weren't democratically accountable and could overthrow to our hearts content.
In this sense Bond films serve as a periodical PR job for the intelligence services, imbedding them in to the very fabric of what it means to believe in Britain. The opening ceremony at the Olympics couldn't have made this any clearer.
With Bond the critical faculties of UK reviewers and the film going public generally, are temporarily suspended. Because Bond is 'our thing', one of the last bastions of the British film industry (at least for appearances sake) holding out in a normally money starved wasteland. Because of this, all the worst social elements this film represents are ignored, or accepted, all as necessary components of this oldest of film franchises. It may just be a film, but the attitudes it encourages are insidiously formative to the modern understanding of British identity.]]>'The Revolution Will be Televised'... but Not Where Anyone can See Ittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18365392012-08-28T12:06:42-04:002012-10-28T05:12:04-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
The alternative media, although reliable, has no impact and thus dangles a big carrot of potential in front of our faces, leading nowhere. Because of this, when I lapse from the self-imposed celibacy regime, prime time television exists only to laugh at like a resentful director on a DVD commentary, slating the incompetence and poor quality of the production. This commentary is my survival mechanism; the equivalent of chanting for Jesus's protection whilst being set upon by horny blood thirsty vampires (yes, I watch True Blood).
The final straw for me in this bland matrix of prime time TV opinion, came last week; the BBC news camera cut too early to beloved Hugh Edwards on the 9 o'clock news. Hugh was accidentally shown pre-emptively positioning his head in to the: 'serious position' - the head placed to one side with a corresponding raised eyebrow - anticipating his opening establishing shot. Hugh was doing this to reassure us he was a serious journalist, with a serious eyebrow we could invest in. If his journalism was as well plucked, me might be a little less hopelessly confused and misinformed. Yet this was the perfect illustration of the style over substance approach of BBC News.
For reasons such as the above, folks like myself trawl the air waves for the odd nugget of hope for humanity, amongst a surging mass of ignorant hate driven tommyrot - so thank Christ for BBC 3's, "The Revolution will be Televised", it has never been more needed.
The reason this show is so brilliant isn't even because it's funny - although luckily it happens to be hilarious. No. The reason it's so important is purely because it exists at all. I can't believe I'm actually about to write these words: the BBC has commissioned a comedy show that espouses anti-Capitalist, anti-monarchy, and anti-war sentiments - not just espouses - but unashamedly and proudly lays them out on the table for people to deal with, without apologising.
For example: Who could deny the absurd hilarity of witnessing ignorant celebrities boasting about their designer suits on screen, and yet when asked about the privatisation of the NHS, they had no opinions to offer on the matter whatsoever. For me it was a profound moment in television, showing the craziness of a culture that obsesses over such vacuous people, who not only are economically detached from most people's realities, but who have fuck all to say about the societies in which they technically live.
And yet it is these empty Christmas tree baubles that are so frequently adorned by our medias attention. Seeing this recurring cultural joke obliterated within 30 seconds of a well-conceived comedy sketch made me literally cheer at the screen.
The BBC of today displays a range of opinion that rarely strays from the hollow, superficial soap opera that is neo-liberal politics. This is not controversial if you study your history. Read "Power without Responsibility" by James Curran, the leading authority on the UK press and media. He documents extensively how the BBC has never sought to challenge the prevailing order of power, and has consistently colluded with that very force - and if not, has been forcefully neutered by Thatcher, Blair et al. Additionally, review for yourself the committed work of Media Lens, an independent organisation dealing in media scrutiny, who have extensively documented over a decade, the frequent ideological biases in the BBC for Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism, and an aggressive interventionist foreign policy. They provide a damning array of evidence clearly showing this trend. Only a true moron like Peter Hitchens could claim- without hysterics - that the BBC are "a left wing organisation".
"The Revolution Will Be Televised" has given a platform for the all too often forgotten, disaffected, disenfranchised and angry hidden iceberg of opinion in this country. Opinion that felt sickened by the fawning, servile, all-round credulous moronic coverage of the diamond jubilee. Or likewise, the national media imposed euphoria surrounding the Olympic Games, which to question became a thought crime, or outlawed as unwelcome "naughtiness" as documented in the show itself. Or the revolting way in which a financial crisis perpetrated by unaccountable economic powerhouses has been reversed around and used to punish the majority of the population, with devastating austerity drives. Meanwhile the BBC has stood on the sidelines and done nothing to condemn this disgraceful insanity day after day. The fundamental public role of journalism - to defend the public interest from abuses of economic or political power - has been forgotten. Often the biggest lies the BBC tell come via their eerie silence on important matters. Thank Christ this programme, like the 'Mark Thomas Comedy Product' on Channel 4 years before it, provides some brief respite from an onslaught of distortions and half-truths.
But, as you'd expect, the show poses a dilemma. The very fact that it is shown on BBC3 at 10.30 PM on a Monday evening provides us insight. Shows like this, and the politics they promote, are pushed to the fringe by schedulers. The inexplicit lesson the schedulers teach us is this: these are the fringe perspectives of young cranks, unworthy of prime time slots and major audiences. We know from shows like the 'Mighty Boosh' that the fringe can be pulled to the mainstream with the right amount of support. However, the odds are undeniably stacked against this show. The BBC may be able to turn around and say, "nobody watched it", and pull it, ignoring the fact it was deprived a fair hearing on a prime time slot on BBC2. Yet in fairness to the BBC, a fringe slot is better than none at all and they should be applauded for this.
But this is where we come in. We need to send complaints to the BBC via the following link. We need to show we exist and that there is a demand for these kinds of perspectives. Instead of complaining about the show per se, let us complain that it's so important, it's worthy of a bigger audience. Let them know we are disheartened it fails to have bestowed upon it the Holy Grail: a prime time TV slot.
