The Past, The Future, and nothing in between

I'm watching a sharply dressed man holding a stick telling me it's going to get cold in the next few days.

There's more sharply dressed people telling me there are strikes which will definitely spell the end of society, and yet more sharply dressed people explaining how some famous folk have died, how the economy is screwed, and how cancer is causing global warming.

It seems that the negative-news contagion (thus far confined mainly to the Daily Mail) is spreading across journalism. At least the TV-licensing lady seems upbeat about us handing over money to twelve thousand BBC managers (and some important staff too).

After a study involving myself and my brain, I've come to the conclusion that what we need is more Tomorrow's World. Or New Scientist. Or something. You ever watch Tomorrow's World? Bet you can't remember a single moment where Peter Snow seemed unhappy about some amazing new potential invention that we could be seeing "within the next few years!".

Nuclear cars. Someone, somewhere, decided this was a good idea.

Sure, it's really easy to spend hours bitching about how it used to be better in some fictional, idealised 'good old days' when people actually met in person instead of expanding their social interaction via social media. These were the times when kids weren't distracted by their iKindles and their FacePods and people had pleasant family time and board games and played catch in the garden and bicycle rides and trees and flowers and happy storyfuntimestuff.

Rather than working yourself into a frothing rage over the (entirely fictional) saccharin past; why not read a bit about how we'll have cured the world of every possible physical and social ill in the next ten years? Let's look forward to the (still) imminent development of personal jet packs, flying cars, fruit loops that can fill out or tax forms, little fairies that eat greenhouses gases, and glasses that make ugly people look like Pippa Middleton.

HELL YEAH JETPACKS

Who knows? The time may even come when electronics are glued directly into our brains? That way we could engage in meaningless virtual time-wasting and procrastination (such as blogging) without ever getting out of our sweat encrusted beds? We won't even be aware that we're all fat, flabby blobs of wastage which could just as soon be minced up to feed livestock.

Yay future.

-Neop

The News Of The World - In Memorium

Since you're reading this, you probably have the mental aptitude not to require the watery drivel disguised as 'news' that was, until today, offered by 'The World's Greatest Newspaper'. Anyway, since it's topical, I have ventured forth for you, and collected information from their very own website so you don't have to go there yourself. Here's a little summary of what was covered on the final day of publication of this bastion of journalistic integrity.

See? I'm offering a useful public service- going on their website so you don't have to. Now I have to go and wash my eyes out with soap.

-Neop

999 calls to make you laugh!

These are all worth a look. The first is tame, the last two are too funny to not share with my adoring readership:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7814278.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8433783.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7801917.stm

Both hilarious, and worrying. I wonder why it's always manchester?

-Neop

I promised!

In between making websites, ripping out great swathes of garden, having increasingly surreal conversations with University mates, and moping about doing nothing (very time consuming I assure you), I've finally found a suitable moment to sit down and vent my rising hatred of everything to you, the avid and inconceivably tolerant reader base.

The object of my animosity today can begin with our home grown British media giant, the BBC.

I'd like to start by making it clear that in general, I like the BBC. They make Top Gear (inarguably the best program on TV- excuse my shallow nature), and Radio 4 comedies like The Now Show (inarguably, the best program on the radio). I don't even mind the idea of a license fee. In general the program quality is pretty decent, especially when compared to the festering affront to human decency that is the likes of Channel 4's Big Brother, or similar "here's some twats being twats: let's watch them and waste valuable brain power" dross that so often excretes its way onto our screens.

What I do have against the BBC is something very specific. It's their news reporting.

Actually, it's a certain aspect of this reporting, one which for the most part could be extended to newspapers and other TV news slots: I'm simply lugging this onto one broadcaster as they happen to be my foremost source of the news.

