Brain on Tap

1. Harangue BBC Trust 2. Copy & Paste

2010-03-02T08:55:00.000-08:00

The BBC has confirmed it is closing BBC Radio 6(Music), something that I am justifiably unhappy about. There is a questionnaire going on, where the BBC Trust will survey the public, before accepting or rejecting the Director-General Mark Thompson's proposals. The following was my response, copied-and-pasted from the site while I was filling it in. It's a few pages long, but I wholly recommend you go fill in your own response to it.

The BBC's strategic principles

The Director-General has proposed five high level principles which would set the future direction of the BBC. These are:

putting quality first, including five areas of editorial focus for all BBC services
doing fewer things better – including stopping activities in some areas
guaranteeing access for all licence fee payers to BBC services
making the licence fee work harder – being efficient and offering better value for money
setting new boundaries

The Trust agrees that the BBC should have a set of published principles and, when these are agreed, we will ensure that the BBC is held to account for acheiving them.

Some of the proposed principles are in response to challenges the Trust has set the BBC – such as focussing on high quality programmes and considering whether the current range of services is too large. We endorse these five principles, although we have not agreed to specific proposals in each area.

1. I think aiming for quality first is aspirational, but "quality first" is a VAST misnomer when the only music radio station I listen to is being closed in order to channel funding to more news coverage. I like the news. I liked it more when I didn't have it at all times of the day, repeated frequently for the idiots who hit the wrong button while they looked for Sky News. 6 Music is the only radio station interested in new music as new music, and it happens to play quality older music too. The commercial sector offers no competition for this because it is impossible for a corporate, commercial business to serve a customer instead of a shareholder. The BBC is proposing SACRIFICING quality to be politically expedient.

2. "Doing fewer things better" is an oxymoron. The BBC does some things much better than anyone else from around the world. If that's true, am I to expect that the BBC will go back to making saturday night shows that compete better and therefore draw more fire from commercial rivals for hurting them? 6Music is one of the things you were doing better than anyone else, and it was because everyone else is incapable of doing it, because they CAN'T, as they are commercial providers with completely different interests to the BBC, normally only stretching as far as a good share of the audience and something that will shut the shareholders up and stabilise the share price.

3. I wanted 6 Music to be a broadcast station from the moment it began broadcasting. But if you're saying that it should be dropped because not all BBC customers can access it, how long will those BBC customers access it anyway, bearing in mind the analogue signal will be turned off soon after 2015?

4. Really? Then why does Radio 3 still exist?

5. Great. "We're re-drawing the territorial border, and leaving you on the outside". These changes would make the BBC LESS useful to me. It would become something I would be LESS interested in paying attention to. I'm already full up on sport, and I'm tired of the news being such a constant presence in my life(I only really use the BBC for my news!), I have no interest in the children's programming, nor the "family" programming. The "fewer things better" mantra only works, if the stuff you weren't focusing on.....is what people WANT.

BBC 6 Music is the radio station that was created because both 1 & 2 forgot their places in the world. Radio One and Radio Two are EXACTLY like their commercial counterparts. WHICH IS WHY I LISTEN TO RADIO 6 MUSIC. If this is a pre-amble to either Radio 1 or 2 becoming more like they were meant to be - i.e. much more like Radio 6 Music, then you've proposed destroying a national treasure, one of the best radio stations from around the world(And I've experienced a lot of radio while travelling), in order to patch something that was broken in the interest of something that was foolhardy at the time.

"doing fewer things better".

Should the BBC have any other strategic principles?

Most of the complaints levvied at the BBC by conservatively-minded individuals and supposed business rivals - who are only rivals because they appear on the same chart as the BBC when it comes to ratings - are a sham. Anything that the BBC does, is always done in a way that only a publicly-owned entity can, and that is also a way that can NEVER be done by a commercial enterprise. There are NO overlaps between 6 Music and commercial stations. Do you know why? Because there are no commercial radio stations that run without commercials or adverts for sponsors, or ones that play a track "Because I heard it and I wanted to play it to you".

The BBC should never be in direct competition with commercial providers. But when commercial providers complain - often via their own media outlets - that they are suffering, it is because of their own inability to do well. It is not because the BBC has tied their shoe-laces together.

Proposed principle: Putting Quality First

We know that you have very high expectations of BBC programmes and services. We also know that most BBC programmes and services meet audience expectations, but that some do not. The Trust will always push the BBC to do better in this respect and we're keen to know what you think.

Which BBC output do you think could be higher quality?

The primetime and late-night television output of the BBC is desolate. Not because there's not enough money being poured into it, but because the content there was made with the aim in mind of "what will beat what ITV have tonight?". I don't CARE what ITV are doing. In all honesty, I have not watched ITV for almost a decade, and have no interest in going back. Over that same period, I've noticed more and more of the BBC late-night output become sanitised, insipid and terrified for it's life, in response to the complaints of irresponsible parents and news organisations that make their living from making you scared that someone is hurting you while you're looking in the other direction.

Long story short, beyond Mad Men, Charlie Brooker and several panel shows, how many night-time shows on any BBC channels do you think I watch?

Offering you something special

The Trust believes that the BBC needs to do more than offer high quality programmes and services.

We know that your expectations of the BBC are that it offers something special to you – something distinctive and better than other broadcasters. For example, the BBC should offer you thoroughly independent and impartial news, it should introduce you to new talent in drama and comedy, and its radio stations should play pop music that other radio stations don’t.

The Trust knows that you think the BBC could do more to be original and different in some areas.

Which areas should the BBC make more distinctive from other broadcasters and media?

The BBC IS distinctive from "other broadcasters and media". When it comes to the output I'm interested enough in for me to watch or listen, the BBC produces more shows on television, more radio shows and more content online than anyone else. BECAUSE it is ALREADY distinctive. The lack of a craven, desperate need to hunt money like some kind of genetically manipulated hound. Instead it is free to get things done by exploring the ideas and themes it needs to, to educate and entertain me.

The Five Editorial Priorities

The Director-General has proposed that all BBC services should be focussed on some or all of five editorial priorities.

The Director-General's proposed editorial priorities are:

The best journalism in the world
Inspiring knowledge, music and culture
Ambitious UK drama and comedy
Outstanding children’s content
Events that bring communities and the nation together

The Trust thinks that the proposed editorial priorities fit well with those things you have told us are important to you in our previous research, but we want to consider how these priorities should be delivered to you in the future.

Do these priorities fit with your expectations of BBC TV, radio and online services?

They do. They also do not fit with the image of a BBC that cancels Radio 6 Music as a cost-cutting exercise.

"Inspiring knowledge, music and culture. But only if it gets more than a million listeners"

Proposed principle: Doing fewer things and doing them better

The Trust believes that BBC must offer the highest quality programming. We have previously told the Director-General that we think that the pursuit of higher quality may mean doing less overall.

The Director-General has proposed a number of areas where the BBC could reduce or stop activities altogether. The suggestions are to:

Close Radio 6 Music and focusing the BBC’s pop music output on Radio 1 and Radio 2
Close Asian Network as a national service and aiming to serve Asian audiences better in other ways on other BBC services
Change BBC local radio stations, by investing more in breakfast, morning and drivetime shows, but share content across local stations at other times of the day
Close the BBC’s teen zone, BBC Switch
Close the teenage learning offer Blast!
Make the BBC’s website smaller, with fewer sections. (We do not yet have the details of what will be cut)

We can assure you that decisions have not yet been taken on any of these areas and that we will consider each area very carefully before doing so.

We welcome your views on these areas.

The idea of closing one good radio station in order to patch two other stations, which I not only don't listen to, but recoil whenever I have to listen to them, is utterly foolhardy.

Radio 1 and Radio 2 as they stand will be poor replacements for 6 music because 1 and 2 are insipid. They follow ratings and the approval of their chosen demographic as though they a leash round their neck. The ridiculous events of the Radio 1 breakfast show over the last twenty years have been evidence of that.

The BBC website, I have little use of, beyond the iPlayer, tv or radio listings and the vast use I have for the News site. Everything else on your list of things to not do I am unfamiliar with.

Proposed principle: Guaranteeing access to BBC services

The growth of digital technologies and platforms has led to greater choice and convenience for many people in terms of how they receive and consume TV and radio programmes.

Many of the BBC’s TV, radio and online services are now delivered to you in several ways. For example, many BBC radio services are available on AM, FM and DAB radio, digital television and online devices. However, the Trust recognises that some BBC services are still unavailable on the main platforms, such as FM or DAB, in parts of the UK.

The Trust believes that there is a fine balance to be struck here – between giving you the chance to receive BBC services in all the ways and devices you may have and making sure that the BBC doesn’t spend too much on delivering BBC content to you, rather than on the content itself.

If you have particular views on how you expect BBC services to be available to you, please let us know.

I have been a fan of BBC 3 & 4 since they launched, aswell as Radio 5 Live and 6 Music. As far as I am concerned they should all be available as freely as possible, meaning the radio stations should be on FM. The AM signal for 5Live is pathetic, the DAB-only status of a wonderful music station is a massive hindrance. BBC 3 and 4....well, the analogue tv signal will be turned off soon, so other than that, there seems to be no way to affect how many people see it.

Quite frankly, the future should be wireless access to a digital BBC archive, where files can be retrieved from the archive and transmitted to a hand-held device. Which makes my other points a bit moot.

The BBC archive

The BBC is always considering ways in which it can make its programmes available to you at no cost. For example, recent TV and radio programmes are already available to you soon after broadcast on the BBC iPlayer.

The Trust is not considering specific proposals from the Director-General in this area at this point, but welcome any views you may have on having access to recently broadcast and to older BBC programming.

Please tell us if you have views on this area.

Access to the entire BBC archive, in a digital format, should be available to all licence-payers. It was all made on the back of money we have all paid. If it still remains in the archive, there's a reason for that - you can't figure out a way to make money from it.

Proposed principle: Making the licence fee work harder

One of the Trust’s priorities is to ensure that the BBC offers excellent value for money, by being efficient and by making effective use of its income. We think that it is right that you expect this of the BBC.

The Trust welcomes the Director-General’s proposals to ensure that the BBC offers value for money and, specifically, we support the aim to maximise the proportion of the licence fee that is spent on programming. However, we know that there will be more do to, in order to achieve this.

If you are concerned about the BBC’s value for money, please tell us why.

I don't see "Larkrise for Candleford" as anything but a massive, massive hole to pour money into, while old women dressed in period costume applaud.

Proposed principle: Setting new boundaries for the BBC

The Trust has asked the Director-General to consider where the BBC could be clearer about the limits to its activities as we know there is considerable demand for this from other broadcasters and media companies and the BBC has a responsibility to consider its competitive impact on others.

The Director-General has set out a list of proposed limits to BBC activity. These are:

Reducing the BBC offer in pop music radio by closing 6 Music
Closing niche services for teenagers: BBC Switch and Blast!
Reducing BBC expenditure on programmes bought from abroad - for example, American films and dramas
Limiting BBC expenditure on sports rights
Not offering any more localised services than the BBC already does – for example, new services for individual towns or cities
Making the BBC website more focussed on particular areas.

The Trust has carried out work in some of these areas already and we support some aspects to these limits: making the BBC’s website focussed and distinctive and setting limits to the BBC's local media offer.

In many other areas, we recognise there are trade-offs. For example, buying a US drama can mean that viewers are offered a high quality programme at lower cost than would be possible with a new British programme.

The Trust has not taken decisions in any of these areas and we will consider each one very carefully before doing so.

Do you think that the BBC should limit its activities in these areas?

1. No, because this kind of station has no impact on commercial rivals, because commercial companies are completely incapable of producing this kind of station. And if commercial rivals cannot do something, that is no reason for the BBC to be hobbled in the same way.

