iPad....FIGHT!!!

So the twitterverse and the multiblog has been set alight this week, over one of the most dull stories that people could get excited about, a conversation of such importance, that when the history books are written about the early part of the 21st Century, it will be perhaps only second in how fundamental it seemed to our lives in terms of worldwide discourse. After Lady Gaga - Him or Her?

The iPad.

Almost a week ago, a man in a sweater and glasses sat down to show us his company's latest invention. That he sat down at all was noteworthy - several blogs who were covering the story live made a MASSIVE deal over the fact that this announcement was being made with a CHAIR on stage - such is the way we have absorbed the symbols and meanings of press announcements, but it was in fact the product which generated more heat than any of his company's earlier products. Seriously, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and I can feel the considerable heat on my lap even through the Belkin cooling mat I have.

I suppose the oddest thing is the level of interest this thing has generated. I guess if nothing else, it's a sign of the times that a corporate press conference has been one of the most talked-about stories of the year so far. While Twitter may not be the greatest count of things that are popular or unpopular, it serves as a vague gauge, and right now, around five days after the man in the sweater stood up(Then sat down again) in the Yerba Buena Center For The Arts, the iPad registers as the fifth most-mentioned topic on Twitter. It would have been the top, but it's Grammys night in America, so Beyonce, Elton John, the aforementioned Lad/Lady Gaga and the awards they are at feature above the new device. By comparison, the suffering, devastation and chaos in Haiti is ninth in the top ten. Having said that, this is the "Worldwide" category; In the UK the iPad doesn't place, except for in the "London" category, where it places sixth. I guess the oddest thing is that the UK and London lists currently have WWE and the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in them.

I'm not having a go at people for caring more about a big iPod than other people dying or being in pain, there are many reasons why that happens. Such as feeling sympathy can hurt.

But either way, I guess it's an indication of people's priorities today - that a business announcement of a new product is such big news, in the same way that "bank bonuses", "Wall Street" and "Goldman Sachs" have been previous trending topics. They probably would be again, if it weren't for the American version of the Brit awards and Apple's new thing being in the news.

Apple itself is a funny old beast, in terms of perception. I read several technology-related blogs every day, such as Gizmodo, its Gawker network sibling Kotaku, Engadget, Ars Technica and the tech sections of places like BBC News and the Huffington Post. With the exception of the BBC website, all stories on the other sites have allowed all to come and comment, and comment they have, just like on Twitter. The majority of comments could best be described as acerbic. They lean either one way or the other - love or hate. The ones who express love, are fanboys and apologists in the eyes of the rest, and the ones who express hate are trolls and Windows fanboys in the eyes of the rest. One insulted at their time being taken up by a product they hate for not being so awesome as to be undeniably great, and hot under the collar at the lofty terms used by Steve Jobs to announce it. Which is a little weird bearing in mind the way Steve Jobs and any other CEO sells their product is that he does it in person. It's not really like any other product doesn't have delightful, glowing terms used at the point of announcement to convince the masses that this product will make their lives better, or that nobody else bends the truth to tell the public about how awesome their product is.

Those seen as Apple fanboys and apologists for Apple, are really just as myopic. Just like anything else, there are those that will find a use for the iPad, and those that won't. I have no idea whether it'll replace the iPhone or iPod Touch(Which are the same thing, just with or without a cellular phone put inside it), but it probably won't. I have no idea whether it will subvert the netbook market, and replace the 10-inch variety of laptop as the most popular form of computing in a courier bag. It probably won't, but there are things that the iPad does that most netbooks don't, or at least don't do quite so seamlessly.

The biggest analogy for the manner of publicity the iPad, and all modern Apple product announcements, is that in terms of the view of each other, Apple Fanboys are to Apple Haters(Or Microsoft Fanbots, etc - the term is less important), as in America, Democrats are to Republicans. I'm not trying to suggest that one is better than the other, but such is the level of attention paid, and the amount of press focused on every detail and rumour, that often the case is that many people will oppose certain legislation, regardless of it's benefit - either societal or individual - that many seem prepared to stand up ready to hate it, or love it, based on the name on it.

And the same goes for Apple.

I admit, I use an Apple computer, and I've used iPods since the first model. I've never really had a problem except for a couple of logic board burnouts, and the fact that I once threw this computer clear across a room. But I used Windows before, and the iPod was by no means my first MP3 - I came from DOS, 3.11 for Workgroups, a Rio MP3 player the size and weight just under a pack of cards, and the Creative NOMAD, a behemoth of an MP3 player that used an internal hard drive and lacked a battery life. It's never been that I think Apple are flawless, and depending on what someone needs their computer to do, I've recommended a Mac and a Windows machine. Similarly, if you want to use iTunes, you need an iPod/iPhone and vice versa, but beyond that there's no reason why another media player wouldn't work fine. I've done my bit to help people with their computers when asked - regardless of whose brand is on it - and I've built several Windows PC's from scratch.

It's an odd sort of thing though. When I've expressed my preference for Apple to friends, peers and sometimes family, all of a sudden I'm someone else to them. I become a religious zealot of sorts, a man who fell on hard times and fell in with a dodgy crowd and now preaches the word of some bonkers faith(Apple-Krishna?) to non-believers before reading sacred texts(MacRumors.com) in a tabernacle(Living room) in between proselytizing. I guess at some point, it became trendy in a sort of counter-culture way to scoff at people who like Apple products, mainly because the prevailing voice of the media is that "Apple is good", which raises the hairs on the back of some necks, just like religious zealotry does to me.

Apart from needing repairs relating to a circa 2008 crash landing, I don't know if I have a problem with my Mac, other than it being a little old and under-spec for some stuff. Similarly though, I don't really have a problem with my netbook, a recent acquisition that runs Windows 7 on a small screen. Both work fine, and I'm happy with that - one works faster and handles more stuff, the other runs cooler and I can carry without being able to spot which shoulder my bag was hanging from purely by glancing at my naked shoulder. I just want something that works, and that was why I bought a Mac, and continue to. My needs are fairly narrow I guess, and whatever doesn't work on my Mac I can find a replacement for, or in the case of games, I can use something else - a games console for example. My one real gripe about the Windows 7 OS I now use alongside Mac OS X(Apart from the LUDICROUS Win7 Starter version I got), is drivers. Because only one manufacturer makes Macs, I can use the "Software Update" tool to deliver pretty much all the drivers I need for both the operating system and the computer itself, while with my Netbook, I needed to first install the drivers from a CD, then run Windows 7's updates program before moving on to find the latest drivers online for specific parts of the netbook, and all of this was before dealing with individual software. It's a bit of a mess, but I admit not a major one. So far, I'm reasonably content with it.

My own take on the iPad, which is as meaningless as anyone elses, for as long as we all remain without an iPad in our hands to try it, is that I agree with several people I've read, who have suggested this may be a popular purchase for older users. Yeah, it's a big iPod Touch(Not a big iPhone, because it has no capacity for vocie calls or text messages on a cellular network), but it's a big iPod Touch that was announced as something to rest on your lap, and to use for watching tv shows or movies, reading books, composing spreadsheets and office documents and using the internet. Add all of that together and you've got a wireless internet tablet with both WiFi and 3G access, a screen big enough for anyone to read and manipulate even with chubby or inflexible fingers, and a software list that features office work and reading books. Not that it won't also run the "Pull My Finger" app, or the competing "iFart" app, or anything else that reeks of simple-mindedness, it will, and people can use that. But I think it will appeal to people who like the iPhone but need a bigger screen, and people who like the idea of the Amazon Kindle, but think it lacks versatility or a backlit screen.