This may all seem like a dramatic response to a comedy show, but it is far from a joke. If we do not start to demand diversity in our media culture, we will one day awake in a world that has forgotten there was ever the possibility, of other possibilities.
Post your complaints here:
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor]]>Beware of the Evil Tradesmentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17045722012-07-26T03:20:55-04:002012-09-24T05:12:25-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
An assembled army of moral indignados chase after an ant leaving a nest with a piece of unregistered leaf. Meanwhile, behind them, an ant eater arrives, hoovers up the entire ants nest with it's snout and then leaves the country. However, for days after, the media - in collusion with the ant eater politicians - rally against the evil of the ant's unregistered piece of leaf which deprives the society of the leafs benefits, describing the ant's actions as "morally wrong".
What a ridiculous example you're thinking. Exactly. Ridiculous is the only word to describe the Conservative government's attitude to the entire tax dodging continuum - ranging from humble avoidance to outright fraud.
What other conclusions can we draw from a week in which credible reports tell us how 32 trillion dollars lummoxes around in offshore tax havens. A sizeable chunk of which could and should belong to the UK treasury and yet the government instead reacts publicly by condemning "tradesmen" for their moral bankruptcy doing cash in hand work. This is like a peace activist watching someone detonate a nuclear bomb and then complaining how some bloke shot back aggressively with a catapult. Or if Pokémon cards were ever your thing it's like Charizard pressing assault charges against the plant character Weedle.
But surely the fine British media will call the conservatives out for this glaring case of class war craziness. Surely the Tories 'shitting on the little guy' this week couldn't be any more blatant. It could perhaps only be topped if Gulliver joined the conservatives, pinned a blue rosette to himself, went on his travels and then had a sudden attack of diarrhoea - laying waste to the Lilliputians. But no... Sadly for us the BBC amongst others "couldn't hit a barn door" as we say in football. I sat there watching BBC breakfast foaming at the mouth as they reported the story of the evil tax dodging "tradesman". The BBC were doing their favourite trick where they report a government press release like it's actual news. "Here it comes" I say to myself, "Susanna Reid's guna call em out on attacking the working classes and diverting public attention away from the fiscal tyranny of elite top-earning tax dodgers gutting the treasury". Sadly my fantasy didn't materialise as hoped. She begins her questioning:
"Well, of course, this will raise embarrassing questions for the government.....".
"Here it comes" I say to myself excitedly, nearing Marxist climax.
Finally she fires the marsh mallow bullet: ".....embarassing questions may be raised concerning conservative politicians' own tax free payments to tradesmen in the past..........."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO SUSANNA!! THAT IS NOT THE POINT AT ALLLLLL!!!! Thus once more BBC Breakfast begs me to question: "could I force my own death by overdosing on my Shreddies?"
So after this recent episode our suspicions are again tweaked that the conservatives look out for rich folks' interests and screw the lower orders. As one prominent current Tory MP is reported to have said during a private event:
"What you must understand about the conservative party is we are essentially a coalition of privileged interests who seek to defend those interests".
And yet, there are still some that fail to understand this fact. I recently had a good laugh reading entries on one of those Conservative Futures websites. I noticed a young male contributor (clearly emotionally affected) who lamented how when he canvassed in the streets he was met with hostility and frequent misconceptions that he and his party represented the rich. He concluded with this line (which I like to imagine he wrote whilst weeping): "I do truly believe we are all in this together...".
With their class allegiances in mind targeting "tradesman" is a nice bit of "dog-whistle" politics aimed at the UK's middle classes who have developed an instinctive suspicion (even hatred) towards manual workers over the past few decades. "Tradesman" is code for working class labourers who obviously can't be trusted. They're obviously lazy, feckless, rude rogue traders who regrettably have to be encountered when the cream carpet needs changing after an unruly dinner party.
Within Britain's current bleakly unequal political economy this circus is the equivalent of a cheesy Batman episode from the early 70s; the villain screams: "LOOK BEHIND YOU BATMAN!!!" Meanwhile, the villain runs off and gets away scot-free, or, in this instance, tax free, with the added gratitude of his rich political supporters who are shielded from the rightful scrutiny their insurmountably greater tax robbery deserves. The Conservative party's incessant need to divert, scare, distract and mislead the public tells you all you need to know about their politics and who they really represent.]]>Congratulations on Being Pretty Women of Euro 2012tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16074382012-06-18T19:34:46-04:002012-08-18T05:12:12-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
In keeping with this prevailing dumb male culture, Euro 2012 is giving such men what they want; close ups of pretty women in HD. I thought I was being paranoid at first when I saw several Truman showesque choreographed camera set-ups, zooming in 'randomly' on the crowd. Either the crowd at Euro 2012 are all given tickets on a strictly "tens only" admittance policy, or the horny teen director of Euro 2012 is deliberately picking out attractive women. My dad went as far as to suggest some of these women were planted in the crowd, conspiracy theorist!
I'm not some fossilized catholic priest moaning about the shameful displays of female flesh that defile women of their 'innocence'. Is it not true however, as the fine work in the documentary "Misrepresentation" has highlighted cogently, that our culture objectifies and depicts women in an over generalized artificial manor and devalues their worth to the superficial appeal of Christmas tree baubles? This in turn creates a false societal perception of female perfection that are unattainable and undesirable...at least if you don't want eating disorders, wide spread body consciousness and general depressive anxiety...
Anyway, I thought I might be alone in my suspicions and then I found these links that verified my worst fears, I particularly enjoyed a link by the website "BroBible"....enough said:
If the lad "webosphere" has picked up on this trend you can bet your bottom dollar they're responding to the dog whistle being blown by the Euro 2012 coordinators. If you listen carefully it says: "look predominantly male audience, here are some pretty women to please you while you watch your man sports".