2. I have no opinion. Never used them.

3. In specific examples, I applaud importing films and dramas. I loved 24 for as long as the BBC had it(I'm not kidding, I've not watched it since), I love watching Mad Men, and there are many other examples of more of the same. But it is important to buy something when it is the best, or better than what the BBC can make. If the BBC can make something better, then don't buy the American product as a filler. And I've known ALL broadcasters to resort to that over my time.

4. I don't think I have a problem with things as they are. If nothing else, the BBC is spending less on sports coverage anyway, after losing several packages of football lately, and if I remember correctly, the BBC has no Olympics to show from London.

5. Britain is a small country. If people want more focus on their town or city, they can read the local paper, or talk to the locals.

6. I don't know what that means. I like the BBC website, but I'm unaware of what might be stripped out of it, as per your question.

Should any other areas be on this list?

The BBC should be listening LESS to the Daily Mail, an old-world newspaper with dwindling numbers and a readership who will only be happy when the world stops scaring them.

iPad....FIGHT!!!

2010-01-31T18:53:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-12-22T19:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-20T09:12:00.000-08:00

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"

2009-11-24T16:15:00.000-08:00

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"

2009-09-01T20:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Crazy Idea No. 33379444

2009-08-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

I was just watching someone else pick up a computer and announce their intention to visit Twitter, and I had an idea. The hash symbol on Twitter allows tweets of innumerable authors can be tied together into one list of constantly updating writers, and these popular subjects are ranked on the internet, as Trending Topics. There could, and should be a show on Sky tv, where for a half-hour to an hour, Sky highlights the "Trending Topics" from across all Sky channels, and shows us unedited clips of them. The title of the show? #.

What I Twot.

2009-08-04T06:24:00.000-07:00

I just hit the button that makes the thing go fast and make my words appear on Twitter, and it struck me that what I was thinking, seemed an immensely odd thing - in that it hadn't happened yet.

Let me show you:

Cjay79Why can't I buy a copy of Football Manager 2009 from iTunes? It seems a logical step, to me. One that to my mind, suits all.

I don't want to play Football Manager right now, I've been successfully on the wagon for around a year. But what I was thinking was along the lines of this: Apple computers, run Apple software. They may now be able to install Windows on a partitioned drive and run stuff not meant for Apple computers, but historically, Apple computers run Apple software or software written for Apple computers. Software intended for Apple computers is not, and has not been in adequate supply. You might find some Apple software on a dusty, untidy shelf at the back of PC World, or near the laptops in Currys, and in the past you'd have to dig up the Yellow Pages to find your local computer store, just outside the city centre. Stores like Amazon and Play may well have levelled the field, but it's still harder to get than software intended for Windows. At the same time, Apple have made a name for themselves with the iTunes store. Say what you will, but this is THE digital store. I know lots of people who don't like iTunes as a media manager, spoiled by too many years of Media player, and I know plenty of people who don't like the iTunes prices, for other reasons. But iTunes is still the recognised name for a digital media store. It's still the major player, the big fish in a small tank when it comes to selling music or movies online. Amazon may be making inroads, and once Netflix moves outside the U.S.A. then it might make serious money.....but this is also the piece of software linked in every way, to one of the most prized pieces of modern consumer technology: The iPhone, and it's voice-calling handicapped brother, the iPod Touch.

I guess what I'm saying is this: A student gets his student loans in, gets his new Macbook computer, has his new iPhone on charge. He sits down, boots it up for the first time, and runs some of the programs that came pre-installed. He checks out what his computer can do(By means of his software), and what it can't yet do. He begins to stretch out a little, and consider what he'd like to be able to do with himself. He thinks "I've got a camcorder, and I've got some ideas. I wanna make a movie. I've got iMovie on there, and that's fine, but I want greater flexibility and horsepower.". He opens up iTunes, and goes to the App Store - not the iPhone App Store, but the Mac App Store - and he looks through the list of video applications onscreen. He finds Final Cut Express, which for what he needs is just right, and with his student discount being reflected by his iTunes account, the price suits him too. He considers a special offer brought up in the Shopping Cart screen, which gives him a further hundred pounds off the total cost, if he buys Final Cut Express alongside Adobe After Effects(Again, both reflect his student discount), and makes his purchase.

His computer, combined with his iPhone, gives him the freedom to have his laptop evolve with his needs. Instead of having to worry about re-installing every program he removes, all the CD's or DVD's, along with all the serial numbers he'd have to find to install it.....instead he can open his iTunes account and simply re-download purchased software, which is already authenticated via his iTunes account(So no serial numbers). Using the internet via the ethernet port, the wifi card, or the iPhone tether, this student is able to access the software he needs when he needs it, where he needs it. He's on downtime after finishing a video project? Erase the video programs and download Football Manager. Or even better, Warcraft III. World of Warcraft, even. No serial numbers, and convenient access via a digital platform everyone knows. Then when it's back to work, he can use the iPhone's data connection while on a train ride home to re-install MS Office or iWork, Photoshop CS3 or iWeb.

I'm surprised this doesn't exist yet, because Apple already altered our preconceptions about data. People wander around all day with a computer in their hand all day - it has a touchscreen and a 3G chip in it. There's no removable data drive there, only a connection to directly copy files from another computer. The Macbook Air came out, without an optical drive. True, you could use software to access another computer's optical drive via a network connection, or you could shell out for an external drive, but it came with no such device. A few years earlier, Apple were one of the first computer manufacturers to abandon floppy disk drives entirely, with the rise of the iMac.

So, with this kind of history, and every other kind of digital media available on their own storefront....why can't I buy full software for digital download from the iTunes store? That way I wouldn't have to wait for Amazon to deliver it, or cross my fingers that Apple's own partner courier service - which has non-negotiable rules on when it can deliver things - will knock at the door while I'm sitting on the floor behind it.

A Dedication

2009-08-03T09:45:00.000-07:00

I promised I'd post this for someone who wanted to see this. It was a drawing I did for Jac's last birthday, of her Dog Murphy. Here's the original linework:

It was originally an area around the size of an A5 piece of paper, right in the middle of a piece of A4. It sits in a frame on Jac's mantlepiece now, as the final version I did, I couldn't print in time to present it as a card. Either way, here's the final version.

(Please note: Larger versions of both the linework and final colour

can be found by clicking here and here.)

So there we go Grandpa, as promised.

Just For Today....

2009-07-31T13:36:00.000-07:00

....I return to a little lite PS editing. Motivated by some thing I guess.

It's a total hatchet job, just ten minutes spent messing on PS with the idea. Might end up working on it with pen/pencil later.

Americans Are Cute And Adorable And I Want One.

2009-07-25T10:32:00.000-07:00

The new kid on the scene:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

The original:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Filed under "F*** me, that looks brilliant!"

2009-07-18T14:05:00.000-07:00

Video Games | Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet | Exclusive Extended Trailer HD

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

From My Formative Years.

2009-07-08T06:49:00.001-07:00

"If You Splash Rhythmically While Doing It, You're Not Drowning; You're INNOVATING"

2009-07-02T08:42:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned the U.S. answer to new media circa 1999 - "HULU" - before, and its in the news today. Well, technically it's been in the news for the reason I'm about to explain for a few days already. I think Engadget.com had it last week. Anyway.

Here's the thing - "HULU" is a website which you can visit to watch tv shows from several notable providers(NBC & FOX for sure, I don't know of others(It's been U.S. only, but apparently at some point soon U.K. viewers will start to be able to use it), for free. Well, technically the same way as you would with free-to-air tv; It's paid for with ads in the content you're watching.

The reason why HULU is in the news now, is that HULU has been blocked from being accessed by customers who were using the Playstation 3 games machine. I've never looked into it, but I can guess PS3 users were using the PS3 web browser to do this, and now anyone using a PS3 to access HULU, is barred at the gate. Apparently the move was to do with - according to NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker:

"we're committed to Hulu being an online experience."

Now, I will come clean, that comment was made about another online service called "Boxee", which allowed people with a variety of computers and devices to get access to an amalgam of online video services such as HULU; The main beneficiary of Boxee users was that they could load it onto an Apple TV set-top-box. The quote was mentioned in a story reported on by the IMDB news from "Studio Briefing", where the story was the HULU/PS3 issue, and it seems to be a similar issue to Boxee - ie the story is that HULU is being purposefully kept away from tv screens, and on computer monitors. And that is part of the criminally stupid mindset of the distribution industry.

Rather than take advantage of the fact that people who can access your content might actually want to WATCH your content(Which would be an achievement for NBC), the people behind the service want to actually control who can and who can't, further creating difficulties in people being able to access the content(In a legitimate, legal way, too), and generating an immense air around HULU that it is in fact run by very difficult people, who are only happy if you follow their checklist to get in the front door.

Idiots.

I mean, I know the probable reasons behind this. Either advertisers, or executives trying to anticipate the behaviour of advertisers, have gotten a bee in their bonnet over both their online, HULU advertising, and their broadcast advertising being seen in the same place, that is to say; On a TELEVISION.

And if their advertising, which will be expensive, is perceived by anyone as overlapping in any way, it becomes an issue. For example:

Advertiser: I'm paying you £X to advertise on your tv channel.

TV Network: Yes.

Advertiser: And I'm paying you £Y to advertise on your swanky online service that you say is the future, and a way of combating the internet.

TV Network: Yes.

Advertiser: I found out last night that there's a games machine that can access this service online.

TV Network: Uhhhhh........Mega Drive?

Advertiser: Could be.

TV Network: Ok?

Advertiser: It plugs into my daughter's tv.

TV Network: I'm with you so far, but.....

Advertiser: She can watch the online service via the console, see my ads, then switch the channel, and see my ads on your tv channel.

TV Network: Ah.

Advertiser: If I'm paying for adverts in two different places, but you can see them in just one place, shouldn't that mean I should be paying you less?

TV Network: Hahahaaa, oh nonononononono. No, that thing with the games console? Is what we call a glitch.

Advertiser: Oh?

TV Network: Indeed.

Advertiser: Go on.

TV Network: Yes, a "glitch", an "error", or "mistake", that comes up unexpectedly. The internet's causing all sorts of problems. We have our sorcerers reporting to us daily on these teething -

Advertiser: I'm sorry, "Sorcerers"?

TV Network: Yes, for the interweb. Can be very dangerous for those not.....nevermind. Anyway, it's a glitch, and we'll fix it so that you can't see your ads from both the internet and broadcast on the television, through that games machine.

Advertiser: That's all I wanted to hear.

TV Network: Anything else, master?

Advertiser: No, that's all. Back to my throne made out of baby skulls I think.

Trailerwow.

2009-06-30T04:26:00.000-07:00

I've not walked away from a trailer and felt blown away by special effects in a long time, but it's happened. I was left that way by a trailer the other day - "2012", the new film by Roland Emmerich - by not only the complete believability of the things I was seeing on screen, but the brazen scale of what had been put together for me to ogle at.

For it to be the latest film behind the re-ruining of "Godzilla", the similarly building-flattening "Independence Day", and the extra gloomy "The Day After Tomorrow", you'd have to say that Roland Emmerich is good at keeping a theme going. The trailer's right below me here, so check out the 2009 version of the end of the world, popularly predicted to be actually occur in 2012. It's pretty impressive, even though I have full confidence in it being a comically awful film, like the rest of his tales, but watch out for the early signs of a lack of creativity; Swiping the design of the ships from classic Battlestar Galactica, and going back to rival disaster film "Deep Impact" to use another elder african-american statesman as U.S. president. Nice effects though. Really feels like it's getting better now.

"The Future Begins". Again.

2009-06-26T05:26:00.000-07:00

picture to follow.

I'm nuts about science fiction, and I have a lot of fond memories of Star Trek's original series, aswell as the movies. Well, the first two. While I'm one to bemoan the lack of new ideas in Hollywood, I do actually like some attempts to revisit an intellectual property(IP). Especially when, like Star Trek, the IP has been revisited a lot of times already. The animated series, the videogames, The Next Generation, Next Generation movies, DS9, Voyager and countless books.