I've considered it myself, and I don't think I'm that interested in it. I certainly don't hate it, but it doesn't suit my needs just now. Having said that, my two-laptop situation could easily change to a compact desktop computer for donkey work and things that need processing power(But one that also doesn't cost the earth) such as a specced-out Mac Mini(So I can save space when I'm not using it, but run either OS X or Windows should I feel like it), my current netbook for portability, and yes an iPad. I'm going to need convincing proof of certain applications for it first though. If you've ever seen my Twitter feed or my Twitpic page, you might have seen the drawings I've sketched out over the last few months. Most of the recent ones were done on an older model iPod Touch that came back into my possession recently, and if the apps I use on the iPod end up performing just as well if not better on the iPad, then the larger canvas on the iPad would be something that would put an end to one of the banes of my life - an ever growing stock of used paper sketchbooks.

Having said all that, if someone other than Apple can get me something similar that runs a simple but sophisticated drawing app like Autodesk Sketchbook on the iPod Touch/iPhone, or Scribbles on the Mac, then I'm there. I just want something that works.

Which is oddly enough the same term that a long-term fan of Apple-bashing used when he announced earlier today, that he was relenting, and getting himself a Mac.

Welcome Charlie Brooker, you are home. Press any key to continue.

By the way, the Grammys are still going. The iPad is now 4th in Twitter's "Trending Topics". A few rungs down is the name of comedy tv presenter Stephen Colbert. Because he was begging Apple for an iPad on his show all last week, and he is now showing it off while onstage at the Grammys.

On Christmas.

Decided to post something I wrote in the comments section of a Huffington Post article, one that seems to have been obliterated by the moderators screening the comments. Ah well.

Original article here.

My response:

"those who are willing to drop an "F" bomb 17 times versus the teary-eyed and inspired."

Erm, no.

It was more against a singer/sock puppet from a tv show being pimped with a song that would have been written a long time ago, and apart from a potential Christmas number one, something we'd never have heard of again. I don't watch the X-Factor, but when I reviewed the list of recent winners, only Leona Lewis sticks out as someone still recording(Or at least someone whose face I could recall from memory), although the theme tune to Avatar may yet bury her career. I have no problem with "teary-eyed and inspired", but this isn't anything to do with that. This the X-Factor, where people are teary-eyed and inspired because all of a sudden they won't have to pack shelves for pay(At least for six months or so). This is an act that not only ignores the boundaries of artistic credulity, but bounces back and forth with a grin on it's face screaming

"Your struggle means nothing! I have won a crap televised popularity contest and I will lower expectations by my very existence, therefore lowering the importance of every artist out there! Woot!".

But what am I to expect from an American journo. Didn't more people vote for American Idol than for President not too long ago?

Autumn/"Fall" 2009 TV In Review

So here it is, that special time of year, where we either enjoy the company of others and the gifts we exchange, or wonder why we don't have "better" friends and less family members, and whether or not the receipt for the gift is important. I'm taking a break from the madness of working out how a Boxer Dog's head fits together for some drawings(It makes no sense!), to write up a summary of how the last five months or so of TV have come along. I've only got so much time in the day(Twenty four isn't really that much when you factor in staring at the walls through your tears or sleeping the crying off for ten hours), so my breakdown list isn't by any means comprehensive, it's really just stuff I've enjoyed, stuff I've not, and stuff that's just up in the air, waiting to either become truly impressive, or fall apart and be cancelled. A fair chunk is purely American TV, because the Radio Times can do you a list of how many episodes of Dr. Who were good this year(Or realistically, simply put them in order of preference), and which insipid costume drama was the most "lovely".

I don't like giving stuff a grade, so you're going to have to read the thing, but to simplify it, I've sorted out three different categories; You Should, Maybe, and Doesn't Matter.

Things that fall into "Doesn't Matter" are things that will go on without you, and will drift along with the bare minimum of quality or interest. Some look for TV to be wallpaper, so if you like that, pluck yourself into a cannonball shape and plunge right on in to the deep end of mediocrity with those.

"Maybe" is something that really sits in no-man's land; Perhaps it came on strong with an excellent pilot, or has all the working parts necessary to make a very good, if not great tv show, but all the same it just seems to suffer for the most part. Having said that, the moment you aren't watching a show like this, you can guarantee someone you know will tell you "You missed that one? But it was the best episode EVER of ALL TIME!".

"You Should" are shows that if you're not watching, you should at least give it a chance. Some of these I imagine most people have been, or will be watching, whereas others have eluded many, many people, mostly on grounds of genre, such as "I don't like Bikers", or "Isn't that just the X-Files? I don't need another X-Files", or "F***ing AMERICANS", and are missing some of the best stuff on offer.

And just so we're clear, if you like, or even regularly watch "The X-Factor", then give yourself time to bathe in an icy bathtub, scrub yourself with wire wool, go outside in the winter air with as little clothing as possible(A back garden will help with this), turn around six times before spitting, and GET A GRIP.

"You Should"

If you've not given yourself a half hour to experience the new sitcom "Modern Family", then find out how you can do so. From the word go, this show has been a newly-forged gem of peerless quality. I'm not going to say "It's the best show since ", or "it's even funnier than ", because I'm not bloody Paul Ross. Also, if you need something like that as a recommendation, there's something wrong with you. The basic premise of Modern Family, is a take on what the modern family is; Divorced swine of a grandfather, now newly married to his buxom and gorgeous Colombian bride, who brings her overly smart young son with her, and the Grandfather's two children's families - The daughter who married for love and not for smarts or money and their three kids, and the son with his husband and their newly adopted daughter. Even if you don't laugh as much as you think you should, this is comedy with a heart, and quite frankly, I'm smitten.

However, it isn't a patch on the love I feel for "Sons of Anarchy". If you are one of the people who fall foul of "I don't like Bikers", and haven't watched this show yet, then go back a couple of paragraphs and follow the advice I gave for people who "enjoy" X-Factor. This is hands down the most complete television show you can find, with solid directing, great scripts with both dramatic storylines aswell as nuanced characters with relationships that feel real, and an ridiculously talented and well-cast collection of actors and actresses to bring it all to life - which they do IN SPADES. Based loosely around the overall story of Shakespeare's Hamlet(Young prince+dead father+suspicions over father's death+new king), which ties it together as an overall story, every episode sees the motorcycle gang otherwise known as SAMCRO(Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original), as they run their legal and illegal businesses through the small Californian town of Charming, which is more or less their own kingdom. Like most of the shows I watch, it's a serial, so each episode needs to be seen in order to make sense, but if you've made time in the past to watch quality American drama like "The Sopranos" or "The West Wing", or perhaps you liked "Sons of Anarchy" showrunner and creator Kurt Sutter's previous work - "The Shield" - then I IMPLORE you to make time to watch the best show this season, and the best new show from the last two years.