What I'm driving at is the kind of news reporting that makes no mention of the shocking and frankly disgusting incident in London where a taxi driver committed suicide by beheading himself; and yet has a news article listed on their front page as "Brown knackered says Downing street". I should bloody hope he's "knackered". He's getting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers pounds to sit on his fat Scottish arse and stick his oversize, flabby fist into every aspect of society in a vain attempt to fix the catastrophic damage his useless, thick headed party has caused over the past decade. If he gets anything less than a stress induced stomach ulcer he should be immediately fired and subject to the despicably inadequate state pension he's responsible for.

This is the kind of news reporting that favours the death of a deluded, faintly paedophilic, plastic pop star over human rights atrocities in Africa. That runs week after endless week of stories on how his doctor is clearly a murderer, how he may or may not have killed himself after all, and how two weeks later, he is in fact still dead. Obviously the public are as much to blame as the company here- by caring more about the death of a celebrity than of mass tortures, rapes, murders and all manner of inexcusable human atrocities in other parts of the world.

This is also, the BBC that yesterday ran a decent sized television slot about two people who've died of E-Coli in Wales, and ignored the plight of thousands of Burundians who may now face prison for homosexuality.

This is the BBC who (thanks to Marcus Brigstocke for this one) ran articles on how the weather was not quite as sunny as we'd like, and has NOTHING on their website or on their shows about the woman in Sudan facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers. Even the GUARDIAN managed to write about this one. 

Four people died in the Rhine yesterday because of flooding. Did anybody here even know Germany was flooded?

I think my point's hopefully been made here. This is a broadcaster who badly needs to re-examine what it considers to be a worthwhile news article. This is a broadcaster who needs to learn to prioritise. And sadly, this is a public who needs to get it into their collectively ignorant skulls that there is a wider world out there where people are suffering badly; that things CAN be done about it by everybody; and that Jade Goody was a fat, stupid, bigoted racist and socially useless pustule who didn't in any way deserve the vast media coverage she garnered by doing us the favour of dying.

Incidentally, if in any way this has made any minute impact on you as a reader, I'd ask that you have a look at this.

Breaking News

Moving on slightly from the post below (having had at least one VERBAL plea to keep this going) I feel I should use the slightly more accomodating facilities of this very blog, to discuss this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008572.stm

Regarding the walkout today of world leaders from a UN racism summit.

For those of you who are unaware, a short history.

Several countries, noted in the article, have boycotted the conference altogether. Notably, the US is absent. These countries all cited the Iranian president as their main concern. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stance as a vehement anti-israeli is nothing new, and leaders were concerned he would use a summit (notable for aiming to eradicate racism) to p

eddle his own ideals about how the Israeli state is run by racist Jews aiming to destroy the Palestinians.

Whatever your views on the recent crisis there, I think it's fair to say this is a serious allegation and not one that should be put forward at this sort of summit.

To further complicate matters, Iran is currently in a very delicate balance with the West. The Obama regime has so far proved to be of great help to improving relations with a country that (potentially) could develop nuclear weapons, and who in the past have been incredibly anti american:

More recently, Ahmadinejad personally intervened in the matter of an Iranian-American journalist involved in a very controversial trial for spying for the US government. Whether his action here is politically motivated, or if he's genuinely concerned with her welfare, is anybody's guess. But it certainly showed that he was capable of changing his tone to deal with a new era of American presidency.

To the matter in hand then.

It seems obvious, that this will do no favours for relations between Iran and the western world- that goes without saying. But what of the event itself and what may now happen?

Well, for starters, the US representative never turned up to the event, as stated above. Ahmadinejad has already condemned all nations who boycotted the summit, which clearly implies america as well.

Oh dear then.

Notably, he hasn't directed this at specific countries. And this could swing too ways for the future of Iran-US relations.

Either, Obama and Ahmadinejad will see this as a seperate issue, and continue discussing other issues such as Uranium enrichment and the imprisoned journalist as though this had never happened, or it will have a severe impact on future talks. The first eventuality is more likely to arise from the iranian camp- the US has made it clear they want to improve things and not make it worse. I find it unlikely that Obama would jeopardise this. However, I also don't see him staying completely quiet on the subject, and it will be worth seeing how Iran reacts to whatever he ends up saying. I'm sure though, that the order will be US, then Iran. The second outcome is more likely if Ahmadinejad returns to his pre-Obama stance of cynicism against the US, and would obviously be very regrettable.