The thing is, going into this film as someone who has watched Star Trek his entire life, I felt like watching this movie was like taking a test I was over-prepared for. It really did start from "the beginning", as we were present for not only Jim Kirk taking his first command, but the natal birth of him, not just his birth as the starship commander we know about. You come to the story as though the old Star Trek never happened, or you're being treated to a refresher course in something lost. And that's the theme, and overall thread to the film. The birth of the new.

The other side of that thread, and an inevitability to the birth of the new, is the death of the old. Or most of it. While it remains to be seen that this continuity/alternate reality version of Star Trek will continue, or be as long-lasting as the previous reality, the 2009, J.J. Abrams version does it's best to put the old one to bed. You'll probably know already that this film has time-travel in it, and if you didn't then it won't come as a surprise. J.J. Abrams has become well versed in things like time-travel, via his experiences on Lost, or more recently Fringe. Not to mention the ill-advised, fourth-wall breaking finale of Felicity, where the cast found a time-machine, which sent them thirty years into OUR past, to organise the rebellion ahead of Judgement Day.

Without spoiling it, the time-travel here is used, as it has been since Terminator, to be a preventative measure of sorts; "fixing" things by altering history. Although maybe not as benevolently as when Sam Beckett did the same.

As a fan, it worked a treat for me. The metaphor of birth from death made it altogether easy for me to segue into this re-invention of a world-wide phenomenon, which I'd say is by far the greatest, but maybe not the most obvious achievement of this film.

The film itself, was fine. Chris Pine did a great job as a conduit for a sort of "meta-Kirk", almost as impressively as Karl Urban did a number on the role of Bones McCoy. The effects were excellent, especially the H.A.L.O. jump sequence(Although I think an extended, POV inside a helmet shot would have been better for part of that scene), and I really loved that the ships were treat like submarines, the original inspiration for ships like the Enterprise, even if the majority of lower decks felt more like "Red Dwarf" than "Star Trek" at times.

Granted, I had my head in my hand when the main characters had to explain "like an alternate reality?"(Why not have a character called "Ensign Exposition III" to read those awful lines), I didn't think "warp speed" should be controlled by a chrome lever, and I could have cracked something over the kid playing Chekov for the way he played him like an elderly dork from "Fiddler on the Roof". But these were very small things in a film I liked a lot. I'd have enjoyed it more, but I felt a little detached from the experience, because I kept thinking;

"It's obviously not intended for me"

Again, I really did like the film, but because of the nature of it - killing the old so that the new may live - meant I felt a little spurned, as though in mourning. Not a lot, but enough for me to not enjoy it as much as I felt I should have - But I imagine that most people will not suffer the same as me.

All in all, it's a very good film, and unless Up is as good as I've heard, this may be the best of the blockbuster releases this year, and I say that while refusing to see Terminator 4 - "The Franchise Goes To Hell" - on the basis that the whole thing was re-written to manage Christian Bale's ego. So yeah, it's good, great maybe, and don't let the little things I didn't like put you off. Partly because I'm an unbearable snobby nerd, and partly because they really don't matter.

Titanic "Unsinkable" - According to Travel Agents & Designers of Titanic

2009-06-26T03:59:00.000-07:00

I love this. According to a "poll", a majority of people prefer going to the cinema as opposed to staying home with a DVD/Blu-Ray/Download and watching it on a home theatre.

Problem is, with the survey itself.

You see, the survey was paid for by Moviefone, a national company that deals exclusively with selling cinema tickets, so hardly an objective witness. Secondly, the survey was conducted amongst "movie-goers", so it was people who were already IN the cinema to begin with, many of whom will have been there on the ticket they ordered through Moviefone - so it's in no way suspect at all. rofl. Conduct a similar interview with customers in Blockbusters and impress me.

"Fighting the Wrong Fight"

2009-06-17T03:48:00.000-07:00

(This was originally meant to be up last night, but due to an unscheduled and non-coincidental broadband outage, I couldn't. Who am I kidding, I could have organised it the day before and forgotten about it. Anyway, enjoy)

Ok, so I'd already written about why the licence fund should under no circumstances be used to subsidise commercial tv networks, and while that seems to be still a part of the plan as outlined in the "Digital Britain" report, the rest of it I hadn't seen coming, and I say this to it. As someone who knows a lot about technology and politics, this is about as moronic as it could possibly get.

Lets start off with what I'd already discussed. While at this point in my reading of the report, it doesn't seem like the licence fee will go in any way directly toward the ITV entertainment department, £130,000,000 of the licence money will head toward the ITV regional news departments. I'm not entirely sure WHY it is that any of said money should be going toward the local news desks of the largest commercial TV provider on free-to-air TV, especially when ITV knows full well that it needs to cut down on it's outgoings. That may sound like I've just said two things that are in opposition to each other, but the thing is, if ITV feel THAT much in need to cover the local news broadcasts, why are they even doing it? Why not offer up the rights to independent providers, and spin off the current local offices? Even better, why not reduce current costs by slashing departmental costs and removing every unnecessary step of middle-management, and have them fund the damn thing themselves?

I admit it. I'm steamed right now. My preference is really not for the money that was going to the BBC, to be not only reduced on review every time the charter comes up, but also be reduced in order to pay for something a badly-run private enterprise agreed to do, in order to broadcast in the UK.

I imagine my ire will make my head explode when after a few years of the licence fee allowing ITV to cut costs, the BBC will lose out again to ITV in the Premier League highlight package deal, but the consumer still finds themselves subsidising ITV to make even bigger asses out of themselves, and out of the consumer.

The next thing, and the first thing that drew my eye when I read about it, was the new initiative to help fund broadband in hard-to-reach areas, aswell as part-fund the upgrade to what the report calls "next-generation broadband" - ie: The kind of broadband that countries like Japan and South Korea have right now, fibre-optic lines like the ones that NTL/Virgin have already installed to much of their customer base.

This is something I think is fine; In the same way that I think it's fine that no-one should be allowed to kill a unicorn.

Everybody SHOULD have broadband access. The same way everybody SHOULD have regular postal deliveries. The same way that everybody SHOULD have a phone line, be it mobile or landline.

But I'm far from convinced that a 50p/month levy on anyone who has a fixed phone line is the way to go about it. That's right, the idea is, that if you have a landline, like the one you probably only ever use for your broadband, you will have to pay fifty pence a month, to subsidise telecommunications businesses and their expansion plans. And I have no doubt that the major profiteer in this, will be BT. The very same BT that has resisted continuous attempts to open up the market, despite OFCOM's urgings. The same BT that has caused untold damage to the broadband market in the UK, described today by the author of the report as :-

"the competitive market we have in this country"

I'm sure what he meant to say is that the UK has a competitive broadband market in spite of the business that gets to arbitrarily decide which broadband customers have access to which broadband providers. I'm not joking, there have been many times when I've had to make extended phone calls to both BT and a prospective broadband provider to actually, y'know, get my paid-for broadband working, only to find that BT haven't made the broadband in my area available to the provider I wanted to go with(PIPEX & Demon, if you're interested), which meant I had little-to-no choice in the matter as to whether I wanted to sign up for BT broadband.

So yeah, apparently the best way to get broadband to members of the public that are not currently covered(Apparently it's around "one third", I'm not sure if that's one third of the population or one-third of the surface area of the UK, the report hasn't been too clear on that so far for me), is for people who already have to pay for broadband, or people who don't pay for broadband but have a landline phone, to subsidise the effort to connect up these lost souls.

Except it's not. My comparison earlier with people deserving a phone line and deserving a broadband connection deservers returning to. There are many people who have only within the last twenty-five years been able to pick up a phone and call someone. In many cases, that's something that BT simply weren't prepared to do, so the locals, using fundraising and money out of their own pocket, organised for their town/village/hamlet to be connected via a trunk line. I realise I'm speaking anecdotally here, and I'm sure that there have been measures from the government to connect up such places to the phone network in the past. But fifty pence from anyone who even has a landline phone, to help pay for broadband for someone who lives far away from the rest of society? Again, anecdotally, I've known people who have lived in such places, and I've listened to a lot of stories on the news and in shows like "Relocation, Relocation, Relocation", that if people are living in the kind of place that doesn't have broadband access, they moved there for a reason. And if they still want it after moving out there, then they can pay for it, or realise they made a silly decision when the moved, and never considered things like "Hmmm, will I need da interwebz, or am I just fine with the famous local mint cake?".

I hasten to add, I feel a healthy dose of cynicism running through me over this. I don't like the idea of myself, my friends or my family(Well, maybe my family), having to pay a legal form of taxation, to subsidise the hobbies of people who don't want to move. And it is the hobbies. I've read about the stat that says that twenty-two million Britons rely on their net access to work, I just feel that it's the same thing that every generation has to deal with, and accept: If you want the best facilities, you need to move closer to the large population centres. If you don't, then you need to come up with some way of paying for what you want to come to you.

My other feeling on this, is that if it is one third of the population that is without broadband, or without broadband that meets the minimum standard of the report - two megabits per second - then it feels an awful lot like that's an ample market to be taken up by phone line and broadband providers.

Oh, wait. That can't happen. Know why? Because BT doesn't like private phone companies connecting to their network, and BT OWN the damned network.

The final thing that gets me about the report, is something I mentioned in my previous article. Piracy. Unsurprisingly, there are any number of industry figureheads and government faces that are standing up at this point, talking to cameras or audio devices, to get out the word that piracy is wrong, and takes money out of the pockets, and food out of the mouthes of their impoverished, soot-faced, charity store cloth wearing children.

While there probably are an awful lot of people out there who do actually fit the industry stereotype of a "pirate"(Arrrr); someone who has no regard for the law, is fine with the act of stealing, and is fine with both buying and selling illegal copies down in the marketplace....there is another party to all of this, and it's a party entirely of the entertainment industry's making.

The continuing rise of technology in our lives has had an effect on how we are prepared to enjoy our culture. Be it music, podcasts, audiobooks, movies, tv shows, video podcasts or games(Although I haven't seen videogame piracy mentioned yet in the report, which doesn't surprise me), all are a significant part of our modern culture. Eschewing such debates as "Is it really culture? I mean, it's just shit, right?", on the grounds that even at the time of Shakespeare or Da Vinci, there were innumerable amounts of hack entertainers standing on corners reciting limericks for change, and people who could only just hold a piece of charcoal standing on streets offering caricatures for sale. Meaning that just because it's shit, doesn't mean its not culture. It means it's shit, but it's still part of modern culture.

Anyway, with the advent of the cassette tape, we were able to record what we wanted, either from another cassette or from some source we had lying around, like a friend beat-boxing into a cheap mic, or us doing silly voices to make our friends laugh. Then we had the video tape, which meant we were no longer at the behest of the cinema manager or television scheduler as to when we could see what we wanted to see. Re-writable discs like CD's, then DVD's and now Blu-Ray discs offer us space to transfer computerised information of any sort, in the same way as we use the wire between us and the bastard BT to check our email - we're always swapping data. Then, with the rise of the digital sound file, soon to become synonymous with the machine we'd hear it from - the mp3 file and the mp3 player - it was made obvious to us all, that if the information could be digitised, then it could be taken with us in something much more convenient to us, and we'd once again, be able to enjoy it in the way that we preferred, when we prefer it.