If it hadn't been for Sons of Anarchy, then my favourite show last year would have been "Fringe", the "X-Files knock-off" I alluded to earlier. Ok, so they both tread similar ground, with Fringe answering the "WTF?" moments with "It's super-science!", or "It's from another reality!", where the X-Files would say "Aliens!" or "Double-secret conspiracy!", and the all-too-willing man from the fringe of credibility paired with the scrupulous government agent-turned believer is probably the main reason for the comparisons. But I would actually say "Fringe" is the much better show. Partly because after a while, I started to feel that the guys behind the X-files had no idea how to wrap things up. There were all sorts of mysterious occurences that were being controlled by mysterious people, but after a while it felt like that had been pasted into the script by writers who didn't know how to finish their story. Fringe, for the most part, has been all about the overall arc, and linking threads together. The first season holds up MUCH better than the second(Which I'm guessing is because FOX, who pays for Fringe, isn't a fan of shows that can't simply be picked up by people who didn't watch last week, and weren't planning on watching it next week), so this season has had me doubting. But I will stay true to the show, because of the performances of John Noble. The show is good, even without every episode touching on the longer story, but even if it was bad, John Noble as Walter, the mad scientist who lost his mind(Quite literally, as it turns out), would be enough for me. I'd only seen him in the Lord of the Rings sequels before Fringe, but this man is Australia's Brando, and his touching moments, when he struggles with the confusion that clouds his brilliant brain, or suddenly remembers a tragedy from his past, I tear up. Quite literally, the best screen presence on a screen right now, whether it's a 10mm LCD, a 30-inch Plasma or a 100ft projector screen.

Oh, and if you've never seen the show before, watch the first season through. The finale of season one is....really quite something, as Walter would say.

I'm not going to spend much time on "Mad Men", because by now, EVERYONE has heard of it, and I'm ashamed to have come to the party so late. It's a strange show in some ways, because of the unutterably slow pace of it all. In some ways, it's more reminiscent of a BBC period drama, and if I ever needed a reason to stop watching, it would be that. But I haven't, and will soon look to get the earlier seasons on disc, to catch up. Watch it. Even if it's slow, even if some people complain that the show's take on history isn't accurate to real life in some small ways, you really should watch it.

Similarly, if you've seen much American TV, hopefully you're familiar with "Parks & Recreation", a show similar in style to "The Office", starring ex-Saturday Night Live star Amy Poehler. If you don't know who this is, she's the one people would regularly argue as "funnier than Tina Fey" when they were both on the show.

The shows I'm rounding off the category with, are shows I doubt many have heard of. Partly because outside of the country they're made in, most people don't get a chance to see them. I doubt that'll be true for long in the case of "Bored To Death", the latest HBO show to win my affection. Featuring a cast of Jason Schwartzman("Rushmore", "The Darjeeling Limited"), Ted Danson("Damages", "Cheers", 1996's "Loch Ness") and Zach Galifianakis("The Hangover") as a bored, pot-smoking writer who moonlights as an unlicensed private investigator, his listless, pot-smoking editor, and his friend, who has a car and smokes pot. It has a strong cast, and a wry wit, which is what I'd expect for a show that has John Hodgman as a guest star.

"In Plain Sight" is one of the most mysterious shows I know of. Mysterious, because I've yet to see it on British TV, and I have no idea why. I'm restricted to internet viewings only, and while it may not be as intense or deep as some of the other shows I love, it really hits the spot. Mary, played by Mary McCormack("The West Wing", "Murder One") is a a federal agent working for the witness protection program, and you'll go to see the cases and the spunky wit. You'll stay for the experience of being able to hate someone's family, completely guilt-free. At least until season three, when apparently the family stuff will take a back seat. Booo. Great little show though.

Everybody knows about panel shows, so love them or hate them, you know where you stand with them. I love the good ones(Screw you, "Argumental"!), including "Never Mind The Buzzcocks", so I was surprised when I found a show with many similarities, being broadcast in Australia. I've had an on-off love affair with antipodean tv from the last year, having been knocked head over heels by "The Hollowmen" a couple of years ago, so it is with great pleasure that I can say that "Spicks and Specks", now in it's fifth season, is a good 'un. Presented by regular UK panel show and all-round funny Australian type Adam Hills, it's a bit gentler and of slower pace than Buzzcocks, but sometimes the unusual novelty rounds really do the trick, and some of the guests they have, such as one of the organisers of Woodstock, can be INFINITELY more appealing than some tosspot pimping his new album by appearing on Buzzcocks. You've not seen it, but you should.

"Maybe"

The pilot episode I enjoyed the most this autumn/fall, from a lineage that has featured some of my favourite genre tv from the last decade, has unfortunately slipped into the "Maybe" pile. "Stargate Universe" is the third live-action tv show based on the premise first introduced with the(Quite frankly rubbish) Kurt Russell/James Spader action film(There have been four tv shows, but one of those was a really, really awful cartoon set in the future and everybody dressed like they were going to the gay bar we never see in James Cameron's "Avatar"), and I really loved the first episode. And for most of the rest of the season so far, I've been merely patient. I mentioned before that "Fringe" had been dodging the larger story this season, in favour of one-off, so-called "monster of the week" episodes, and while SGU has no monsters to speak of, it fails on a similar level. Perhaps it's a sign of greater interference from non-creative directors and producers to make it "mainstream", which is to say make sure everything's back to normal before next week's episode, so it doesn't upset people. If there's a theme to television at the moment, I'd say it's that, but I digress: SGU has no John Noble, but if anything, seems to have more potential than Fringe for exciting, dramatic, fraught storylines. Put simply, it's LOST, but in space. Not "Lost In Space", mind you. Beginning with a number of modern Stargate references, a new Stargate destination is connected with from a base that is about to be destroyed, so the survivors evacuate through the Stargate, into the unknown, which turns out to be a super-intelligent, unmanned space-ship, that for thousands of years has been journeying from our Milky Way galaxy, out into the universe at large, which means they have no immediate way of returning home.

It's not that I don't like the show, I do, and the mid-season finale was the best since the pilot. But its been treading water, with no clear plan, or imminent danger other than "This week we've run out of water/food/air/patience with someone/privacy/etc". The rumours I've read about the episodes in the second half - if true - should lead to the conflict this show needs, but I've also read that the mid-season break will be akin to the most egregious breaks that LOST has ever taken - It's off until April, apparently - and that can only hurt.

The only other "maybe" is a comedy show starring a guy you won't know about unless you've seen E!'s satirical news round-up "The Soup", or the recent Matt Damon film "The Informant". "Community" is an ensemble comedy hinged upon Jeff, a wise-ass lawyer who was ordered to obtain a proper "legal" qualification to resume his career, and he has to go to a local community college to do it. The ensemble can be a lot of fun, and while it might take a little while to truly find it's feet, its looking good so far.

"Doesn't Matter"

For various reasons, it just doesn't matter if you watch these shows or not, they're either dead or dying, and in some cases just dead to you, but for the shows on this list that are still running, it won't matter if you don't watch them, they're going to run no matter how many people change the channel.

Simon Mayo has had a lot to say about "FlashForward" lately, and here's the thing; The show is garbage. Rubbish. Refuse. Offal. Yet it's still on the air.