These events are slick PR occasions and the messages they promote are rarely accidental. Like a dripping tap over time they permeate society in ways often underestimated, which in this instance infect our minds with depraved gender norms. It's telling of the complacently accepted sexism prevalent in our societies, that the constant concern throughout this tournament has been racism against male players by fans. Meanwhile female fans themselves are presented to male audiences like high definition Big Macs on silver platters for their visual consumpation; this is no less abhorrent or degrading. This is yet another indication of where the power lies in our world and it's with the male directors behind the cameras, not the smiling pearly-toothed women captured by their misogynist lenses.]]>Caught Between an Internship and a Hard Placetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15844682012-06-10T10:30:59-04:002012-08-10T05:12:07-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Increasingly at my own university (Warwick) my fellow students are making their career choices all too clear, and truth and justice aint on the menu. Not a day goes by on my Facebook page where I fail to witness the pixelated fawning wannabes, schmoozing their corporate entertainers with the hope of acceptance and employment. Arms dealers and bankers that wrecked the economy are favourites on the menu.
I'd call it degrading if it wasn't so willingly desired by most of the attendees. It reminds me of a wretched scene depicted in the book "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" where destitute working men with literally starving families, would with shameful deference, address their exploitative employers (in the true sense of the words) endlessly as: "sir" "sir" "sir". The desperate unemployed would congregate and then follow the "gentleman" employers around like poodles with their caps off, inquiring: "any chance of a job sir?" repeatedly. Every time I send a bloody email to one of these captains of industry asking for work experience I feel like one of those men: "any chance of a job sir?". It really is pathetic.
Today in the world of corporate dominance, this behaviour isn't regarded as degrading, but a symptom of a: "dynamic economy", "a mobile" - flexible labour force" of "willing entrepreneurs". We're all apparently marching forward to a fine future of self-reliance and capitalist enterprise. Bullshit yes, but believed bullshit it certainly is by many at university. This is what happens when democracy comes second to big business, we ask them for permission to exist, even in academia, instead of the other way round.
Most students I know think this is entirely reasonable and desirable; they even seem to practice how to hold their champagne glass in the mirror. The young Tories are pros at this; their skinny frames barely filling their suits paid for by their parents. We expect this of them, it's what they do best, they're not ashamed. Now sadly however, this has become the norm for everybody. Why? Because the Tories won (New Labour included) so we all have to live with the consequences of this living hell of a labour market they tell us all to embrace for our own sake.
Of course however, as we are frequently told, we have a choice. Yes. What a fine choice it is. Either we whore ourselves for free to record profit making institutions, for that holy thing 'work experience'. Or, we're left destitute without employment. The same kind of choice an imprisoned Tirian Lannister had in Game of Thrones season 1, between throwing himself off a cliff to be "free", or embracing his captives. Or the scene in the Dear Hunter where prisoners have the choice of pulling the trigger in Russian roulette themselves, or alternatively being shot in the head by their captives. Capitalist choice really is a fine thing indeed. What lavish freedoms we bathe in when we have no family contacts and unearned privileges to guide us to success. To add insult, I can't even choose to "sponge off" the benefit system anymore to avoid this hell, because the conservatives have decimated it, the swine.
Such student "networkers" happy with this intern culture, adopt what I call: "mums and dads politics". They put on their nice little suits and act like big boys and girls with the hope of being accepted in to what George Carlin once called: "the big club". In reaction, the famous phrase that echoes around every campus around the world to describe such people is: "sell outs". Which I happily embrace myself for oral convenience, but on reflection it usually means nothing. Why? Because how can you sell out when you didn't believe in anything worth selling in the first place?
I mean honestly for example. Am I being a horribly presumptuous, insulting, patronizing naysayer when I say: "did anyone as a boy really dream of becoming an investment banker?" I didn't even know what it was as a lad. This is the dream however many of my friends and colleagues chase like acid trip victims. We all know why. Money. Pure and simple.
So. Do we blame them for these shallow pursuits? Or, do we instead recognise that if society can only offer and promotes these vain ambitions, then is it surprising that so many gifted young people embrace this path? How else could anyone who lives in this economic hell, caused by these very same people, in good conscience desire to work for them? Because apparently that's the best Britain can offer its young people in terms of financial remuneration, so they flock there like sheep.
At the foundation of this we have a culture of money worship in the UK and young people are trained members of this cult, instinctively following it. That's why during the London riots, people who have every right to be furious at a society that's abandoned them, could best express it only by stealing trainers and G star hoodies. That's our generation's cry of the proletariat.
But, excuses for their behaviour aside, being an idealist, I'm still going to call you a scum bag for getting in with the Tory party upper echelons, or the criminal bankers. It's cathartic and I enjoy it. I won't ever stop, someone has to do it. You are undeniably the up keepers and future apologists for a disgraceful economic system, that robs the many and preserves the few. Remember, that the more you kneel before the idols of power, the more you diminish the chances of truth and justice for us all. BUT left wing brothers and sisters, forgive my cynicism. I'm still on your side and I appreciate the other alternatives so many young people courageously embrace, forsaking money and the fine examples they set. We must however, face up to the reality of what we're up against. It's ugly and it dominates university culture all too often.
In the meantime, I'll try and fulfil my dream of finding what I call "a progressive internship". Wish me luck, I'll need it.]]>"Not One Serious Commentator... Believes These (Economic) Problems Emerged in the Last 24 Months" Oh Really David?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14586512012-04-28T05:31:30-04:002012-06-28T05:12:03-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Sitting in my pants eating Shreddies, I experienced this shock horror news on the BBC home page. Something like, "Chelsea win historic semi final" next to "UK in double dip recession". When I watched Chelsea beat Barcelona the night before, I was genuinely surprised. Yet seeing we're now officially in a double dip recession aroused at best a yawn and a scratch of my arse. I reacted in the same way a British commuter does when a train pulls in the station; you knew it was coming eventually, just not exactly when.