As the mp3 revolution gained pace, it found a leader. Admittedly a leader not everyone agrees with, but still the leader - the iPod. I'm not going to discuss the benefits/restrictions that come with an iPod, I only bring it up to rightfully point out that the iPod was the tool that enabled us to really witness the change in lifestyle it represented. I've not always had iPods, and I know plenty of others who resent them(For the battery life, mostly(This part was for you, Ash and Evs), but the word "iPod" has risen to such a level, that many people will use "iPod" to describe any mp3 player, or the more recently developed personal media player, or PMP. The PMP is around about where we are right now. Again, the easiest one to explain this with, is the iPhone, but the Sony PSP is another example of PMP technology - a handheld device that will play back any and all audio or video it is capable of, AT YOUR DISCRETION. It is at this stage in time, where even the providers of most of the content for these PMPs - legitimate or not - describe themselves as just that.

"Content Providers".

Gone is the line between the tv broadcast and the LP, the dividing line between the radio station and the movie projector - it can all be digital content, to be managed and used in any number of ways. And this is because of it being "digital".

Now, as I went on in detail about the ass-backwards nature of TV networks as content providers last time around, it behooves me to be a little briefer this time. They're ludicrously ass-backwards. And not just the TV networks, the record companies and film companies are completely wretched when it comes to their record on dragging their heels. About the only difference has been that the music industry has been about four years ahead of the video content makers/owners. However, both are desperate to cling to their current method of business. The music costs as much as it does, not because that's how much the artists need from each sale, its that's how much it needs to be to pay all the different levels of bureaucracy within the music industry, and still make a profit for said levels of bureaucracy and the shareholders in the company. I don't know that the music industry has changed dramatically in the last ten years, but since I last saw the kind of contract breakdown on how much money from the sale of a CD went to a band in 1998, I'd be surprised if the amount made by any artist is that much.

The TV industry needs you to watch their content on the TV, so that you can be witness to the ads they make their money from. And then after that, they'd rather you saw it by paying for it via a DVD or these days an over-priced online download. Unless you've recorded it on a VHS, DVD recorder, or Tivo-like box that uses a hard drive(See Sky+ and V+), in which case it's fine, and you can skip the ads with those. Again, the amount of money it costs to make and sell a DVD, or a legal download, is insignificant to the amount of money it costs us to buy it. I'm not talking by a little, it's a vast mark-up, especially on the downloads - which are of DVD or lesser quality and feature no extras, despite usually costing a LOT more than the DVD's.

It all comes down to paying the middleman.

And I'm not averse to it.

But when the middleman has sat back while the world has gotten more and more used to being able to experience their culture in their own way, at their own time, in their own choice of place, to place such ludicrous restrictions on content is not only farcical, it's borderline criminal.

For the middleman to preach that piracy ruins the careers of artists, while record company executive officers run similarly scaled bonuses and wage packets as the recently bailed out bank executives, is criminal.

For people who are willing to obey the law, but find themselves resorting to illegal downloads when there is no place in the country for those people to find the perfectly legal content they require, and are then treated in the same manner as drug addicts because the companies never intended to keep up with what consumers wanted, is criminal.

Actually, the drug addict comparison is a fairly accurate one. Whenever the argument over what should be done with the problem of drug addiction in any country arises, it always comes down to one fight.

Treatment vs. Enforcement. Time in rehab versus time in prison. But as someone who has had no compunction using a variety of substances - beginning with the tobacco and caffeine they're using right now - to fill a hole in their lives, I feel empowered to say this.

You're fighting the wrong fight.

People don't just get addicted, it comes from a deep place within, and either an unwillingness to help themselves, or an inability to see where the problem comes from. And this? This is precisely the problem. Instead of looking to provide versatile, flexible, easily available cultural media that can be played on a large variety of devices, so as to meet their customer's needs, the chase continues to stamp the genie back into the bottle. And if this trend continues, then the proposed legislation and enforcement powers alluded to today, will drive illegal downloads further underground, to the point of being compared to drug dealers.

And that, is the wrong fight.

"Smokers Outside The Hospital Door"

2009-06-16T02:00:00.000-07:00

"And with great consideration Mr. Speaker, I put to the house for consideration, the 'Intellectual Bailout Bill' - where funds will be used to prop up the most moronic of companies whose only business interest is making a living out of making crap TV"

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

"The BBC could be made to share part of the television licence fee with commercial rivals under government plans to be announced later.

The Digital Britain report will suggest ways to help companies like Channel 4 cope with the impact of the internet."

Source

I give up. I just give up.

The publicly-funded BBC was created to provide radio and tv to the masses, and while it was often used as a wartime propaganda tool, it has become something that I think everyone should be proud of. Sure, there are stories written with some regularity about how some say the BBC doesn't reflect them, and sometimes they are chastised for using part of the licence fee for steep contracts for certain performers(In stories often written by the most well-paid talking heads that the press can afford), but I gotta say, this idea - of sharing the fee around - is JUST stupid.

First off, the BBC is without a doubt, the highest calibre content provider in the UK, and regarded as one of the highest content providers in the world. Compare it to the output of ITV, 4, any of the channels on Sky or Virgin, or......does five even broadcast anymore?

Seriously. I love the stuff they put out, and I'm far from alone. True, I may hate the relentless plod of all the costume dramas they put out. But I'm not the audience for that. I also roll my eyes whenever I find shows like "Two Pints of Lager & A Packet of Crisps" not only on tv, but on an awful lot. It's just drivel. But I'm not the audience for that.

The thing is, the BBC also produce an awful lot of stuff I do like. I watch News 24 every day(It's the best choice for news in my mind, less subjective than the Jeremy-Kyle-esque show that Sky News puts on, and simply better at reporting the news than CNN or FOX), I love listening to just two radio stations - Five Live and 6 Music - both BBC stations, both without peer. I could go into more detail, but seeing as I've already stated I think the BBC is great, that would be me missing the point of my own article.

Try as I might to think about it, I don't know many parts of the British population that the BBC does a disservice to. There's a fair amount of people who think there should be more religious programming, and while I don't think there should be(On the basis that those people can coddle each other's ignorance at home, the same way they did in the dark ages), I recognise that apart from the craziness of the 400 Club on early morning Sky One and some of the more well-hidden Sky channels that serve an entirely religious purpose, the BBC is currently the only non-subscription channel that offers ANY consistent religious programming. I'll freely admit that it seems confined to happy, clappy christians on Songs of Praise, but that seems a fair amount of time to give to people who should be in church at that time on a Sunday anyway.

There are dramas, comedies, documentaries, music, opinion, news, news analysis, reality shows, lots of children's shows for absent parents, business shows, stuff that really just chats to you and talks about stuff like "The One Show", and for people who don't like television or laughing, there's "Two Pints of Lager & A Packet of Crisps".

And that's missing out the radio and web stuff they do, including the brilliant iPlayer, the best effort by pretty much any tv channel in the world at bringing content to their customers, something which I feel has a lot to do with why the other networks don't DESERVE any of the licence fee.

I watch a lot of American TV. I also read a lot about American TV, which I feel helps educate me to the nature of the biggest tv market in the world. There are a lot of shows that come out of America that I like, and some that I absolutely LOVE. But I tell you, that those shows get made at all, when they're produced or bought by networks that are run by people with wood for brains is staggering.

Leaving aside the astonishing decisions that are made on a monthly basis to cancel good shows that aren't immediately popular, in order to give life to bad shows that dumb people like to watch, U.S. tv networks are in a similar pinch to some of the U.K. tv networks. Ad revenue is down, the viewing audience is way down, and executives spend so much of the day scratching their head and wondering why no-one will watch their crap, they come home bald with their scalp looking like a tomato. It's partly to do with the audience being treat worse and worse every year, ever crappier and more banal shows being put on in an attempt to make numbers for shareholders, to a point where anything new or difficult, or (God forbid), intelligent is put on the air, the audience just don't know what to do with it. You'll have heard the name HBO, and perhaps even Showtime. These networks do actually consistently produce some stuff that ranges from "Well, at least it's different", to "Wow, this is good", to "When this finishes, my life will be empty". But these are subscription channels, which have a direct source of income. And they know what their audience likes, because if they start losing some of their audience, they can try something new to bring them back.

The major networks in the U.S.; ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and if we must, the CW, are all in different amounts of strife, but all are affected. CBS is the current leader of the pack - laden with such diverse shows as "CSI", "CSI Miami", "CSI New York", "The Mentalist"(Portable CSI), "Cold Case"(CSI but with flashbacks and no office budget), "NUMB3RS"(Predictive CSI), "NCIS"(Air Force CSI) and the forthcoming "NCIS: Los Angeles"(I wish I was joking), they've surged ahead of the pack on a consistent basis. But they're not immune to the economy - recently they had to choose between expensive-to-make procedural police drama "Cold Case", and expensive-to-make procedural FBI drama "Without a Trace", and are starting to rely more on shows like their procedural S.W.A.T. show, "Flashpoint", which works for them because Flashpoint, like a number of new shows for 2009, is made for cheap in Canada, then sold at a competitive price to the U.S..

ABC, home of LOST and Desperate Housewives, has seen the numbers fall, but stay strong for LOST, but just fall for Housewives. Ugly Betty continues down a hill, while recent shows like "Private Practice" and the show it span off from - "Grey's Anatomy", splutter often, but remain relatively strong. ABC is also the home to such guff as "America's Funniest Home Videos", "The Bachelor" and it's spinoff "The Bachelorette", "Dancing With the Stars"(aka "Strictly Come Dancing" with people you've never heard of but the same judges are there), and the U.S. versions of "Supernanny" and "Wife Swap". I guess what I'm saying is, imagine ITV with LOST and Desperate Housewives and you've got the picture.

FOX is famous over here for being part of the name for a film studio, aswell as bringing us the Simpsons, but is also responsible for showing us all that even in the 21st century, an ageing drunk can still be a spy, via "24". They also have shows I like, such as worldwide favourite "House", the "X-Files but with sort of a story" show that is "Fringe", and several animated shows like "Family Guy". But FOX have garnered a reputation for chopping and changing their schedule often, and often lose viewers on struggling shows when they get moved around. How ever the shows do, it never really matters, because as long as America has an "Idol" addiction, FOX will be afloat. Although with Simon Cowell said to be considering walking, we'll see.

NBC......Oh, poor NBC. It's not that they don't like good shows there, it's just they don't like making them or promoting them. For a long time now, NBC has lost both viewers and money hand over fist, partly because they often make bad shows that disappoint, or they make expensive good shows, then drop them so fast, you'll question whether it was really there. I'd go into it, but I think there's an entire article I could write on NBC, so I'll leave it. Suffice it to say, it's the ultimate bureaucracy. Too many people on too many levels making too many decisions. Their endless faith in Ben Silverman, a supposed "wunderkind" producer is just something I can't wrap my head around. His latest "golden egg", is to have adverts feature as part of the show you're watching, involving the sets, and maybe even the actual actors as they recommend something to you. I've seen it, and if you don't know it's coming, it feels like a really weird, non-sequitir scene of the show. Like either you're on drugs and hallucinating, or what you're witnessing is a TV show begging for money on the street.

The CW is a network I don't know much about. It makes "Supernatural", which means it deserves my respect, and it makes "Smallville", which means it deserves my rotten eggs. The best thing I can tell you about the predicament at The CW, is that they recently gave up their ENTIRE weekend primetime schedule, unable to make it work at all, and set it out for tender to other companies.

Something you might have wondered over those paragraphs, as being conspicuous, is internet strategy. "We've got the iPlayer and the knockoffs the other channels have put out later(I know 4's was first, but it didn't really work til recently), so what did the Americans have?". Answer is nothing. They honestly had nothing. While we've only had things like Sky+ or V+ for a little while, the Americans have grown used to having the Tivo, an identical system that records programs onto a hard drive for playback later. Let me explain that - for many years, the American consumer has had a box sitting under their TV, that digitally records every show the viewer wants - turning them into a video file like the ones on your computer - so you can watch it later, and it allows you to skip the ads completely. The one thing that the networks have resisted again and again, was the ability to convert said Tivo files into something you could watch somewhere other than your living room. Say, your computer, or your iPod.