"FlashForward" is....I honestly don't know what it's about, because I think it really can't decide what it wants to be about. The pilot was all about the entire human population of the planet blacking out simultaneously, with most of the people experiencing some kind of memory of a day in the future, some of which overlap, while some experienced nothing, making them terrified that this means they'll be dead by then. More recently the show has delved into a few other things, such as the nature of fate vs. free will - Is the future pre-determined, or can we change it if we know what is supposed to happen? - but most of these other themes have been like black pepper on a dog turd. Sure, it'll taste better, but you're still chewing on a dog turd. I've given up on FlashForward, and I'll not be back this season. It was billed as "LOST, but for people who aren't very clever", but it has so far been "LOST, but for people who don't like TV". It won't matter if you don't watch it, because it won't get any better while you're gone, and it probably won't last long enough for any creative thought or talent to turn things around.

Which explains why I haven't watched "Heroes" at all this season, and no matter if even the people I feel closest to, or the people I most respect(The two are not mutually exclusive) recommend it to me, I'm not to be tricked by that show again. I fell for Heroes from the first day, when Peter Petrelli fell off the roof. Nowadays, I wish he'd fallen all the way, because it's become painfully clear that Heroes is what would happen if a comic book were to be adapted for TV by the worst writers and directors from the crappiest American daytime soaps. The whole thing DRIPS along, with no clue as to what a human being is, or even what a character is - I say this because pretty much everyone in this show not only changes their mind, but COMPLETELY reverses themselves on absolutely everything, at least once an episode. At one time they had the best villain on tv, now they've got a swiss army knife with caterpillar eyebrows. I've heard lately that the original plan from season one, is to be implemented on some level for this season. The plan was, back in the day, for everyone to die or simply not feature, past the first season. Problem being, everyone lost their nerve, and decided that because the audience seemed to like some of the characters they had, they couldn't possibly. The new problem is, that I don't believe the rumours that these characters will actually, y'know, GO AWAY. I'd prefer they die, horribly. All of them. But I'd be happy if the next season simply had a new cast list, with no old characters returning. But this show is a lot like former Newcastle United chairman Freddie Shepherd. Every pre-season, he'd speak to the press about fantastic new signing he was bringing in to see the team do better. Consequently, we'd not sign anyone of any talent. Maybe a few young players, and pay over the odds for some very average players, but they'd be massive disappointments after the hype Freddie had given us. Then, after we'd witnessed our hopes being dashed, he'd do the same thing again next season.

No more. "Heroes" might be capable of mending it's ways. But I've been hurt too many times before, and I can't keep coming round to watch it repeat the same awful travesties it promised me it wouldn't do again.

Come to think of it, that's probably why "Dollhouse" has been cancelled, and suffered such awful ratings. If only Joss Whedon had been able to capture us with a great debut season, it could be limping along tragically, like Heroes. I know you're thinking "Hang on, if you don't watch it anymore, how could you know how bad it is?". Simple answer; like the relationships we all have regrets about, I like to know how things are going these days. So I read the reviews now and then.

"The Mentalist" is something I simply don't enjoy, so I'll be blunt; If you like the main character of Patrick Jane, then fine, you'll enjoy every episode - they're all more or less the same. I wake up when they move the "Red John"(The serial killer and crazy genius who killed Patrick's family, therefore causing his motivation to solve crimes) plot along a bit, but let's be honest, it's not going anywhere. Which is regrettably the same way as I feel about the current, most likely final season of "Supernatural". "Supernatural", I love. I have one season on iTunes downloads, one on DVD, and another on Blu-Ray(All of which I gleefully recommend, especially the Blu-Ray version), and I was looking forward to the climactic season, set around the war between the armies of heaven and hell. And I'm still waiting for that to happen. There's been several episodes where soldiers from one side or another have featured, several where Lucifer has been prominent, and the recurring theme of "Where is God? Is he dead? Because he would be great if we could find him." has been around almost every episode. But all of these things have been fleeting, and "monster of the week", once Supernatural's bread and butter, seems out of place. Almost like padding, or like when you're meant to be saying something, but you can't remember it, so you blather and try to remember what it was while you play for time.

It won't matter if you don't watch "The Mentalist", because if you've seen any of them, you've seen them all. It's a procedural cop drama set around a whimsical central character, but the whimsy is there to distract you from the fact that it's an average procedural cop drama, much like the misdirection that Patrick Jane practices often. And it won't matter if you're watching Supernatural right now, in fact I'd be happy if it got less viewers, so we can be sure that this is the last season, as planned by series creator Eric Kripke. And then, once it's over, you should go out and get all five seasons of it.

Again, there are other shows out there, some of which have been cancelled already after premiering this season, while others, such as NCIS LA remain weirdly on-air, there are some that prove to be enduringly good, such as "House M.D."(When the dynamic between House and either Wilson or Cuddy takes the driving seat), and some stuff like the modern version of V is a bit like when someone buys you "art" for Christmas; For now it just sits there, and it'll take a little while before you figure out whether it was worth trying to find a place for the damned thing, or if you should have just put it in a cupboard until the gifter visits.

The World of Tomorrow...

I only know a little about the year to come, I can say I'm disappointed in the long gap before Stargate Universe returns, but I'm dying for the final season of LOST. New shows that might be worth a moment include Battlestar Galactica prequel "Caprica", showcasing Admiral Adama's father and the birth of the Cylons, "Human Target" which is an adaptation of a graphic novel that takes liberties with the source - once a guy who changes his face and identity to fulfil his bodyguard commitments is now the same guy with a different ID card every week - starring the boyfriend from the pilot of "Fringe", and...well, that's it. If nothing else, the final stages of this era of Doctor Who should be worth a few hours. Before emo-haircut Doctor takes over from not-scottish-mac-spritely. I guess the best TV show I can look forward to from a British broadcaster will be Newswipe, Screenwipe or even a potential return for Gameswipe, all from the droll, genius Charlie Brooker.

Have yourself a merry little Christmas, a lovely Pancha Ganapati, a Hanukkah filled with Chinese food, a simply peachy Islamic New Year, or whatever the hell you want to call the period and what you fill up the time with, but have the kind you want with the tv or movies you want. Or, if you feel like being a freak of nature, have one with real people. Me, I'm off to see if I can find a computer program that will show me frame-by-frame how the flesh on a Boxer dog's head works, because at the moment the best I can do is think of it as a clam doing a Marlon Brando impersonation.

"War on Copy+Paste"

I would like to preface this article by stating that I was never assaulted by NBC, never had a pet run over by an iTunes download, and I have never had a woman leave me for Peter Mandelson.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I don't know whether you've heard, but there are plans afoot to create new powers for the Government in the UK to......Honestly I give up, I have no f***ing CLUE what sense the plans are supposed to make.

I've read a number of things lately about it, chiefly driven by the all-star hero Graham Linehan(Writer of comedic gems, chiefly known for his words coming out of Irish Priests and IT dept. geeks(But I'm most fond of his books). While I've tried to find balancing articles or quotes that would help me put forward some sort of advocacy - Along the lines of "Laandaaaan! vs. Esseeeeex!" - but I don't have any support for the plans to show you.