The walkout itself, was more of an obviously defiant move by ministers actually in his presence. Certainly it is easier from Ahmadinejad's perspective to be critical of an event which happened under his presence, which he himself caused. Could then, the countries involved in the walkout end up being more harshly criticised by Iran than those who failed to show?

The UK falls into this category, so we should be able to follow a similar pattern to the US, regarding Brown's opinion and Ahmadinejad's response. This should, in theory, almost mirror that of the US: however, I believe if there is a difference, it will be that Brown's Britain is likely to come off worse, for the reasons above- that the UK minister physically walked out and didn't just not show up in the first place.

That and Brown is less likeable.

Anyway, I will leave it there with this particular thought-vomit. Please argue/discuss as you see fit :)

This could prove interesting.

All about what people do on commuter trips. How most people shut out the outside world.

To be honest, I often find being alone with my thoughts a... sort of scary experience. I don't like thinking too much because I know I do it. I overanalyse EVERYTHING and being able to retreat from the buzzing cloud that is my brain is a welcome break :)

Quick! I'll explain on the way!

OK!

By all means, please, read my last entry, but take note fair interwebber, that there is no longer nothing to talk about. I am of course referring to this!

News Report.

It seems that a certain female monkey, sorry girl, from somewhere called Barry Isle, has lightly toasted herself in a tanning salon. This apparently constitutes news.

Shocking, I'm sure.

She makes some extremely well educated points regarding how stupid she is, including that she was well aware that the salon was for over 16s only (she's 14), but pointed out that:

"Teenagers are going to push the boundaries. They are going to do things they should not do." 

Prolific.

I offer this in return (fully aware that I myself, am a teenager):

"Teenagers are going to push the boundaries. They are going to do things they should not do, and if anything bad happens as a result they bloody well deserve it".

The human race doesn't survive on the principle of "survival of the stupidest, because the cleverer ones look after them". If you're too much of a fool to use a tanning bed, under age, for FAR too long, then you can suffer for it. Who'd have guessed that a bloody sunbed could give you sunburn? I suppose she'll soon find out the hard way that drinking too much alcohol can kill you (before suing the alcohol companies for not physically taking the drink off her).

This situation seems to me to be akin to an asthmatic sneaking past warning signs and barging into an asbestos storage room, then moaning when their lungs start bubbling out their mouth as a pinky-red foam.

Put it another way, wouldn't a similar news report look like this:

Girl Breaks Leg Falling Off Cliff

A girl of 14 was hospitalised today with a severe fracture to her leg, after falling more than 30 ft from a cliff near Lyme Regis.

Annie Spoonacre was out for a walk with her friends when they decided to make their way to the cliff edge. Annie fell from the precipice after she slipped on the muddy grass along the side. "I just sort of, fell. It was very sudden. I was well shocked".

Her mother today commented that cliffs were "an extreme risk".

Annie acknowledged she was "partly responsible":

"I knew I wasn't supposed to go near the edge, but teenagers like to push boundaries. They are going to do things they should not do".

The cliff lies on land owned by Ernest Blitherington who said in an interview:

"It is a shame she ignored the warnings. There were thirty-three signs and a large fence between the path and the cliff edge. We were operating within the law".

Annie's mother is considering pressing charges. She commented on the dangers of cliffs and suggested stricter controls be put in place, such as twenty four hour armed guards and force fields. "I'm very concerned that children could go through the same experience as Annie. I was completely unaware that there are un-guarded cliffs".

It is expected that the matter of cliffs will be discussed in Parliament tomorrow. Some Health and Safety analysts have already suggested cliffs be outlawed completely.

Local ambulance staff said Annie was "lucky" and that in future she shouldn't behave like such a total prat.