The best you could do was either visit a network website to watch ads for the new episode, or a small version of the previous one. The next option would be to hit YouTube, and see if any of the videos of the show had survived the morning blitz of the network lawyers.

A while later, after people started finding out they could illegally download their favourite shows via such things as torrents, tv channels started offering their wares on the iTunes store. Now, I'm a fan of the iTunes store. It may still be riddled with DRM and file formats that mean you're stuck using it on an iPod or your computer, but it has a lot of content, often free, and until recently, was the only method available for purchasing digital content over the internet in ANY kind of legal fashion. Yes, there have been myriad other online mp3 stores, most recently the Amazon store, but until Amazon began offering itself, no-one has been able to compete with Apple's shop.

All of this is to say, that TV networks, moreso than movie studios, have been......how best to put it.....REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY slow at accepting new things. At first, the internet was "A fad", and regarded as the modern version of teletext - you'd use it, but it was just for reading the headline news, your stock price and the footie results. Then, it was a den of thieves, with nothing but despicable digital pirates, with their mp3 players and peg-legs, having the gall to record tv shows, put them onto their computer, and share them with friends/strangers. I mean, the utter CONTEMPT, that these thieves showed to tv networks that couldn't even be bothered to offer up a version of their show to be watched on their computer or video mp3 player, the NERVE of them to feel they should be able to get the content in a way that suits their needs and not the schedule. Then, in a slight change of heart, tv networks started saying "Yeah, kids, we still think of you as thieving bastards, but if you can get your dad's credit card, we'll sell what you can find for free, or watch for free on tv, or buy for less on DVD, over the iTunes store.". That all kind of went stupid, when in the middle of this period, NBC, still feeling all high and mighty with the successes of Friends and The West wing, began a fight with Apple over their "pricing structure", and in a fit of temper, NBC withdrew all of their shows from what was still the only legal way to get a digital copy of a tv show. They threw a wobbly with the best option out there, to get the stuff out, admittedly at an inflated price. If that's the best game in town, you either make a better game or accept what you need to do. Again, to be clear, I'm a fan of the store, but even I know it's very expensive, but then unless you want the illegal option, tough luck - it's the only choice.

Flash forward to now.

NBC is one of several networks selling through iTunes, aswell as several other digital systems, but not currently via the Xbox Live Video Marketplace - a service similar to iTunes, except done through an Xbox 360, with a similar service expanding through the rival Sony PS3. Their numbers are dropping, while they attempt to re-focus their efforts on services such as HULU. HULU is basically YouTube, with nothing but legal content from providers like NBC and FOX, but with adverts in the videos and on the website. In other words it's free to watch, just less fun than you might want.

So, the networks audiences are down, and so is the amount of money being paid for advertising on tv - because the audiences are lower - and it's because of two things.

One: the networks continue to value popular crap that further lowers the audience's expectations and ruin any chance of being able to make something good AND popular.

Two: The most important part. After spending YEARS ignoring the internet, then blaming it and criminalising impatient viewers who couldn't wait for a corporation to catch up with them, then trying to extract blood from a stone by asking people to pay more for a tv show download than it costs to get the same thing in a DVD that has better quality and extra features missing from downloads, the American TV networks are FINALLY getting to the point where they look like they're going in ANY kind of direction that won't ruin them.

And you know what? The U.K. commercial networks have followed the EXACT same path. ITV's numbers are down? Screw them. Channel 4's numbers are down? Whatever baby. I love you, but whatever. Channel five has numbers? Knock me over with a feather. They've spent a LONG time either ignoring the problem, or being kept on a leash by American networks they refused to press into action. So I don't know why these companies should deserve their own bailout. True, if they received state funding, it would mean protection to prevent them being bought up on the cheap. But these are corporations, and in the case of ITV, I can't find a show they make that I feel represents me in ANY way. I'm completely serious, I haven't watched ITV in YEARS, and unless they start doing that, I have no idea why the licence fee should be shared with morons. While Channel Four is an institution around as old as me, and I have loved it dearly, if it can't do better than it is, I will bid it farewell. If only to serve as some kind of warning sign to the heads of other networks. Jon Snow, I love you man, but Hollyoaks ain't enough.

To put it another way: Either it goes to public service broadcasting, or it doesn't. I won't pay any licence fee that goes to a channel that produced Love Island, or continues to pump money into the looney bin that is Jugs and Jugless Inc.

"On Pie and Politics."

2009-06-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

I paid a visit to my Grandparents the other day. Went with Jac and Murphy, and while I took my Gran & Jac to the supermarket, my Grandpa had all sorts of fun sharing the house with Murphy, a dark-haired retriever who's all kinds of soft. At times these days I wonder if in the year before he found himself in the dog shelter we found him in, he was raised by cats.

We had pie and chips, and I failed to convince the elders of my family of the benefits of green tea - mostly failing because after I convinced them to try it, it turned out very weak. Not used to making tea in a pot, but I wish it'd gone better. The pie was M&S's mince, which meant it reminded me of the many times I'd had similar meat and pastry over the years. Which is to say that I enjoyed the feeling, aswell as the pie. Finished off with a Victoria Sponge, which as historical a dessert as it is, is a much more recent experience for me, but nice too.

Shortly after, my Grandfather asked me a question, that by the looks of Jac and my Gran through my peripheral vision, they wished he hadn't.

"Chris, are you at all political?"

I couldn't tell you how my face looked at that moment, but I like to think it communicated what went through my head when he asked me:

"Hoboy."

What followed was to say the least, not pretty. I had to start from a point of speaking loudly, because he suffers from a chronic hearing problem, and combining the fact that I began by having to shout to talk to him, plus my own bull-headedness on issues, was a recipe for testiness. Especially when his first follow-up question was "So what do you think of Gordon Brown?". I sighed a little, and started to explain I was not a fan. First, there's the issue of succession. I'm not a fan of having a leader being bestowed upon us by the previous occupant, who despite his appalling cuddliness with the worst leader of the western world(Possibly ever, which is not just my opinion), and the pious use of his faith after leaving office, was the duly elected Prime Minister. To put it as I said to my Grandfather, "We don't have a Prime Minister right now, we have a Dauphin. A prince.". I'm well aware that the current system is what allows this, and the current system also means that an election to allow the people to decide if we really do want Gordon to stay in Downing St. is, and can only really be called by Gordon. I just don't have to agree with it, especially if(And I defer to my Grandfather on his knowledge on this subject), the succession part of this is enabled only by the rules of the Labour party, not law.

We went back and forth a few times, feeling the need to interrupt each other several times, where I explained that Gordon was one of the people to blame for the recession and recent world financial debacle, because he'd been one of the world leaders to strip out the barrier that protected customers from risky bank practices by preventing savings banks also being trading banks, meaning if moronic trading practices cost a trading bank a lot of money, the people who had money in a savings bank wouldn't be so badly affected. I was on finger one of a three-finger routine, when I was told that the situation had been caused by bankers, who had loaned money to people who shouldn't have been loaned the money(See: Sub-Prime mortgage market in the U.S.). I felt like I was correcting him by saying they were only able to offer loans and mortgages to such bad customers because of lax financial regulation, which had been stripped of it's teeth by late-term President Clinton and his fed chair Alan Greenspan, whole-term President Bush II, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for most of that period, whose name escapes me. He then felt apt to further defend my spurious suggestions about the PM, by pointing out to me the strengths of the Labour party, and that the Labour party was "working-class people".

Then I moved onto blaming other stuff such as short-selling, but it was becoming clear what the gist was. I was angry about a generation of political terms being spent making sacrifices of legislation to the altar of "The Free Market", in order to grease the wheels of said market to keep it running at an ever-more profitable rate. The free market concept is essentially one of "just leave it alone, it can take care of itself". The main idea behind it is that the market can decide what is good and bad for the market, and if followed wholeheartedly, bad practices would be punished by a lack of confidence and therefore a lack of profit - leading to said bad practicer going out of business or changing it's ways - whereas the best business practices would lead to a stronger business, and by osmosis/following the example, the market would be stronger. Thing is, "The Free Market" is an idea. And with ideas, they can be good ideas, they can be bad ideas - hell, write them out in enough detail, you can get your idea called a great theory - but the problem with ideas, is that they lack a key ingredient. People. Add people to the free market, and take away the lifeguards telling people not to run, you end up with swimmers holding people under the water while taking bets on how long the victim will hold their breath, and if someone can't pay that bet when they lose, they sell that debt to someone else so they can pay their losses, while the debt they sold gets sold some more, and some more, until no-one knows what it's actually worth or who owns it.

After reading the last paragraph, you'd be forgiven for thinking:

"The gist? What the hell, Chris?!?"

But trust me, that's the short form of it, with metaphors instead of shouting. My Grandfather, on the other hand - a long-term Labour member and supporter(They proudly told me a while ago they were known by name to their current MP and Foreign Secretary, Stephen Miliband) - posited the following observation to me:

"So, you're quite right-wing then. You believe that the Government should control what the banks do?"

I have to say, I couldn't help but laugh. While it's the second time in my life I've been described as "right-wing"(Evs got the cherry on that), I would never ever consider myself as from the right of....well, anybody. Maybe Karl Marx or Gandhi, perhaps. It was a bizarre moment for me, because I had to use my fading laughter as a cover while I tried to wrap my head around the notion that because I wanted the Government to protect me and the rest of the people from a tiny but powerful majority.....I was right-wing?

That ending of the discussion stuck in my head for the last twenty-four hours or so, and the reason why, hit me a few hours ago. For something to be right-wing, as my Grandfather proposed, would be to place faith and power in the authority of your rulers, and recommend that it would be best for all to accept the wisdom and authority of said overlords, and for them to choose what is best for us; with our views on the issue never a factor in what decision they made, or how it should be implemented. So, on that basis, I was being described as "right-wing", when I was suggesting(While shouting), that the people be protected from the nefarious ways of bankers and their worst mistakes, that the leader of the Government should be elected, not selected, and I resented the PM, for failing on both of those counts. Whereas I was being accused of this by someone extolling the virtues of the Labour Party as "working class", and in fact that they were virtuous because the party was "working class", and that the PM should be supported because of that.

My point is, I'm not really sure as to which of us in that discussion was more right-wing.

I don't know if I'm right-wing on any political or ethical issue. I know I probably come across that way because I can be stubborn to the point of people asking me "Do those ears work?", but that comes from an issue inside me where I always need to be right, and I read and listen to opinions from all sides, aswell as empirical data, before I make my mind up on anything. And when, as happens, I'm proven wrong, I thank the person who has, because they've given me the ability to go on, and be right again with this new information. But I have, and always will support the right of someone to voice a differing opinion. And I will always make sure people know that, just before I get into an argument with them about which of us is right. While I'm always going to think less of someone who has what I see as an ill-educated position, or is ignorant of the whole picture, or is just so WRONG.....I'll always hold them in high regard for discussing it with me, even if they never change their mind. The only people I hold in any low regard, is people who refuse to have an opinion, or hide it to avoid being confronted.

The reason why? Someone I hold in high regard once wrote the following.

"If you hide your ignorance, no-one will hit you and you'll never learn."

Source

And so, despite still being crippled in my life by the hits I've taken, I say this: Here's to getting hit. Cheers.

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

Note: It's an hour later, I should have said that while I was referring to Aaron Sorkin writing that line in "The West Wing" episode "Two Cathedrals"(S02E22), he did not create the line - it was originally written by Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451.

Today on "Politicians say the....Oddest things"

2009-06-08T18:05:00.001-07:00

The Labour party suffered some massive injuries lately, including their worst performance in Wales and Scotland for nearly a century. Amidst that, I was listening to the coverage on the radio this afternoon, and I heard Rhodri Morgan, the current First Minister for Wales, say something that I'd imagine was intended......not quite the way he put it.