One part that isn't being mentioned as part of the plans to...."reform" the internet industry in this country, but used to be a major part of the plans, is a new tax of 50p, to be levvied against people with landline phones. Not people with broadband internet access, but anyone with a(presumably) active landline. One thought. Why is it that people who already pay the fee to an ISP*, for access to the internet over a landline, be paying to provide the same to someone who isn't paying the fees to an ISP? Second, why should someone who isn't currently paying for broadband internet access, but does have a landline, have to pay an additional charge(The tax), in order to provide internet access for someone else who is in the same boat, to get that broadband connection in about five years time. And I'd say 5 years would be conservative - 50p/person will not raise much money quickly, so unless there are plans to create new connections sooner than that, that this will pay for, it makes no sense. And even WITH such speculative plans to create broadband access, it seems to only have one purpose - to crowbar us all onto mobile broadband services which would ill-suit our needs right now.

But then, it's not being talked about as part of the new regulations or powers. It seems that the rest of those new laws are so controversial, the 50p tax has been moved to a much less controversial bill - the finance bill - in order to make sure as many of these things come to pass as possible.

The rest of the proposed new changes really are about as luddite and old-fashioned as you could imagine from a governmental office. Especially from an office headed up by a man whom, until he met Tony Blair, seemed to have a career as a Midge Ure impersonator. Oooooh, feel the ad-hominem buuuuurrrrn.

BoingBoing.net wrote an appraisal of the proposal's worst bits, and I recommend reading it, but the key bits are:

• Kowtowing to the entertainment industry, the conglomerates that own them and the shareholders beyond, by banning households from even ACCESSING the internet, if the connection at the house contravenes copyright law.

• A fifty thousand pound fine for you if someone contravened said copyright law by using the connection, and a two-hundred and fifty thousand pound fine for ISP's that don't police these copyright infringements.

• Oh, and there's no indication that any kind of proof, evidence or trial would be necessary for the above two punishments to be brought down on your head. Just to be snitched on by an ISP. And what if someone from a neighbouring property, or even someone in a car outside your house with a small laptop and a car-charger hacked your wireless network and perpetrated the "crimes"? "What if" indeed.

• A brand new form of Videogames rating. Because the last one was just broken apparently, as opposed to the people worst hurt by the last system being hurt by their own ignorance of the content of the games.

• No such revised system for books, films, theatre or any other form of culture, because no-one ever learned how to do something bad by doing something other than playing Carmageddon or Manhunt.

• Practically unlimited power for the government official in question to create brand new rules and punishments as he sees fit. (Again, at this point it's Peter Mandelson, an unelected hack, but if there is a new party in office next year, then it'll...probably still be Mandelson. I just can't see him being shaken loose.).

Honestly I am just consistently staggered by the ineptitude and beligerence of this set of proposed changes. The games system....Seriously?!?

A sign of how crazy this weird war between consumers and a tag-team of government & media conglomerates is, is that cinema employees can send someone to prison if they're caught filming a movie in a cinema, but they have little interest in using the same situation to keep kids out of older-age movies. But if some retarded parent buys their kid a game that is immensely too mature/complex/graphically violent/sexually show-offy/at all interesting to adults, or a similarly mentally deficient salesman at a games store sells the same game to someone wearing HEELIES....that is to say, it's not the system, but the people that permeate the system, that gets "Wrong things" into the hands of those it shouldn't be in the hands of. For the government to even consider such a thing is enough of a sign of the crass way in which they view this modern culture.

Gah.

Just GAAAAAAAHHHHH.


Even though it might be said above, it really does bear explaining that this is ALL down to copyright laws, in being the cause of the problem, the nature of the problem, and an ignored solution.

Lets call it what it is - a war on filesharing. And much like the "War on Terror", it won't ever amount to alienating a substantial amount of the people it was supposed to protect. Because much in the way that increasing security and criminalising human rights in a superfluous effort to "keep us safe", it only managed to piss us off - and the "War on Copyright Infringement", will(If these proposals are any indication), do nothing but piss us off, send innocent people to prison or bankruptcy, and stagnate a creative industry already suffering from the same problems as the American banking industry. That is to say; too few players, who are all too big to fail.



So, that's the nature of the problem in part, but part of the nature of it involves the nature of copyright infringement/piracy. I've known people over my life who have committed acts of piracy: People who have recorded from the tv onto a videotape, people whoa have recorded vinyl onto tape, people who have recorded CD to tape, people who have recorded their recorded tapes onto DVDs, people who have recorded live radio onto tape, then CD, then as MP3 files, people who have played their vinyl to their computer so it can make an approximation of it, people who have passed around pirate DVD's, VHS tapes, audio cassettes, MiniDiscs(Seriously), shared MP3's, AVI's, MOV's, VOB's, DIVX's, the list goes on. Why would they do it?

Or, to get to the point, why would anyone do it?

The content they pirate is key to this. The most common/commonly-known forms of piracy are the pirate movies that the entertainment conglomerates deride while I sit WAITING to watch the LEGAL DVD I BOUGHT, or music, or TV shows. There are books and games and all sorts of things shared across the internet that contravene copyright law, and while I know that pirated games are becoming a bete-noir for the games industry, they're not losing as much as the movies music or tv shows.

So why pirate those forms of content?

Well, the first thing I bet popped into your head is "cost.". While it might be the case that there are some people who do it for money - or rather lack of money - I've never known someone to do that. I have, on the other hand, known people to pirate a movie, or a tv show, or a song, for other reasons.

The first would be availability, the second would be accessibility. Availability, because there's no "legal" method available to procure it. Accessibility because there's no one-stop shop, no "Play.com", or "Amazon" for downloading this content. Okay, now the audience will split.

Part of you will be "Ok then." You're fine, skip the next two paragraphs.

For those of you thinking "Total crap - Amazon has been unrolling media downloads for around a year and continues to do so, iTunes is everywhere and the Sony and Microsoft home consoles now both have video download services, while the Wii has access to the BBC's iPlayer", you miss the point completely. Amazon has an MP3 download store in the UK, whereas it currently has no video download store here, which it has in the US(So I really can't speak to how it is), the iPlayer along with it's content and DRM is still far from perfect, while the rest...

Ever watch modern professional wrestling? It has fireworks, fire, costumes, makeup etc, but everyone has their own theme tune. Some are obviously old tracks, such as Hulk Hogan's intermittent use of "Voodoo Child" by Jimi Hendrix, and have to be licensed one at a time, as a special deal, and the same goes when an artist you recognise made someone's entrance music. The rest, are all from vast music libraries, consisting of studio musicians put together to record a demo version, and the wrestling promoters rent access to these libraries, and have access to the tracks contained within. I feel that's the same with both iTunes and the PS3 media download library(Can't speak on 360, I sold mine). It took me all of a minute to notice certain films were unavailable in the PS3 store, that were also unavailable on iTunes. Certain films I could only buy, others I could only rent, while both were divided into those that you can only procure in SD(Standard Definition: DVD & old tv quality), or those that were fully available in both SD & HD versions, to satisfy those with either small OR large tv's. The choice is apocryphal and arcane, and completely driven by the one word to rule them all. "Rights", and who holds them. So no, iTunes and the home console content doesn't measure up. Partly because iTunes still only provides video in a format that works exclusively with Apple software, aswell as iPods, iPhones or AppleTVs, and that's just not good enough. It's not Apple's fault really, because they did the best deals they could for the rights to the content they lease from the media conglomerates. Level of choice is nowhere NEAR good enough yet, and choice of what to play it on is basically not even an option.