Meanwhile, David Cameron spins the truth so hard he belongs in tornado alley. Once again he fires another volley of excuses to numb our brains and patience. It's Labours fault. It's Europe's fault, blah blah blah. He did his classic 'Dave Three Course Set Menu' routine, known so well in the commons: "I don't want to waive responsibility BUT BUT BUT...." Then he proceeds to list a hundred mitigating circumstances that exonerate him of any responsibility.
The best thing he said however, was the classic line "no serious commentator" believes his government's economic policies over the last 24 months could be held responsible. WOW. "No serious commentator," a staggeringly disingenuous statement - even by his standards. Judging by that egregious lie, it would seem he's the man in need of discipline, say what he may about school children's behaviour.
So naturally, theoretically humbled by the devastating news of his erroneous economic philosophy, Cameron responded that to change policy would be "folly". Thus again toasting his favoured cocktail of uniquely British rich arrogance, complimented with a typically dumb male sense of pride. Let's recall Einstein's definition of insanity: to conduct the same failed theory or policy over and over again.
The failed conservative economic policy amounts to what another apparently (non)"serious commentator", economist and Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, called "bloodletting". This medieval theory believed bleeding people half to death was the solution to any illness. Funny enough however, turning people's arteries on and off like taps did them no good at all. Humbled by this realization, physicians of the day concluded "the solution is more of the same...bleed the patient further, post haste".
Economically, this is what the Tories are ungraciously doing, bleeding the public sector and killing the economy's purchasing power at its greatest time of need. It weirdly reminds me of a sketch by Russell Brand, where he imagines a male experimenting too far with asphyxiation whilst masturbating to the point of death. He concluded "if whilst having a w*** YOU START TO DIE, maybe stop, don't think to yourself 'NO, I've committed to this w*** now, I'm going to see it through to the end'. Similarly, Osborne and Cameron are showing no indication of stopping their weird penchants for outdated laissez faire economics. Although in this instance, instead of potentially killing themselves, they will kill the country.
Typically, elites such as themselves never 'feel the pinch' as it's patronisingly coined towards the masses, invoking an over-enthusiastic auntie pinching a little boy's cheek. People aren't being pinched; they're being battered. But if a study by the University of Berkeley is anything to go by, Dave and George's reluctance to 'change course' economically, is no surprise. The study found that those from the upper classes consistently struggle to feel compassion for those suffering, namely the working class, principally because they themselves rarely experience hardship and trauma, and thus struggle to identify with it.
Now growth: in the 5 quarters prior to the coalition's election, the economy grew 3.1 percent (I'm no fan of Labour). Yet, after the election, it reached the dizzying heights of 0.1 percent and now consecutive recessions = FAILURE. The government's own puppet agency, The Office for Budget Responsibility, has cut its predicted business investment forecast (in March) by a huge 6.9 percent = FAIL 3. Sadly, the above is merely the complimentary olives before the main course; I could go on and on.
The honorable thing for Dave and George to do would be resign. Their economic policy is so clearly a failed enterprise I can only conclude, as Naomi klein predicted years before (presumably another non"serious commentator"), that this outcome is predictable and deliberate. The conservatives are making a calculated judgment that in order to push through their anti Labour 'unashamedly' pro business 'reforms', they must utilise this uniquely dire economic circumstance as an extraordinary pretext: to hell with the majority.
The only (non)"serious commentators" on the economy it seems, are themselves and their party apostles.]]>Messing About in Boats...'Causing Waves'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14117072012-04-09T05:24:26-04:002012-06-09T05:12:01-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
As we all know, this wasn't any day out on the river, it was the elites day out on the river. Their river. A day where the real characters of the wind in the willows come out to play and network with one another on the banks of the Thames. Meanwhile, the usual bunch of nouveau riche and starry eyed wannabes come along for the fun family spectacle... but I digress.
Does anyone else not think it's utterly appalling that the media by and large have totally ignored this mans protest? I mean he wrote a whole manifesto for Christ's sake. However the resounding narrative we are suffered to is of condemnation. An army of condemners, staffed by sports star toffs past and present. Even the head of the British Olympic association Lord Moynihan capitalised on the incident for justifying increased Olympic security (as if there wasn't enough already). He simply contemptuously dismissed the man not as a protester, but as an idiot. Idiots don't matter, even those with degrees from LSE and articulate manifestos.
This may seem petty on my part. "Josh, how can you be so mad at a friendly boat race where a guy spoiled the fun?". The primary reason is that it's a textbook example of how the media narrow the margins of debate and set the agenda for your brain. When a woman in years gone by chucked herself in front of the king's horse, the moment was eternalised as a tragic display of heroism in the pursuit of political and economic equality. When our most recent individual however, obstructed two boats in the middle of the river Thames; boats containing the future elite, boats symbolically cruising to a no doubt prosperous future. The media of the day couldn't give a toss. "So, he had politics did he?... So what? Look at this angry rich guy with muscles, and Matthew saint Olympian Pinsent, he's pissed too". Cue the video of the impromptu assembled middle class baying mob, taunting the man as he's carried out in to a police truck. "Good" the British public vitriolically spit at the screen. "Get a job you bum".
How typical this is of our hypocritical culture in the UK. A country where we rejoice in the history of past democratic protests, yet see no connection between the ghosts of then to the men and women of now. Protesting instead becomes a spectator sport, with gentlemanly codes of conduct decided by the powerful. Protest isn't about picnic blankets, this isn't Henley Regatta, it's supposed to cause trouble, that's why it's effective...or used to be. You can't regulate democratic outrage, try as they may.