"The war is next year. I think of this as a Dunkirk moment

not a D-day,

el Alamein, or Stalingrad, that's next year"

from PoliticsHome

That wasn't all of it, and I had to dig to find that part, because the BBC story I found missed out that part(Which was a little weird, seeing as I'd heard it on 5Live.)

"It's time to move forward now. We have lost the battle but we have got the prospect of success next year in the war. This was Dunkirk."

from BBC News

Regardless, here's the bit. Read the first quote, specifically the bit "not a D-Day". I've tried and tried to look at this from another perspective, where I'm wrong and it still makes sense(Please mention it if you can see it), but.....did Rhod Morgan just compare the Labour Party to.....the Nazis?

Princess? A moment of your time.

2009-06-06T02:11:00.000-07:00

I'm still a massive fan of 2D animation, and in many instances I prefer the 2D over the 3D, even if it's the same story done twice. Don't get me wrong, I think Pixar do some great work, and there are tons of talented 3D animators producing their own stuff around the world. I bring this up, because Disney have a feature film coming up, one which made my heart sing when I started reading about it, and watching the line tests I'd been lucky to find online. While it's pretty obvious that the film - "The Frog Princess" - isn't aimed at me, and I don't think I'm ever going to see it, I'm still excited that so many people are being paid to make a film like this. Mind you. I was wandering over the IMDB this morning, and I saw some publicity stills of the film. And they left me with a question in my head.

Did they have to give her a glass eye? I mean, her eyes really aren't looking in the same direction.

Dude, seriously. Leave the house once in a while.

2009-05-21T18:45:00.000-07:00

My boy Synastro now has his first flying mount. Finally. Afterrr......gawd, about three years. World of Warcraft has it's naysayers and critics, but I am but a casual player, so this was an honest achievement for me. Suck it, bitches.

Dude, seriously.

2009-05-21T18:24:00.000-07:00

I had a list of things to say about Dick Cheney being a complete and total ass, from his speech just after President Obama's speech - which was being rebutted by Cheney's - but that was a long speech, full of utter crap from tip to toe. So I'm chucking the list out.

Dude!

2009-05-21T17:51:00.000-07:00

I don't know if this came from a corporate office or a filmmaker's head, but I like it. Coming to the UK soon, is a film starring Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz, featuring Robbie Coltrane in a supporting role and narrated by card-shuffling evil genius-cum-wizard Rick Jay(Trust me on this, you've seen him in either "The Prestige" or "Deadwood"): "The Brothers Bloom". I've watched the trailer a few times, and I give you my impression of it - Remember the 'brothers' in Ocean's 11, 12 and 13? Played by Casey Affleck and Scott Caan? They were young brothers, still embedded in their angry rivalry. Imagine those two guys, grown up ten years or so, and they work together as con-men. They're still dicks towards each other, but they love each other much more than they did, so it's sort of playful. All the time when these guys grew up, the watched one movie - "The Sting" with Robert Redford and Paul Newman - and perform elaborate heists. Sort of like Danny Ocean and that gay character played by Brad Pitt.

Anyway, it's looking good to me, and I saw on the trailer page on Apple.com, that there was something new on offer from "The Brothers Bloom". The commentary track for the film, in mp3 format. It's labeled an iPhone feature, but you could play this on any phone or portable music player. I'm really excited by this idea, it feels like something that could invigorate the cinema as a place to enjoy films(Rather than at home or on your portable music player). Obviously its something dependent on you having in-ear earphones to listen to it, or prepare to be discovered by the cleaners and later the police, your motionless corpse completely stuffed with other customer's popcorn. If this works when I try it(And I'm going to, I promise), then this could really be something to boost the appeal of the cinema.

Ooooh, I just had an idea - The cinema could run a bluetooth transmitter, or issue a downloadable mp3 via iTunes or something to that effect, so that the different audio options you can normally access only via DVD, Blu-Ray or video file, you could have on your iPod in the cinema, such as foreign language tracks for you if you travel, or for foreigners in a distant cinema. Hmmmm. By the way, the Bluetooth thing would be one way of transmitting a local radio transmission to a person's ears, via a bluetooth headset. The movie industry is currently spending billions in an effort to stimulate profit in their sector by having cinemas outfitted with 3-D projection technology, which they think is the next big thing - again. I like my idea better.

Here's the Youtube trailer, or click here to visit the Apple Trailer page for a hi-def version of the trailer, and the mp3 commentary track.

A Couple of Things I Learned Sitting on my Ass.

2009-05-16T09:30:00.000-07:00

LOST is AWESOME. Okay, I knew that one already. But it is amazing. Season 6 FTW!

Running out of shows to watch(Some cancelled, some coming to the end of their seasons for now), I gave a look at "Psych", an American show that I think was run on Sci-Fi here in the UK, but for a show into its third run(Renewed for a 4th), Sci-Fi seems to have dumped it - Their site only lists the first season episodes. Either way, I jumped into it for a bit. Here's the thing:

Psych is a combination of Scrubs and Dexter.

It's mostly Scrubs though. Seriously, the whole thing feels like "What if J.D. and Turk never went to Med School, and instead ran a fake psychic P.I. agency". That may just be down to my conviction that Psych star James Roday either spent many summers growing up with Scrubs star Zach Braff, or Roday is doing a pretty dead-on impression of Braff. Me saying that is also a little hard on Psych co-star Dule Hill, who still looks about ten or fifteen years younger than Scrubs' Donald Faison. The wiki page may say their names are Shawn and Gus, but to me, they're always Scooter Pie and Brown Bear.

left; ex-West Wing "bag man" and current "Psych" star Dule Hill and

right; Scrubs and Clueless moustache, Donald Faison

The Dexter comparison arises because much like Dexter, Roday's character Shawn has a mysterious intuition(Mentalist-style powers of observation that arise with parody-like frequency), that he gets a sort of "hard-ass training" from his hard-ass swine of a father. All that said though, every episode makes me feel like I'm watching a classic ep of Scooby-Doo. Not in a bad way - in fact it is a genuinely comfy feeling, as a small team of idiots come to solve a mystery over the course of the episode, all in a very, very Scooby-Doo way.

Some days, football is a very difficult thing to love. Very much depends on what part of football you love. Sometimes, no matter what you put into the relationship, no matter how much hope and optimism for things being great, no matter what you do......that love hurts like crazy when everything you hope for is cruelly insulted by the exact opposite of what you want, coming true on a Saturday afternoon. I'm a Newcastle fan, and I'm hoping that Sunday the 24th of May 2009 isn't marked by my deciding to take a trial separation from my team. But this? This hurts.

I really don't miss Facebook, and I'm glad I never got into MySpace. Second Life seems like too much effort on what works out as a virtual reality equivalent of a train set(Spend weeks, months, years, building and crafting something nerdy for very little reason other than to show it off to the other train set makers that inhabit Second Life), and I just don't get Twitter. True, I do read the odd feed once a week or more. PVP writer/artist Scott Kurtz makes for an affable soap opera to read, Stephen Fry is as close as I want to get to reading about the life of a celebrity, and that's purely because he's one of the only public figures I can think of whose mind impresses me. Plus he's a Norwich fan, so if the Maggies do get relegated, his Twitter feed may contain some pearls of wisdom for dealing with the heartbreak of loving a rubbish team. I check in on the feeds of friends that I know of, such as Ash and Phill, but I gave up posting feeds a while ago. It just isn't something that appeals, so I hardly ever update mine. If someone wants that badly to know what I'm eating, where I'm walking or how I'm feeling, then there are other less nascent, more involving forms of communication.

On the other hand, walking away from one other technological, sports relationship has done me some good. By "technological, sports relationship", I mean the 25+ hours a day I used to spend with Football Manager. And by "walking away from", I mean setting fire to the disc so I couldn't retrieve it from the bin, then putting it into the wheelie bin and putting other rubbish on top. Seriously, if I was playing that game, I'd be at my most obsessive/compulsive, failing to take losses as losses and repeatedly saving the game prior to kick-off, then re-loading from that save-point if the match didn't proceed like I wanted. I guess realising that the game had become some sort of "Quantum Leap"-style life quest, where I was consistently trying to put right what once went wrong helped me to ditch it. Even if I wasn't playing it, I'd be considering strategies, squads, formations, and on my craziest of car journeys, I'd be hoping that all the other drivers thought I was on a bluetooth or speaker phone, while I was having imaginary press conferences about my virtual reality Magpies and their chances against Derby in the cup this weekend. So yeah, much better without I think.

Writing a blog article about my lack of fondness for micro-blogging is sort of a fail on my part.

American filmmakers vs. Japanese tv show makers: Gentlemen, your weapon has been chosen - COMPUTER GENERATED RODENTS. Now, FIGHT!!@!

Cat Shit One FTW!!

G-FORCE: Movie Trailer - The funniest home videos are here

Again, LOST ≥ AWESOME

What a Difference Time Can Make....As in, "Six Years And It Still Looks AWFUL.".

2009-05-13T05:37:00.000-07:00

I'm a fan of several of the major players in this. "Dazed & Confused" always has a place by my TV, and "Underworld" was a work of such majestic brilliance, it can only really be appreciated from behind the pause button.

But this.....I got it from Aziz Ansari's blog(Link at the end), and yeah, I agree, I can't believe it's real either.

http://azizisbored.tumblr.com/

Destroyer of Worlds.

2009-05-03T13:25:00.000-07:00

This is kinda out of sorts, seeing as I've left the internet to drown like so many kittens in a sack. But I love this and had to post it. This was from the premiere of the new Star Trek movie; The guys cheering with the foam hands(Who are fans, obviously), are dressed in uniforms from "Star Trek: The Next Generation". What is great is that they seem to have no idea that this film has basically killed their continuity, and therefore future plans for any return to that kind of Star Trek. Brilliant. XD

I Shit Thee Not.

2009-02-15T05:18:00.000-08:00

From Amazon.com: "From the first view of the Death Star to a dizzying asteroid field, the six films in George Lucas’ Star Wars saga are filled with unforgettable images. This exquisite collection of defining moments from the series pays tribute to the extraordinary visions seen in this epic adventure. Each copy of Star Wars: Frames contains 1,416 images selected by Lucas from more than a million frames. Displayed in six hardcover 11” x 22” volumes, the images are printed from the original film stock in an exceptionally large format that preserves its full resolution and glorious widescreen aspect ratio. Combining cinematography with bookmaking’s highest production values, this remarkable and deeply personal collection is the closest thing to owning the original film stock. It offers matchless insight into Lucas’ creative process and boldly illustrates his 30-year vision and passion for the Star Wars saga."

A snip at $5,500, currently on offer for $4,386.

I think George has finally gone round the bend.

SNL; SometimesNotLaughing.

2009-02-12T23:29:00.000-08:00

I know most people will have heard of Saturday Night Live, the venerable weekly American comedy variety show, mostly in reference to it's famous alumni. It has a truly immense list of people who have been a part of the show, and gone on to do great things. John Belushi, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd(His batteries have gone a bit funny over the last decade or so, but he's had a good run.). It's also produced some people I could really do without. John Lovitz. Adam Sandler. Rob Schneider. So, to me, it has a hit-and-miss record. The same is true of the show, which is sometimes capable of making me laugh pretty hard, but a lot of it makes me wish they had a script editor to cut out the not funny. Surprisingly, one of the people who usually makes me laugh most out of the current cast, is former kids tv star Keenan Thompson, of "Keenan and Kel". Man I hated that show. Except the terrifying dad, who I remembered from the original version of "Dawn of the Dead". Hit or miss, without fail so far since I started watching it, the funniest part for me is the "Weekend Update" section, featuring Seth Myers behind a desk, going along the same lines as Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show". Aaaaaand I was hoping to provide a clip of said segment, but NBC hate you, so I can't. Look, that's the NBC webplayer below. See? Hate you.