Availability is driven by copyright law, the deals that can be brokered on the back of it, and the money that can be leveraged by it. Movies are, in my experience, more often than not pirated because "they're not out here yet.". Motion pictures were once physically massive, chemically temperamental, and accompanied by organ music. So one would understand why our local single-screen cinema had yet to witness the latest Errol Flynn blockbuster, after reading about it in the (See if I can still spell this next one) "Newspaper". Today, motion pictures are really not called that anymore, unless you're 85 and work for The Academy of Motion Pictures, or the Motion Picture Association of America, a ridiculous entity that has a habit of issuing fatuous lawsuits like you would exude Carbon Dioxide. But what's more, they aren't as difficult to transport, and it's even easier and cheaper these days to make copies of the films for distribution, and when digital projectors become truly widespread(Not just America & London), the only part necessary will be copying the file from the company HQ to all the cinemas that have paid the company for the film. So why has the UK had to wait six months to see the latest Pixar movie, "UP"? I mean, the American audience got to buy it on a disc around the same time we get to see it(Legitimately).


TV Shows are as bad, if not much worse in some cases - One of my favourite shows is "Sons of Anarchy", an American drama about a small town and the biker gang that basically run it, and the fascinating story of the family strife and power struggle within said gang. It's such a good show, with powerful writing, an astounding cast and brilliant stories, and I'd really recommend it. Unless you live outside the USA, in which case you'd be forgiven for thinking it didn't exist - it took a similar six months or so after the first season finished for it to start running on BRAVO here in the UK. Why so long? It's not a universal thing - Sci-Fi hand-me-down "Stargate Universe" airs on Sky around a week and a day after the original US air date, and it's a similar thing to this autumn's breakout US hit comedy "Modern Family". Now, I freely admit that TV shows are harder to pitch than movies. Movies tend to strike out on their own path, and because it's only one sitting of around a couple of hours, they can garner positive press coverage easier than a tv show can, because of the drawn out nature of TV shows, and sometimes what is wildly popular in America can be garbage to other markets.


But usually, they both take that long period because of rights. And in the face of that, if someone reads about a new show or movie, watches the Youtube/Apple.com trailer for it, gets into it enough to flip through the IMDB listing or even so far as to enjoy viewing concept art for it on the web - all in the form of a digital file of one kind or another.....Quite frankly, what do people expect? And going back to the iTunes/PS3 media library, if I really want to watch a film like "Candyman"(A Clive Barker written horror movie from 1992), I can't get it from EITHER the PS3 or iTunes store. Weirdly though, I can go get the inferior sequel if I prefer. But if someone I know has a pirate DVD of it, or an AVI file of it that I can put on a pen drive, then why the hell am I doing anything wrong? If I simply can't get the digital copy of it from an online store that I'm perfectly fine with paying money to, then what exactly have I done that takes money away from film companies or stores that don't offer it to me? So if it's not available to procure in a legally acceptable manner, then why would ANYONE feel they were missing out by not having my business?


The other main reason I've found, is Accessibility. For those of you that stuck with the "Total crap" answer earlier, it's old ground - Not everyone has every electrical device. Some people have an Xbox, some have a Playstation, some have no home console, but have a DS or a PSP, some have none, but have an iPhone, while some still use other iPods and some hate the supposed hegemony of iPods that they buy a PMP(Portable Media Player - a generic term for something that plays media), from one of any number of other companies, whereas some really only have a computer. I guess I'm unlike some in this debate, in that I suppose I'm a piracy advocate, but I don't have as much of a problem with DRM(Digital Rights Management - the part of your digital file that says it will delete itself after the rental period expires, or that you can only use it on one computer or PMP). Or rather, I'd have virtually no problem with DRM if digital media was competitively priced and available for all my playback devices. But it's not. I approach it from this angle, because when iTunes first arrived with Apple's OSX, it had no store, but was there for you to record your CD's, then manage your library of sound files. The music companies went APESHIT, because they publicly announced they felt that was an act of piracy, and taking money from the mouth of the baby that Lars Ulrich was holding - therefore if people wanted to play music back in a digital format, they'd need to buy it again, in a digital format. The iTunes store arrived, and barring disputes between Apple and the individual rights holders over pricing and availability(US TV channel NBC yanked all of their programming for a few months. Bet they regret that now.), the theory was that everything was fine in the relationship between consumer and provider.


I can't get Candyman, I can't get "A Colbert Christmas", and I can't get "Sons of Anarchy"'s soundtrack EP. Not only that, but the only place I could have been able to get those, is the iTunes store, and I'd really have only been able to watch it on the laptop I'm writing this on. And the stuff I can get, has been previewed, reviewed, celebrated and in some cases given awards by the time it gets to me, never mind the sheer amount of writing and video that exists on the internet to promote shows like "Sons of Anarchy".

(I actually checked again after finishing this article, almost a year after first checking

for the SOA OST EP, and it is now there. Posted Sept '09, took ages too long.)

Amidst all of this is the completely ass-backwards way in which digital media is priced. To put it bluntly, "Competitively" isn't how it is. I've not seen it yet, but if I wanted to see "Pineapple Express", last year's stoner comedy featuring Seth Rogen doing whatever it is he does and James Franco circling the abyss, I have choices. It wasn't received brilliantly, and if people wanted it they'd have bought it on the date of release - so it'll be cheaper now than it was. Right now, as I write this, I can see it on Play.com, the PS3 Video Store, and iTunes. I can get it from the PS3 store to own, but in SD, for £11.99. iTunes has it cheaper at £6.99, again to own, SD. Play, on the other hand, has it on DVD for £3.99. I imagine there'll be one or two extras on there, but the point is clear - none of these stores apply any other charges beyond this charge to us, so for saving a few quid, aswell as potentially getting a gag reel or an EPK(Yet to see downloaded movies or TV shows bearing the extras on the DVD that I could get for less than the download), I'd wait a few days for the DVD.

Although if I really wanted the film, not just make a point, Play is currently the only place to get this movie in High Definition, with more extras than the DVD and a better picture - on Blu Ray - for £10.99. That's right, the download options, two of the very best available to us, are both inferior copies and lack any extras aswell as being more expensive than the DVD, while the only place to get it in a Hi-Def format, is on a disc that still costs less than one of the two download options, and only a little more than the cheapest, extra-less, low-quality downloadable option.


Stepping back a few paragraphs, the thing is though, with a movie like "UP", it's hard to be mad about it. Not that Pineapple Express is so awful you want to rest your head on a bench before smashing downward with a claw hammer, it's because "UP" comes from Pixar, a part of Disney. Apart from some people doing some mid-morning bitching about Disney not giving the honest, hardworking 2D animator a fair crack, pretty much everyone loves Disney and Pixar. Because they give you the feeling that what they do, or at least part of what they do, is FOR you, and in your interest. It could be giving the kids something to stare at in wonder, so you can pop out for a breather, or at least sit with an unoccupied lap, or something that charms you and engenders such an emotional reaction in you, that you're glad the people who made this weren't anyone else. I mean, it's our impression - I know that some people who worked at Disney to produce TV shows and movies didn't enjoy it and resented it(Simpsons writers, mainly), and in some ways, Disney is some way short of being benevolent in any way.....but we feel better about Disney than other companies. And because of the way it makes us feel for a couple of hours or so, we really don't pay attention to the way Disney treats us the rest of the time. Yes, I just compared Disney to a magic vagina. Because the other media companies that fund media production in order to distribute it, our time with them ranged from them hiding things from us for extended periods to nagging, all the way to screaming at us that we're not "doing it right", instead of enjoying the moment and being happy we were together at all. This acid trip takes us up to the present, where Peter Mandelson acts as a kind of "uncle" to the bad dates we had, and as part of his duties, tells us that things are going to be an awful lot different, after he had so many messages left about how you weren't "doing it right".