It's not good enough for the elite of this country to gallivant around in a fantasy teletubby land of socials, bright sparkly glitz and glamour like human magpies. Meanwhile the world burns around them and all they can cry out for is sympathy that their insulated cocoon has been breached by a riff raff agent in a wet suit.
So fuck their boat race and shame on you (complicit public/media) for ignoring a brave man. Instead we hear such sickly sentiments "My team went through seven months of hell, this was the culmination of our careers and you took it from us." Meanwhile the protestor tries to highlight rampant inequality and privilege that disadvantage the serf majority. The very same privilege that allows this young man to row for his "career". What a splendid luxury to row for your career, showing simultaneously utter ignorance to reality, combined with the typical sense of entitlement. People work hard their whole lives in degrading jobs and gain nothing in return. Someone tries to highlight this and we should pity the rich rower boy whose fantasy was tarnished?
Instead, Lets imagine a different scenario. Let's imagine that a man in Syria or Libya swam in front of boats to protest the lack of political equality in their respective nations. No doubt the image would be on the front of Time magazine, with easy comparisons made to 'tank man' in china, or 'shoe thrower man' in Iraq, black power salutes at the Olympics or conflagrated monks in Tibet. No. In Britain. The land of rabid class, there is no voice for those who dare challenge the British elite. The reason we condemn the man and ignore his cause is the typically arrogant British assumption, that our decaying relic of privilege and inequality, the UK, is a shining light of democracy that need not be questioned.
As the protestor himself wrote: "to enslave requires the audacity, cunning and daring to take advantage of our natural kindness...our respect for authority, our desire to please, and our apprehension about 'causing waves'".
A country that so instinctively condemns acts of democratic resistance is no democracy at all. The 'waves' such people make, propel our democracy forward. The mans name was Trenton Oldfield and this is his manifesto: http://elitismleadstotyranny.squarespace.com/
]]>Conservative "premier league" party donations relegate democracy...tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13795032012-03-26T13:39:52-04:002012-05-26T05:12:01-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Out of government in 2010 David Cameron said to ITN in regard to Jeff Hoon and Stephen Byers claims they could influence government policy for business that quote:
"Lets be clear about what's at steak here, these ministers were claiming that they changed government policy... this goes to the heart of the integrity of the government."
So this weekend we discovered something unpredictable... The conservative party; who have a cabinet compiled of millionaires and whose rank and file are the eternal zombie defenders of unearned privilege. Also seem happy take party donations from other rich folk in return for influence over public policy.
Weirdly, in return for these donations, the government grants business 'access' and, it would seem, in order to influence public policy in the interests of these very same businesses. I for one was shocked. None of us realised that when businesses and rich individuals contribute large sums of money, at their own personal detriment, they expect something in return... C'est pas possible?
In fairness to the conservatives, they have a very efficient system, replicated on the English football model. It seems to be called "the more fucking money you give us, the more we'll do for you, wink wink nudge nudge, system" or 'Premier league" as Peter Cruddas has now officially named it.
According to this genius system, the more money you give, the more access you gain to the party, the public policy circles, the PM and even his wife...(I found the wife part a bit weird, but I guess including Cameron's wife too is a cheeky little deal sweetner). With this access "you don't just gain access to the PM, you gain access to David Cameron, the man" (POSSIBLE TRANSLATION: Dave will be your friend and friends do favors for one another, whether it be lending a lawnmower or removing unwanted health and safety regulations for the private sector...potentially).
The worst thing about all this is it's so bloody clichéd. Can't politicians be a little bit more original when they put their slap on and act like corporate hookers? I bet they even sit there in a smoke filled room and cackle with cigars as they carve up national assets for privatizing. Stephen Byers was just too cheap and tacky when he called himself a "cab for hire", a rank amateur. The conservatives advertise themselves like luxury spars in Knightsbridge "We're not just corporate whores, we're Premier League corporate whores".
So my fellow people that routinely fill me with such despair, do you understand how serious this is? Our democracy is a sham. Your government, your current active government. Is taking donations from people seemingly in return for tacit agreements to change policy in their selfish business interests. They are buying your government, they are buying your country. They own you and consequently your freedom. The message it send's is only money influences this grotesque "democracy".
All Mr Cameron can muster in response whilst wearing his stupid sport relief shirt (Cameron "the philanthropist" edition) is: "obviously this is completely unacceptable"... Like a parent that finds the blue Play Doh in the red Play Doh box. What a patheticly predictable PR response by the PR man. Yes Dave, clearly the cooption of our government by big business is unacceptable, it's worse than that, it's called a slow motion corporate coup d'etat.
But, of course, Dave knew nothing about it all, he's clueless... Even though his senior colleague Peter Cruddas is selling his "premier league" product like a hackney market trader, based on the premise that clients (sorry donors) will meet and have dinner with him... Even though he's in charge of our nation. Even though he's in charge of a party who are selling these premier league products. Clearly he didn't have a clue what was going down...
Hyperbolic talk of Fascism is thrown around like popcorn at a cinema. However let's remind ourselves of what fascism actually is: An authoritarian country, which is run by and for the interests of big business. Clearly we have nothing to fear then....
So, since 1979 and before, the UK population have been sitting in a pan of water like a mass of frogs that don't have the slightest awareness they are being slowly boiled alive. As they begin to realize their fate (that they are economically and democratically dying) they continue definatly in denial shouting " we live in a democracy...WW2...Churchill: 'we'll fight them on the beaches...Magna Carta....fish and chiiips!!".