Caution: Onion. Onion>Satire

2009-02-10T05:23:00.000-08:00

By the way, NSFW stands for "Not Suitable For (watching at) Work". Enjoy.

This Is Just Awesome.

2009-02-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

Ben Williams, if you're out there, I post this for you. That is all.

A Couple of Things....

2009-02-03T08:18:00.000-08:00

Why is it that a lot of Britain.....Okay, I mean London specifically, but other places too, why is it that they practically freeze when snow comes? The weather forecasts are all mentioning heavy snowfall, but I have to say, other than the usual fall that hits rural parts, I'm not convinced any of the snow has been "heavy". No other european country has such problems when facing snowfall. I mean, there's a lot of bad weather to go around, so most other european nations face much worse snowfall on a much more regular basis - and so the regular counter-argument to why Britain(London), is so crap at dealing with any snow at all, is that London hardly ever has any snow. Which is true, but to give credit, the places that get more regular, much more imposing snowfalls, have learned to deal with what regularly occurs, such as the annual snowfall. So why is it, when snow falls in the UK only at specific times of the year, and is never that much of a surprise, that certain parts of the nation shut down and panic? Because this nation, this government, is not prepared, and refuses to acknowledge it as something worth preparing for. Go figure.

Just once, just one time, I'd like someone from the striking side of the foreign worker dispute at the nation's oil refineries, to stand up to a camera and a microphone, and tell me what exactly they think they can get out of this. A much more protectionist nation? All that would do would make international trade much more difficult for British companies. With the government unlikely to make such a decision, a decision that would announce to the rest of Europe and the world beyond, that we (Britian) don't want to play by the (trade) rules anymore, I can't figure out what the striking workers and unions want. And I have no idea what their "endgame" is. I can't help but wonder if they have one, because other than pissing people off and getting their woes in the paper(In a whiney child's voice "Buh, it's not faaaaaiiirr!!"), they don't seem to be capable of articulating what should happen next.

I have a feeling they'll go back to work, and they'll get a visit from their local BNP candidates. And so, ignorance grows.

How Are You?

2009-01-26T11:20:00.000-08:00

I'm....a bit different. I've never been one of the in-crowd, mostly because I've never been similar enough to other people to be readily acceptable. Never really had many friends, and I've been made to feel very aware of this when I was humiliated and victimised by a bully in school, a bully who no-one stood up to, and certainly not for me. Then, when I went back to college, I was now not only different, but older than everyone else. Maybe it was more of a difference to them than me, or maybe it was just more of a problem for me, still struggling to find some acceptance.

Then, I moved away from more general education, to the specific field I'd wanted to - the visual arts. And you know what? I found that acceptance. I was still very wary of it all, because I'd had the rug pulled from under me plenty of times before. But it was nice.

Then I did a pretty stupid thing. I let myself imagine that things were actually perfect, and someone who I seemed to make smile an awful lot, and made me smile, might be interested in me too. The whole thing was a mess, and made me a little crazy. It didn't end great when I couldn't accept they didn't feel the same.

What made it hell, was that there were a dozen people there to remind me every day that I was on the outside looking in.

In other words, that was the rug being pulled from under me, and pieces of it being waved at me every day. I really started to sink low again. My work was....non-existent as I tried to pick myself up in the face of alienation, I started to go to counselling, and I started taking anti-depressants.

Then, a year after that, I thought for a while I'd found someone, completely by accident, who fit the same, if not better, than what had happened in Art school. A short while later, she broke up with me for the second time, I fell apart, and so did my life. I still don't have many friends, but most of what I do have are far away, living their own lives. Me, I still can't wrap my head around the person I fell in love with being prepared to sick the police on me. I still can't figure it.

I go to therapy most days of the week, but for most of the day, I don't do anything. I can't draw, and I can't write, my mind constantly lives in fear of everybody's reactions to what I do, which is my way of presenting myself as who I am. So I sit. I chain-smoke these days, play some videogames, watch DVD's and tv shows. If I'm not living it up like that, I'm asleep, because I couldn't sleep the night before, because I'm too upset over everything. And I do, in fact mean everything.

Today, I slept in. Then I woke up to find Jac's dog Murphy having another fit. He's been having these for a couple of months, but this one was a shock, as it'd been a while since the last. So it happened, I comforted him like I normally do, and knowing what would normally happen, I shepherded him outside, where he urinated and defecated on the concrete. But then, it happened again. And again. And again. He also experienced these lesser "seizures", which are a portent to the fit that will follow. If he has a fit, he rolls over onto his side, his body convulsing while he cries in anguish and he foams at the mouth. When he comes to, he panics and has no idea where he is, who I am, or what his name is. A seizure involves him uncontrollably baring his front teeth(All of them) while staying on his feet, or however he was when the seizure started. His eyes look terrified as his head starts shaking violently, and he sends streams of saliva flying off in all directions, before coming to, exactly as he does after a fit. But then, after a seizure, he has a fit.

After around five of these fits and seizures to boot, I got desperate, and drove him to the vets, while using my left arm to stop him from roaming out of the back seat. He still had no idea what was going on, or who I was, or what his name was. We almost got to the vets, when he started having a seizure in the back seat, just as I parked. He was sitting there, rock steady, except for the wild movements in his eyes as they rolled around his head, and the shaking movement of his body. I had to drag him into the vet after that, such was his panic and fear at this confusing state. After what I would guess was half an hour of seeing the vet, I left the treatment room, Murphy being left with the vets for a couple of days. After a pep-talk with a nurse, where I slumped into a chair, and could do nothing but stare at the floor, I walked into the evening.

I walked home. My car stayed at the vets. I can't remember the whole thing, there are bits of my walk back to Jac's that I can't remember at all. But what I do remember was something crazy. I got back, opened up the pack of tabs I had in my hand, and I wanted to call Mel. I wanted to call the woman who was so delusional and offended by me, that she felt necessary to call the police on me, I felt like calling her, and just asking if we could talk, because I was just desperate for someone who already knew my name, to talk to me. And I would have, had I not deleted her number from my phone, and been unable to find it. And now I just feel a mess, because I don't understand my own idea to call her.

My name's Chris Johnson, and I don't feel so good.

Excellent News.

2009-01-24T18:13:00.000-08:00

The film adaptation of the story behind George Bush's smash n' grab bully to the top in 2000, is now available on iTunes in the UK. Enjoy.

A letter to the PM.

2009-01-20T09:45:00.000-08:00

So I decided to sign up to a Greenpeace initiative, whereby I seem to become a proxy land-owner of some of the land that Greenpeace bought in opposition to the Heathrow Airport expansion plans. The initiative also gave me the opportunity to send my thoughts on the matter to Gordon Brown. My own reasonings weren't entirely environmental, and involved a little grandstanding, so I have no idea if it will be forwarded to number10@gov.uk(Or whatever they actually use for der fuher's inbox). But, submitted for your approval, the copied and pasted text of my message to Gordon.

Dear Prime Minister.

I write to you as a concerned citizen. The recently confirmed plans to create a new runway at Heathrow Airport is the reason for this concern. I understand the need for expansion as underlying for future growth, but I cannot find any reason in me why Heathrow should be the answer.

Quite simply, Heathrow is being painted as a future "Transport Hub", a great airport to cement Britain's place in the future of not only Europe, but the world. Heathrow is not a great airport, and in fact is put to shame by many of the smaller airports throughout the nation. More than that, the problems an expanded Heathrow faces cannot, and will not be solved by the presence of a new runway.

The tawdry facilities throughout the airport, and general low standard of the site, are so low, that people have begun to complain about Heathrow, where once they would have bemoaned the state of Gatwick. The transit connections that currently exist are hopeless, and cannot hope to provide a valid route to air travel via Heathrow. The proposed new train link to Scotland is interesting, but bearing in mind the price to fly budget from any local airport to the capital is the same or less than any rail fare, a new rail link is superfluous - especially considering the shambles that the rail industry is in.

The environmental considerations are also present in my mind; There is no "green" treatment for an airport. Providing a new runway will work to make the airlines and BAA happy, but will only make the carbon footprint of the airport more significant. As for the emissions caps that are being bandied about in non-binding terms? They will not come close to covering the influx of new flights the new runway would create. And I say flights, not passengers, because there are always a massive amount of flights(Every day), that are far from full, many below half-full.

I've heard the argument put forward that electric cars would somehow offset the pollution from new flights arriving and departing an expanded Heathrow. But here's the thing. In order to prevent coastal towns falling into the ocean within my lifetime, carbon emissions need to be reduced massively, not passed around like you're trying to pay Paul by avoiding Peter. Electric cars are a start. Perhaps they'd do well if they were driving into a purpose-built, streamlined and well-thought, well-delivered new national airport in the Thames Estuary area. Or, failing that, to newly-equipped charging points in the car parks for the nation's other airports.

This plan, is ultimate folly. It has very little to create benefit for the country, only to benefit the introverted airline and airport cabal.

You are losing my vote, and speaking as someone both politically minded and blessed with a gift for words, you would be well-advised to hear these words.

Yours Sincerely,

Chris Johnson

Pronunciation You Can Believe In.

2009-01-20T01:29:00.000-08:00

It's official, from 5pm GMT today, it'll be pronounced "Nuclear" again. As opposed to "It wasn't a lie, there really absolutely were Nuculer WMD's in Iraq".

Ask the person nearest you to say it.

Listen closely.

Do they say "New-clear"?

or

"New-Kew-Ler"?

"New-clear" = Smart Person.

"New-Kew-Ler" = Uneducated Hick.

(After Seth Meyers)

The Wonders of The Inbox

2009-01-19T13:54:00.000-08:00

The process of getting a game on PSN is completely separate between
North America and Europe, which is the reason the game has not yet been
released in the UK. We have been working hard getting through Sony's
process however and expect Episode One will be out in a matter of days.

All the best,
Joel DeYoung
COO, Hothead Games

Chris Johnson wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why Penny Arcade isn't on the UK PSN
> store? If there is, when can I look forward to buying it?

Update.

2009-01-15T13:26:00.000-08:00

I've been out of touch for a bit. I've been offline from MSN since December, my normal Email account(Which I think won't accept new messages while it's offline for now - text me if you want the new address) has around 1,200 unread messages, my old website is offline for now aswell, and I'm not using my phone much.

The website and email bit is because I need to renew my subscription to the service I had with those services.

The other stuff....well, I've been distracted a lot with Jac's dog, Murphy, who has been suffering convulsive fits since November, and it's heartbreaking to see, and I've usually been present with him when he's suffered the fits we know about. It's been a fair share of agony watching over him, getting frightened every time he moves, in case he's about to suffer another. And because we don't know why he's suffering the fits, we don't know how serious this is. It could, quite frankly, be life-threatening. The most popular theory seems to be epilepsy, which can be treated with medication that prevents the fits, but it's not guaranteed to be successful.

Then, last week, my Gran died. My Mother's Mother, to be specific. I didn't really like her that much, and I liked her even less as her mind went increasingly awry over the last few years. So much so, that even with a small cluster of family members left that I even see, never mind speak to, I haven't seen her in the last four years, except for Christmas things where her tantrums would be the most noteworthy thing.

So I didn't like her. But, this is pretty much the first time someone this close to me has died. All three of my remaining Grandparents are still alive and reasonably well, as are my parents. There's been around three times I can think of that death has landed quite so close to me. One was a guy I knew in 6th form, who died in the shower in his new uni dorm, not long after 6th form had ended. Then there were my two dogs, which hit me like a truck when they happened. Apart from that, I mean I've suffered loss in my life, including some utterly heartbreaking losses, but no other deaths. So for this to happen.....it's hit me. Not hard, but weird. I feel very much in turmoil inside, and I feel loss, but oddly I don't miss her. This may well be one of those things which makes you, the reader, think "That's an awful thing to say". Well, whatever. I'm just writing this up because I don't feel much like saying what I'm typing.