Suffice it to say, this stuff gets me cranky, and towards the end a little crazy. But if there was a chance at bringing both Availability and Accessibility to a digital store that was truly far-reaching in what it had to offer, was reasonably priced, could give us the same stuff our friends have, and could offer it to us the way we wanted, on the devices we wanted it on, this discussion would never happen. Instead, all we're left with is a sofa that feels too big, and an unanswered question in our head;

"Was I fucking them or were they fucking me?"

This stuff passes into law, I'd say I know how our future trysts with Viacom, Vivendi, General Electric, Disney and the rest will go. Just lie back, clench your eyes, and think of....well, England.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I forget, here's the link if you want to sign a protest petition to send to Downing St., and seeing as I dug up a "Monkey Dust" clip at the beginning of this article, here's another. Okay, three.

"The News & Why America Deserves It"

I've just finished watching an episode of "Real Time With Bill Maher", and I felt I owed it to myself(And Ash), to write out a couple of thoughts in a full entry here.

If you didn't know, "Real Time" is a show that broadcasts in America on the HBO subscriber network(It works a little like adding Sky Movies or ESPN to your existing package), starring and hosted by American stand-up comedian Bill Maher. If you've not seen and gotten used to Maher's style/schtick, you would be forgiven for turning away from the show very quickly, and even being quite vocal about how much you can't stand him - He comes across pretty slimy, and his jokes are about the most opinionated I can think of. Like Jon Stewart after his life has come crumbling down, and turned into a lascivious addict. But that's his style, and while I've never met the guy, I'm prepared to say that appearances can be deceiving, and I've never felt that because I'm unhappy with style, I'm prepared to forego the substance.

The substance is actually quite astonishing for an American show. While the fact that it is broadcast on HBO might be enough for some to find it better than the quality of other shows on other networks, I'd say even for HBO, the integrity and dedication it has to it's purpose is astounding - not just by American standards, but by any standards. The format is basically a panel discussion show, with a number of selected guests from different backgrounds and opposing views come together to discuss topics of the day. Apart from there being a couple of purely comedy segments, such as the opening "chat-show" style monologue, and "New Rules", where Maher comedically bitchslaps a few people or organisations for being stupid or wrong, you'd think from the sound of it that this sounded similar to maybe the BBC's "Question Time" as presented by let's say Frank Skinner.

But while Question Time often leaves me feeling that half the panel only showed up to show they "care" about the issues being discussed on that night, and some showed up to be a public face for a press release, or maybe just to rebut something in the press - before clamming up for the rest of the show - I always finish watching "Real Time" thinking I'd seen something amazing. And I say amazing, because it's one of only three places I can think of, where people show up to a tv show taping, and do the following;

• They are posed a question.

• They respond with their answer.

• They are then confronted with an opposing view, either from Bill Maher, or another guest on the panel.

• They discuss that.

And somewhere inbetween all of this, you really get the feeling that these people believe what they say, and are capable of arguing the point without simply resorting to "Well, that's what I believe" as some sort of ignorant mannerism to warn people that they're done listening.

True, there's often a few things that the people showing up are trying to sell - Brad Pitt recently appeared on the show around the time that "Inglorious Basterds" opened in cinemas, and people will show up once in a while to shill their book - but by and large, the guests are invited to discuss the issues in a sort of debate format, and are encouraged to do so freely.

The other two shows I was thinking of before, were The Daily Show, and it's sister show, The Colbert Report. And I was left thinking this before; Why is it that only comedians are capable of doing these sorts of shows? I watch a LOT of TV, and often resort to watching things over the internet to view things that don't get shown in this country, and I have to wonder.....is it because the probing questions and the unexpected answers they get, go under the radar of the people they are talking to? I mean, the news is rarely somewhere to go for this sort of program, and I can't help but be fascinated by why.

True, BBC News has "Hard Talk", usually hosted by Stephen Sackur, where hard questions are asked and recorded to tape, out of the context of the live news that dominates that channel. But the answers very rarely involve any insight. FOX News is dominated by several shows where the interviews are the most noteworthy part, mainly because a guest and a host screaming at each other in a confrontation over petty issues makes for a great YouTube clip. The U.S. broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC have Sunday discussion panel shows, including perhaps the most well-known "Meet The Press", but they suffer from the same apathy and inability to get to the meat of issues that the satire or comedy shows get to. Nowhere was this more present, when NBC's Chuck Todd, their senior White House correspondent, appeared on "Real Time" lately - The issue at one point turned to the deplorable state of American news reporting and journalism at large, and the finger was pointed at the on-camera reporters, such as Mr. Todd. The point at hand was about infamous U.S. mercenary group Blackwater, which is one of a large number of corporations that provides guns for hire for America in Iraq and Afghanistan. These organisations are paid reportedly vast sums - immensely more than similar members of the U.S. armed services - and have been implicated in some of the most disgraceful incidents to occur in the allied occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the slaughter in Fallujah in 2004.

Having already alluded to the current poor state of broadcast journalism as being a fallacy - that it is some kind of nostalgia that people have for a time when journalists asked difficult questions of people, and expected answers, and suggested that was the rosy glow of the past making people like him look bad - He was confronted by author Jeremy Scahill. Scahill, a frequent contributor to "Real Time", wrote a book on Blackwater, and confronted Todd over his blase attitude. Regarding the lack of responsibility to hold the government accountable for things such as Blackwater's abominable record, or Dick Cheney's private assassination squad, or the similar machinations that go on under the current Obama administration, Chuck Todd's response was this:

"Because...what is it gonna get turned into - a political foodfight where you can't get anything done, Congress would not be able to get any prosecutions done, and worse yet, the prosecutions that you [Jeremy Scahill]...would like to see, would end up in a (inaudible), and you don't get it(The prosecutions), and then you find it provides some immunity farther along and you find out you can't try these folks..."

At that point Jeremy Scahill interrupted him and Bill Maher moved the issue on a little, but you get the gist. If we report on this in a vocally disapproving manner, things may get messy.

Let me explain again - the man saying this, is the Senior White House Correspondent, for the National Broadcasting Company(NBC). The man who sits in the White House press room(Not all the time, he'll only show up for the big press conferences or the ones he wants to), asks the questions so that the public can hear the answers, and on the subject of "We're paying mercenaries to fight our wars, they're killing people they shouldn't be - often in massive numbers - we're using secret assassination squads to do things we don't want the public to know about", he thinks it shouldn't be addressed in any real way, because it would get messy for Congress.

So the thing I have to ask about all of this - Are comedy shows capable of being this incisive because they get to slip under the radar by means of low expectations? Or are they noteworthy at being successful, because "journalists" fail so spectacularly at what the public expect them to do, it leaves them to turn to comedians.

I guess that leaves me with an image in my head of the famous symbol that represents theatricality and drama - one the face of comedy, one the face of tragedy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other thing that watching Maher's show leaves me with, regards the latest reason Americans have found to get all apeshit about.

"Healthcare reform".