The truth is nobody has democracy in a country so unequal. Money buys power, a deferential culture to those with that power and directly buys public policy. Corporations own Britain. It's been an incremental, insidious transition of power. This latest grotesque "premier league" spectacle is merely a crude manifestation of it. The net result is growing poverty, inequality, horrific social mobility, social unrest, stagnated wages for over 30 years and businesses controlling more and more of our lives.
This isn't another case of "they're all the same" politicians. Instead ask yourself the question"'if I don't live in a democratic country, what do I live in?"
The answer I hope will disturb you, it begins P and ends Lutocracy. Is this what the conservatives refer to when they claim they're "unashamedly pro business"? Clearly.
]]>Grammar Nazistag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12733452012-02-13T11:52:36-05:002012-04-14T05:12:01-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
I can't help but be suspicious, that those who choose to anally fixate themselves on how and where I use my full stops and commas, perhaps themselves cannot write? And therefore in order to compensate for their calligraphy deficit, instead elevate themselves (without election) to positions of custodianship over others grammar.
I've often heard this charge thrown at Boar writers (my university newspaper): "You write for the Boar and can't spell? Hahaha". Or "You write for the Boar and you can't use grammar? Hahaha". Yet these very same people usually contribute nothing, they say nothing, seemingly believe in equally nothing. What do they have to hide? Perhaps nothing.
I often find people with the greatest insecurities devote themselves fully to the very same issues as a form of self-persuasive denial. Closet male homosexuals for example often become uber macho, crusading against the vaguest indications of male femininity... whilst secretly crying inside, longing for the warmth of their own fair sex. Perhaps the grammar Nazi experiences a similar conundrum..."I can't write...nobody cares what I think... perhaps I'll chastise those who dare try, that way people will assume I'm a literary authority of importance".
We all know these people, the smug sanctimonious douche bags that walk around campus and nitpick over the finer details of menial facts and rules. Again it seems, insecure people love certainty, because their worst enemy is a surprise that they may need to improvise and react to. For example, when justifying their opinions, such a figure may be Newt Gingrich, who currently "doesn't take questions", presumably because if he does so, he'll be exposed as an ass hole without legitimate defenses. Instead such psychologically afflicted grammar Nazis cling to their Oxford dictionaries like comfort blankets, in a perfected matrix of linguistics.
So I propose that the Boar, and all publications, put these people to work. As such folk refuse to devote anytime to projects such as our student newspaper, and yet stand on the sidelines like racist football fans, cowardly abusing players with relative anonymity, why not set them to work in a grammar and spelling division? As they are so aggrieved by our substandard work and editing, they can right our wrongs, restore order to the galaxy. It won't take long, every week they will simply need to read through and edit every single entry in to a publication, whilst studying for their degree and trying to have a life. Surely not a problem for those so superior and wise?
No grammar Nazis, you're utterly wrong. Good writing is all about bending the rules and infusing your own creative impulses on to a page, sometimes defying grammatical convention. Because otherwise, god forbid, everything would be like reading a car manual. I don't advocate a world without grammatical structure, an anarchic Orwellian world of inverse vocab. But, I do ask however, that instead such faithful grammar worshipers focus on the content of piceces and the ideas within them, when brewing their cauldrons with scathing critiques based on irrelevant minor misdemeanors. The truth is, writing evolves, much like the world in general, and you lot should try it too.
]]>Ira(n)ationaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12368382012-01-27T12:34:30-05:002012-03-28T05:12:02-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Round and round we go, scrutiny as always is second to jingoism and macho posturing.
The issue of Iran is disturbing, not because there is a threat of any kind, but the infantile level of debate conducted by serious political figures and commentators. There are many articles written at present that refute categorically the idea that Iran poses a serious existential threat to the western world, or whether it has nuclear capabilities or ambitions in any form. I do not wish to take this approach, because although not widely believed (although they should be) the case has been overstated with evidence to the point of exhaustion... yet disturbingly ignored by mainstream news coverage.
I instead wish to pose the question: When will the serious folk of the political class quit their deranged Alice in Wonderland fantasies that Iran is a threat, and join us mere mortals back in the land of reality? Because if a society and its policies are dictated by evidence and reason, then we are clearly currently governed by fictions, lies and out right absurdities, and consequently the essence of our society is being compromised.
The war with Iran has long been craved. The neo-cons in America under captain Cheney made no secret of this horny teen fantasy, publically advocating regime change in a pre administration policy paper called "rebuilding Americas defenses". Other targets included Syria, Libya, Iraq, North Korea. All that was needed to pursue their wet dream was "a catalyzing event... like a new pearl harbor". Then 9/11 happened.
Ever since Iran has been in the cross hairs. Israel chimes on about the menace a nuclear configured Islamist Iran poses to their vulnerable Jewish shores, whilst simultaneously (with an arrogance only paralleled by their big brother bully the US) ignores the fact they have an illegally held arsenal of over 300 nuclear warheads and are a non signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Whilst also being one of the most consistent aggressors and all round violators of international law of any other country in the history of the UN. Then they have the mendacity to beg us to condemn, even attack, a country with no such record. A country who WAS attacked (US sponsored Iraq) and is currently under terrorist attack by Israel... who do you think is killing their nuclear scientists?
Studies have proven only hard cold irrefutable facts challenge the views of zealots and the ignorant. So without unnecessary syntax and rambling, here are some key ones for the undersexed warmongers:
• Firstly, why are we as the 'west' in a position to morally determine who may and may not have nuclear weapons, having them ourselves, and having an appalling contemporary record of aggression and human rights abuses. Namely, the US, UK, and Israel. We have no 'moral authority' and we never did. Another myth.