On the plus side I have a PS3 now, so there's stuff to keep me occupied at the moment. Fallout 3 is awesome.

I hope you, the individual who came here today, are well. And be true to yourself. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some crisps with my name on them, and it took a lot to convince Jac to engrave my name on with food colouring, so if I don't eat them soon, she'll kill me.

Dietary Requirements for teh Petz

2009-01-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

moar funny pictures

Hallelujah.

2009-01-13T21:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/prison-break-canceled

Palestine? No. Israel? No. Burnt out Crater?

2009-01-13T20:44:00.000-08:00

It's amazing. The feeling of love that fills your spirit, the astonishing moment of clarity that comes from God, and following the righteous path to salvation.

It's amazing, that people still actually hold some sort of belief in such fiction. Yeah, I'm talking about Israel.

I honestly lose hope in humans when I read and watch the news on things like Gaza. Seriously, it's depressing. Mostly, because of how important it is, to pretty much everyone. I'd really like to say that it's important because there's some ancient machine hidden underneath the earth, and the key to activate it is somewhere secret in Bethlehem, or that there is a real demon under there, and both sides involved are on a quest to unleash the dragon that will smite all comers. Unfortunately, the truth is a lot less cool.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are very similar people, in terms of history. Both lost their homeland a long time ago, and to an extent, both became a roaming band of travellers. Many Jews ended up in Europe and Russia, where they became a mixture of accepted and ostracized in a variety of nations, but were very much ostracised after WWII. The Palestinians - and I'm not much of a historian, so forgive me if this bit is wrong(But I'd also love to know the real answer, so let me know if you know) - or at least the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, are basically the leftovers from the Ottoman Empire that originated in Turkey, who controlled what is now Israel as recently as 1912.

Both believe that Jerusalem was promised to them by some derivation of the legendary bearded man who walks the clouds with/without dragons. You know, God. I don't know the reasons why, or the story of how it came to be written by crazy pre-historic bloggers armed with chisels and stone tablets, but that, and you really should already know that, is why we're here today.

Or rather, why both sets of people are in Gaza/Israel now. There's more history to it, and it's worth a read through respective timelines, but it was around this time in my reading, that I came to realise, I don't give a shit.

I don't give a lump for the history, because quite frankly, the history is what leads both sides to fight. Even though there are so very many people on both sides who were born well after the modern Israeli state was founded(1948), and so few remaining who were there, and even less who remember it, the fighting continues. And it really all comes down to he said/she said. The whole thing is like some housing estate dominated by two ideologically matched families, who hate each other's guts. And when you get down to it, nothing's going to make you more angry than when someone you hate kills a member of your family.

I've grown up through the news of terrorism. From weekly news of the IRA to Pan-Am 103, the Oklahoma Federal building to 9/11. And often enough, it's the case that there's a representation of a terrorist as an antagonistic minority, retaliating(For entirely personal reasons) against some kind of protagonist majority. Often enough though, there's plenty of blame to go around.

Israel, Gaza, stand up please? Because you've both got a whole lot of shit on your shoe.

I'm sure someone could point to where all this started. Some, defining, crystal-clear moment, where this monstrosity started, and perhaps say to me "Do you see now? The blame clearly lies with this party, not the other". Just as I'm equally sure that someone would also contend that said moment was untrue, or inaccurate, and that blame belongs with the opposite side. And I've seen it before. Not quite so succinctly as in Israel, but it's been the case for most of the last twenty years, that whenever someone from one side of the terrorism/freedom fighter aisle in Northern Ireland is shot at/beaten/stabbed or blown up, there is always someone to release a statement declaring:

"Good morning to the assembled members of the press. They started it."

The difference in NI, is that aswell as the oppressive British presence(What with all the walls, armed guard towers, armoured vehicles and whatnot), there are a variety of different factions who want, or in some cases wanted things differently, and were prepared to take up arms to do it. In Israel, it's fairly even between two sides. Exceptionally so, because both sides are crazy. Not just a mite unhinged, but suicide bombing for God, crazy. Only in different ways.

Israel, for a lot of my life, has had this weird, indelible connection to the USA. Practically every U.S. politician has stood up and said this line:

"Israel does, and should have the right to defend itself."

I'm never entirely sure why this is. Maybe there's some mysterious financial issue, such as Israel paying a large stipend to the U.S. annually. Who knows?(Again, if you do, leave a note.) To be honest, I'm fine with just saying it's a given for any politician to want to stay in office, or exceed their current office in a future election; So it stands to reason that none of them would want to alienate the electorate in any way. By the way, apparently America has a prominent Jewish population. What? You didn't know? For shame, haven't you ever watched television? My point is, it's hard for me to picture an America that doesn't support Israel no matter what. It's like someone heard a knock at their door, in comes some kid who claims to be the home-owner's son. Guy takes the kid in, treats him as though he is his son, while the kid turns out to be a dick, runs rampant through the neighbourhood, all the while the guy rebuffs any complaints of his new progeny with a dreamy look in his eye and a placid.....

"Boys will be boys."

So with what has been for a very long time, the most powerful nation in the world sticking up for you, you basically get to behave like an ass. Specifically I'm thinking the settlements in Gaza. Despite numerous attempts to remind the Israeli government that they agreed that the Gaza Strip is Palestinian land, and that their settlements in Gaza are illegal, the Israeli settlers in Gaza haven't all gone home and packed up. What's more, such is the anti-Israeli feeling in Gaza, that when the elections were held in Gaza three years ago this month, the more pro-actively violent half of Palestinian politics - Hamas - was carried into power. More on Hamas later, but suffice it to say, Israel and Hamas don't like each other much. So, Israel built a wall with guard towers around Gaza. And used it's navy to achieve control over water-borne access to Gaza. And possibly laughed at the fact that as Gaza has no airports or aircraft, so the Israeli air force had no problems with air-superiority. And then used a series of checkpoints to control who goes in, and who goes out of Gaza. Often enough, you'll find there's no people travelling in either direction. Just munitions flying overhead in both directions.

Then there's the Palestinians in Gaza. They're much more your common-or-garden, seen 'em on the news so many times, burning some country's flag for the camera, crazy. Actually thats a pretty broad generalisation. There are, apparently, moderates in Gaza, and one can only assume that there are some people who don't believe in violence at all. They'd be the people who voted for other candidates in January 2006. Candidates other than the ones who represented Hamas. You can go read the Wiki entry for Hamas if you like, but they have a lot in common with pretty much any group that feels quite so radical as to mount a war against another nation using suicide bombers and pretty indiscriminate rockets. If you were wondering, Hamas won 44.45% of the popular vote, the relatively tame opposition party Fatah getting 41.43% - But breaking it down by district, Hamas secured 74 seats in the ruling council, Fatah only 45.

I don't know if reeling off the list of things Hamas has done has any point to it. Anyone who has owned a television, radio or computer, or read a newspaper in the last quarter century will have their own memories of the atrocities committed in the name of Hamas. And overall, it may well be the case, that either in terms of bodycount, or any kind of more gelatinous 'feel' for who has been a bigger dick, Hamas may well win out. But I'm still struck by something. I have no idea what Israel thinks it's doing. I've seen the news reports, read the stories, but I have no clue what they're doing. I've most recently seen an alarming insight into the mindset of a number of people in Israel, and how much they seem to be defiantly in support of their nation's invasion. Some - who seemed to be hick Americans, who were they Christian would rightly be mocked for being crazy and with a thin grasp on reality("God will protect us") - seemed actually gleeful at being able to sit in the crowd while the explosions went off in the distance.

Israeli announcements have been sporadic, but initial ones, aswell as some current explanations, cling to the line of "Israel has a right to defend itself", aswell as "They started it"(With a rocket). There have also been stories that Israel is trying to crush Hamas in one fell swoop. This is one part of history that I do care about, because there is no evidence, in all the times it's been attempted, that violence in any form, can be permanently fatal to a political movement. This is true if for no other reason than that the Taliban still exists, as does Al-Qaeda. Say what you will about tactics, but as long as there are people ready to take up the cause of a dead family member or friend, a bomb or a bullet won't kill an idea.

There's a popular theory that Israel is running down the clock of the Bush government(Oh aren't we all!), and is attempting to unleash such a massive onslaught before President-Elect Obama is sworn in, because Obama seems to be.....perhaps not quite so on-side with the crazy person called Israel. In effect, it's like a council spending all the money it has left in the budget to create a speed-bump that is 60ft high. Not sensible or useful, but if you don't do it now, you'll never be able to do it.

The theory is the only one I can make out as being possible. Hamas were pointed to as the blame, for firing rockets into Israel. Hamas then laid the blame back from whence it came, by pointing out that they live in near-destitution in a large form of prison camp. Which, if I can take a moment, is irony for Israel. A nation founded as an end result of the holocaust, only for their will to be visited on another people in Israel's backyard. Again, I don't care about who fired first, or who felt they had the best reason to fire. I'm really just aware that this, as it stands, can only get worse.

If, as is hoped, Israel agrees to a ceasefire, Hamas is unlikely to stick to it. Despite the bombardments and newly in-place ground forces, the followers of Hamas will likely be emboldened and enraged at the murder of so many Palestinians. If Israel continues to wage war on Hamas, then it will get undeniably worse, for several reasons.

First, the people of Gaza. I have sympathy for the people of both Gaza and Israel, principally because I'm against death. There, I said it, I know I'm going to get letters, what with it being such a controversial thing to say, but I'm not down with the death tip. But the threat of death is immensely greater for the people of Gaza. While impossible to verify, the current total number of deaths in this current spat, since it began in December, is nine hundred and eighty four. Apart from it's Orwellian aftertaste, the most interesting thing about those numbers is how they break down. By which I mean, thirteen of them were on the Israeli side, nine-hundred and seventy-one on the Palestinian side. Not on the Hamas side, but on the Palestinian side. While the majority have been reported to be Hamas militants, around half of the dead, are civilians. I read something as I sat down an hour ago to write this:- It was on the BBC News ticker. It said that Israel felt that Hamas was not targeting military targets, but was firing indiscriminately. Obviously that's crazy. Obviously, only Israel should be allowed to fire indiscriminately. I mean, that's how the hundreds of civilians died, right?

Secondly, the people of Israel. If this conflict continues, and either escalates with the involvement of a stronger resistance, or dwindles with the near-defeat of Hamas, then new pieces will be introduced to the board. Explosives of various kinds and sizes have been Hamas' weapon of choice thus far - from I.U.D.'s to mortar shells to unguided rockets, primitive and cheap are stock in trade. If the rumours are true that entire nations such as Syria and Iran are strong supporters of Hamas, then other kinds of weapons, such as more technical war machines, or chemical weapons may well find themselves in the hand of an increasingly desperate group of already crazy people.

And if things get to that state, then grab your party hats and sparklers, because then all hell will be close to breaking loose and blowing out the candles. Because then, you've got several Arab nations, several of many nations, that don't like Israel at all. Mostly because of Israel's swagger, which came naturally from having America standing behind it. And then, quite frankly, it might be WWIII.

But lets not get ahead of ourselves. This kind of prognostication has existed for longer than I have, and regardless of how this plays out, the worst may well never come to pass. So let's treat this for what it is. A group of crazy people forced into a small space with no doors, poking a notoriously over-defensive nation, who are just looking for an opportunity to recreate the Balkan conflict in the Middle-East, all in the name of freedom of religion.

I'm beginning to feel a glow inside of me now. Which is good, I'd rather be killed by the blast than the radioactive fallout. Which puts me one step above most people on either side of the fight in Gaza. They all just seem to want to die, regardless of how it happens.

Can't we all just....get along?