Actually, to be fair, that's hardly the reason so many Americans have gone quite cuckoo lately. Like a many-headed Hydra, or a loose stool, there are many different parts to why they've gone nuts. I suppose the first would be the view of so many Americans that they don't like government, they don't trust government, and if they could, they'd live their lives without government. Which means when political figures from the conservative side of America start suggesting that this would mean people get less care, or in some cases would be denied care, and would be put to death by the government, something similar to a stench-ridden first burp of the morning goes off in their brains.

Then there's the notion of public healthcare. If you'd listened to an American politician speak about healthcare in America within your lifetime(With a few exceptions), they would in all likelihood used this exact phrase, if not merely the same message.

"America has the best healthcare in the world".

I'm not sure exactly what was being used to qualify "best" in that sentence, or whether there was really any truth in the sentiment at all. From my own perspective, I can only think of one example - that in America, they have some of the most highly-trained, most experienced, most inventive surgeons in the world, doing some of the very best work. I say that, because for so many Premier League footballers and sportsmen of every association to go to see one guy - Dr. Richard Steadman - to save their careers, they must think he's alright at his job. But here's the thing; Dr. Steadman, I'm sure, is expensive. Probably too expensive for any BUPA plan to pay for, and definitely too expensive for any NHS patient to see. In fact, I'm guessing that if these sportsmen weren't paid as much as they are, or weren't seen as so important by their employers, they wouldn't be able to afford the treatment they had. I also hear a lot of people visit America for life-saving cancer treatments, or for similarly important heart operations. But then, they go to other nations for that too - I've known cancer survivors who visited European countries for their treatment.

So I guess the short form of that paragraph would be - maybe they do have the best healthcare in the world. But only, ONLY if you can afford it, and not many can.

Of a nation of some three hundred and thirty million, fifty million or so, have no healthcare of any kind. I'll admit, that some of those will be the kind of person who feels aggrieved that their new car has so many airbags. The person that we've all met at some point, who says "I'll be fine, I'll just be careful.". But I'd guess that the majority of that group divides into two sections - the ones who can't get it because they can't afford any healthcare, and the ones who can't get it because no healthcare company will take them(Either because they have a "pre-existing condition" before they apply, or any healthcare they could get wouldn't cover them for what they need).

Allow me to put that into perspective - if the estimate for the 2009 census of the population of the United Kingdom were a glass, filling it up with the Americans with no healthcare at all would nearly fill it. The UK is estimated to have sixty-one million or so people in it, and estimates for the current total in America, put it around fifty million people with no access to healthcare, other than paying the ER when they need it. And the ER isn't cheap. If it involves a surgical procedure, then the visit would cost an average of $904 dollars by 2003 estimates, and costs have gone up since then. Nearly a thousand dollars for something that doesn't include any kind of ongoing care or pharmacy charges.

As I said, if the Health Insurance company you apply to finds out that you have any kind of pre-existing medical condition, they have grounds to deny you care under their legal powers. If you tell them upfront, they won't insure you. If you don't tell them, and they find out later on, they'll flush you out of the building quickly.

I suppose all of this is by-the-by, because depending on your experiences and your views on the subject, there are any number of reasons why you'd be in favor of such a system or against it. But the nub of it for me, is this. Why is it so distasteful for so many people, for a bureaucrat paid for by a democratically elected government to be managing healthcare, when all that exists for all Americans who are not elderly or ex-service personnel(Who both get socialised medicine and have done for many years), is healthcare being managed by a bureaucrat paid for by a business that only exists to make a profit? I understand that many people don't trust government, but quite frankly, for fuck's sake, why are corporations so much more trustworthy to these people?

Along with being unable to believe that the current, democratically elected 44th President of the United States was born in America, are these people unable to accept that corporations lied about, or even at least kept secret that tobacco is dangerous? That too many cars of the twentieth century were so poorly made that if you were in an accident you wouldn't need an airbag so much as a fireproof asbestos suit? Or that so much of the folksy charm turned on by the officials that they elected is a put up job to convince you to vote for someone you like rather than someone who won't sell out their vote for a holiday home to fuck in Argentina?

But I digress. I've spent a lot of time lately dueling with people who disagree with me on a great many things, on the news aggregate website "The Huffington Post", under my username "CrackerJacker". And something I've come to realise, is that many people feel their democratically elected officials fail them in some regard. I'm not convinced that Democracy is really any better or worse than any other form of governance, such as Communism or Totalitarian Despotism, only that it depends on the people in charge being any good at not fucking up. Right now, in America, the people in charge ARE fucking up. Massive, deadly important issues are being left to die by the roadside, deprived of life-giving attention and debate, aswell as the action needed to save the nation. But it's not the elected officials. They may well spin on a dime(Sixpence over here) and change their opinion at the drop of a hat(Same over here), all for the backing of someone they want to do business with, costing the people much more than mere money, but they are allowed to do so by the biggest fuckups in the country. The people. Members of the Press Corps like Chuck Todd may be disappointments and failures in the eyes of the people, either because of their pandering as seen by the left, or because of their intrusiveness by the right, but they don't work for the public, they work for a corporation with sponsors and shareholders. If waking up in the morning and being offended at their reflection hasn't made them be better journalists, then the public being unhappy with them won't make any difference to them.

Then again, maybe Chuck Todd is right. Maybe it is true, that everyone says that it's always "The Good Old Days", and that the only good newsmen are people who are long-dead and buried. But if that's the case, it's not his fault, or David Gregory's fault, or Brian Williams, Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson's fault. It's the fault of the public. Not for voting someone into office who turned out to be a completely amoral sellout. But because they decide that voting for someone else next time is enough. The news may not be popular today, and that is directly the fault of the people who report the news and put it on TV, because newsmen are like politicians: They run on the basis of being liked by the audience, and not being a bother is a key way to an American's heart. With the apathy that the American public - apart from very vocal tiny minorities - show for politics and the people they elect to serve on their government, what example should the news follow? The newsmen their fathers admired? Or the politicians of the day, who so capably soothe the public into a coma, where they will be without the healthcare that is apparently, "The envy of the world", because apathy is a pre-existing condition.

And the worst of it is, it's becoming a similar story here, too. Do you know why? Because since the second World War, Britain has been part of an obsessive love affair with America. From the GI's with their candy bars and their lovely accents that charmed so many war widows in the thirties and forties, to our ongoing fascination with their music, their technology and their "bling".

America has failed to investigate George W. Bush for the travesties of his time in office, the most conspicuous of which being the ignored intelligence reports that forewarned of 9/11, and the resulting invasion of a supposed terrorist state full of stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which turned out - oddly enough for a country ruled by Saddam Hussein - to be completely innocent. The people have allowed this to happen. But do you know what is just as shameful? The man who led us - the UK - blindly into the same conflict, not only has thus far not been investigated or indicted by anyone other than parts of the media, not only currently walks freely, but is now a special envoy to the part of the world we complicitly invaded alongside America.

The people get the elected officials they deserve. And the news media to reflect both. Be thankful for the comedians, otherwise all we'd be left with is the tragedy of the reality we've created. Reality like Chuck Todd.

Late Update: I've Tweeted about this, but just after I finished editing this article, I wandered over to HuffPo, and this was the video presented to me in the story. Watch it to the end, and make sure you're paying attention to what they're saying.