• The 2007 joint intelligence report by the US and its 16 intelligence agencies concluded Iran has no nuclear weapons program. George bush disliked the conclusions based upon real evidence and ignored it. The US intelligence agencies aren't exactly famous for their pacifism, yet they stated categorically Iran has no operational nuke program. FACT
• In response to the 2007 Joint Intelligence report (NIE) G.W Bush said in his book Decision Points "the NIE tied my hands on the military side". Meaning, there was no evidence, thus pretext for him bombing Iran, so he couldn't.
• Recently Ehud Barak of Israel, the head of the CIA and US secretary of defense Leon Panetta, have all stated Iran has no nuclear weapons program. 'Panetta posed the direct question to himself: "Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." FACT
• Iran in 2010 offered to trade half its low-enriched uranium for medical isotopes. It was a deal negotiated by Turkey and Brazil. The US rejected it, presumably preferring hostilities.
And on and on we could go...
Despite the above, we continue to talk about a nuclear Iran, as though at any second, it's on the verge of entering our homes and pumping us full of Iranian uranium. It's nonsense. Instead the media and politicians with no self-respect or any sense of irony, sadistically discuss how best to cripple Iran; economically or militarily = the people of Iran suffer, for literally no reason other than manufactured fictions. (...Although inflicting suffering on other nations based on fictions is nothing new to us, and if I need to explain that point, you are already a lost cause).
The really terrifying aspect of this whole pantomime is this; whether for sensational reasons benefiting the media, or for private interests longing for an attack on Iran, Iran is being pushed in to a diplomatic corner, where a nuclear deterrent seems a logical acquisition to defend itself from attack. As Noam Chomsky stated, Iran would have to be insane not to acquire a nuclear weapon, if the lessons of Libya and Iraq are considered (both attacked, with no deterrent). A fictional danger may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This 'issue' is unmerited ethically, scientifically, and has no credible intelligence to support it. But sadly we live in a world where the population are reared on a staple diet of fantasy and BS, and they seem unlikely to stop feeding anytime soon.
]]>Stop Putting a Dollar Sign In Front of Everythingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12108952012-01-17T13:27:14-05:002012-03-18T05:12:01-04:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Sometimes poshos like Cameron present policies so ridden with holes, that 50 Cent feels inadequate only being shot nine times. The pursuit of "commercially successful pictures" seems reasonable enough, "fair play Dave", "good one lad", "can't argue with that", we may instinctively utter during our internal monologue. Yet in instances like this, you gain real insight in to the floored ideology such people hold, in ways we can all clearly understand and relate to.
Similarly, if Dave announced the necessity for men nationwide pursuing the contraction of Orchitis for its economic benefits, many without question may assume it to be sound economic policy: "Orchitis you say Dave?...hmm...not sure what it is...but if you say it's necessary for economic prosperity my leader, then I'm there standing tall with you".
But if we were informed that the pursuit of Orchitis, actually medically translated as men suffering excruciating ball ache for weeks on end, then would we feel so positive towards the idea? Surely instead we would all be dazed by horrific flash backs of falling off bikes on to the cross frame, or footballs entering sacred male territory at high velocity.
What Mr Cameron is suggesting is far more dangerous than testicular inflammation. Testes are relatively safe, what is at stake is our very culture and the integrity of British film. Dave is suggesting we all suffer movies like Transformers: Dark side of the Moon (Admittedly this example was used by Charlie Brooker in a similar article, but it simply must again).
As a person who knows the guilt and suffering one can go through after partaking in infidelity, I know guilt, I know internal suffering and strife. But nothing compares to the hollow void in my soul that rapidly manifested whilst viewing that film...which was filled with nought but robot blood and jizz. I came out feeling like the time I heard my parents having sex combined with the clichéd vision I hold of a war veteran, who's come home and claims to have "seen too much man...". I'll be damned if I live in a world where the Dark Side of the Moon prevails.
They say that to make a good person do terrible things takes religion, Camerons religion is the market. That holy mother of a market, all knowing, all seeing, pure, wise...
The religion can be essentially explained thusly: Anything that makes lots of money is a good thing. Studios with the most money therefore make the best films. Consumers are utilising there god given capitalist gift to choose superior products over the inferior, through the films they pay to watch, and this in turn decides quality adjudicated by purchasing consensus. A 'moneyocracy' if you will.
The problem with this, as we all know, is it's bullshit. The reality with few exceptions is simple; film studios over the years have become more and more concentrated in ownership and power. Ever pursuing profits, such studios choose 'commercially successful' projects. This is jargon for "pump out any old shite, play it safe, blow some shit up, get out a tittie or two, and watch the money flow in". Quality is second to profit. This may be high-minded pomposity, but I feel no shame in saying it, it's true, and those that would accuse me of this are the enablers of corporate sponsored mediocrity. But further yet, what is this choice we hear about for consumers at large multiplex cinemas? We watch what we are offered, we choose the limited choices we are given, "you are free to do as we tell you" - B.Hicks (again)
Culture and film is not merely about making money. Those of us with a respect for the arts see it as an unfortunate detriment to an otherwise essential human pursuit. What Cameron forgets is that the UK Film industry he nostalgically invokes to bolster his argument, is riddled with small films, many which may not have been commercially successful (many were) but were critically acclaimed and therefore live long in the memory. Harry Potter is fine, but it's a one off franchise, an easy sell, which often was poor. The ultimate fallacy Dave indulges is that commercial success is predictable; who would of thought The Full Monty, Shaun of the Dead, or the Kings Speech, Trainspotting or This is England would be commercial hits? They succeeded because people took chances on small projects with heart. That is what we do best, and to "compete" with Hollywood is neither necessary, nor desirable.
This represents the fundamental battle of our generation, between those that see an intrinsic value to life and the creative actions within it, and to those who just want to "put a dollar sign in front of everything".
]]>White People the Victims of Racism? Pleasetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11901772012-01-06T14:47:30-05:002012-03-07T05:12:01-05:00Joshua Funnellhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-funnell/
Oh yes, right on cue, Dianne Abbott is now a reverse racist, because of one of those cheap easy stories the press are dining out on at the moment, that requires no journalistic effort at all, a Twitter quote has come to light. Now of course, let's all turn this twitter gem in to a major crisis where we can all play out the seasonal Panto charade of:
"Look! We live in a REAL democracy, to exemplify this look at this trivial, menial, political debate...it is in fact far more than this, don't be fooled...it is in fact a crucial issue defining our democratic future...honest guv...we care on principle about this issue...not just the media frenzy it creates for us "
And yet, simultaneously, despite the uproar, our national discourse remains utterly ignorant of the real meaning of racism today in Britain and the world. In this instance the truth is too offensive. When people allude to that truth (racism) it makes too many people uncomfortable, so they jump up and down on it like a conflagrating bush fire.
The staples of any moral panic stories today consist of the following components:
Firstly, the Chernobyl catastrophe of a quote - ''White people love playing 'divide & rule'" - must be viewed in complete isolation in Guantanamo style quarantine, unable to associate with its brother and sister quotes that provide that special little word, context. Context is a slutty noun, and if it opens it's legs to a more holistic accurate truth, then the moral panic might be exposed as the pointless hyperbole it is...god forbid.
Secondly, whilst the offending quote is held in isolation deprived of the dignity of an historical or social justification and context; the journalistic charlatans squawk around like seagulls (the difference being seagulls perform their role to society admirably) and disseminate the significance of Abotts remarks. "will you resign?" "should she resign?" "when will she resign?" "this is unacceptable" "do you agree it's unacceptable?". Notice how during these crisis media commentators always define for us what is and isn't acceptable, without explaining why and assuming everybody instinctively agrees.
The third component of course is a man of leadership that substitutes his titanium spine for one made of Daily Mail paper mashie. A man who embodies the post Tony Blair model of a male politician, that violently swings like a weather vein to the right whenever a manufactured storm blows his way and threatens his electoral potential. To hell with political convictions Ed, make sure the prowls say the right thing at those poles and keep the condemnations coming. Which means curiously in England at present when someone's convicted of racism people wear T-shirts in solidarity and Kenny 'it's still 1980' Dalgish publicly defends you like a martyr. However if you're a black minority shadow Health minister, for a party supposedly founded on socially progressive values, who happens to speak out against real racism, then you grovel and beg for forgiveness whilst your boss joins in the kicking.
The fourth component in this particular instance, are the smug anti PC freedom fighters that all pat themselves on the back and say "ohhhh, typical, so they can say that about us but we can't say anything about them". As though it's a race battle. Or as though racism doesn't disproportionately affect those with skin of a more noir variety, and as though white people in the UK, in all honesty, feel truly threatened by racism against themselves.
How incredible, that in the week of the Steven Lawrence trials verdict (that once again indicates institutional racism in the UK) that reactionary political opportunists can show so little humility and restraint when a black politician has the audacity to speak the unspeakable reality; that many white people are racist, and our country has been historically racist. God forbid she go further and tell us that conservative and Labour politicians alike (as the farcical reactionary public PR diatribes after the London riots showed all too clearly) evidently could care less about the plights of under privileged discriminated minorities, that are driven to such desperate actions partly as a consequence of such nationwide racism (according to a Guardian investigation). In reality she should and could say far more...but the establishment doesn't want to hear it.
The fundamental truth is this. Most people are ignorant of racial issues, which is why they get so hot under the collar when a black woman such as Abbott calls white peoples bluffs. They may know it's wrong to call someone a nigger, or deny them equal treatment on racial grounds, but they do not truly understand racism because they do not, and probably will not, ever truly experience it. Racism for me is not just a verbal put down; it is systemic economic and social deprivation affecting disproportionately those of an ethnic minority. Those who so often brandish the name of Martin Luther King with admiration would do well to remember what he actually frequently preached until death, and what today is more frequently forgotten: That racism is the language of the oppressor, the language of the colonial imperialist and economic dominator. The subtleties of this exploitation today may be greater than decades since, but the basic realities remain true. Blacks disproportionately suffer, whilst whites relatively prosper, fact.
Perhaps to combat this ignorance as a nation and atone for our appalling colonial past of pillage and genocide (which, shock horror, consisted of the very real, very deliberately instigated policy of 'divide and rule' over those black folk we ruled and exploited) we should be reeducated. Perhaps if people read books like The blood never dried: a history of the British empire and were less inclined to view shows like Caroline Quentins series of jolly apologetics for the British Empire throughout India, or ingest Gordon Browns outrageous claim we should be "proud" of our past, then perhaps Abbotts quote would seem less unacceptable.
How funny that the political establishment (seemingly in collusion with he BBC) staged such a Valliant fight against the BNP on Question Time, who peddle such insultingly racist ideas. Yet smelt no sense of irony when they universally condemned a black female MP for the outrageous crime of speaking about equally as unacceptable past and present racism.
Racism obviously is wrong in all its forms, against whites as much as blacks, I would not dare say otherwise for it would be to abandon intellectual integrity. But until the white population and political leaders generally take a good hard look at themselves and say we have acknowledged our racist past and are doing our upmost to alleviate our racist present, they have no right to falsely claim to be the victims of inverted racism. You are not. You never have been. And all this exaggerated trivial palaver for what is in reality cheap political point scoring between the two pantomime parties of today, smelling blood and votes in the water, is a sham. Such misplaced hysteria does a great disservice to what is a very serious pressing issue now, as much as it was 50 to 200 years ago. So let us gain a sense of proportional perspective and righteousness before we cry victims against one of the few politicians left in our country people can bare to stomach.
]]>