In defence of David Mitchell, and easy targets.

Yesterday, The Telegraph's Brendan O'Neill described David Mitchell as a ‘pound shop Stephen Fry.'

I have a number of objections to this statement, not least that it implies pound shops only sell low quality products. Any savvy shopper knows this isn’t true: pound shops sell a combination of stuff worth more than a pound and stuff worth less than a pound, often to quite extreme degrees. In my local 99p store, aisle one is ‘gold bullions and semi-detached homes’ and aisle two is ‘grains of rice’ and ‘hugs’. I’d basically be making a profit if the hugs weren’t so damn good.

My hope is that in taking this image from The Guardian, they'll see this blog and hire me

But that isn’t my main objection, and this would be a weird and unnecessary article to write if it were. No, I take issue with the kind of criticism O’Neill levies at Mitchell and his comedy. See the following:

 “QI, Have I Got News For You, Mock the Week, Just a Minute … On all of them, there he is, stroking BBC TWO viewers’ and Radio 4 listeners’ prejudices, giving them their weekly, soul-sustaining dose of anti-Tory gags, banker-bashing and praise for the BBC…

 … UKIP voters, fast-food eaters, etczzz…You want sixth-former-style “Tories are evil” stuff? Mitchell’s yer man… 

…How about some Murdochphobia, Rupe being the favoured bête noir of every tabloid-despairing progressive? He’s a “monstrous a–––hole who wants to ruin everything for everyone”, declares Mitchell, daringly.”

Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever been presented with a 3 year old’s drawing of squirrel, but, if you have, you’ll be aware that although disfigured, discoloured, elephant-like and, in places, surreal, it’s possible to work out what it’s meant to be, especially when you’re aware of the technical and intellectual limitations faced by the artist. I feel the same about O’Neill’s attempt at a point here. What he’s trying to say doesn’t make sense to the eye or the mind at first glance, but if you sit and stare for long enough you might be able to work it out. And then tell him he’s a star and deserves extra pudding. 

I think basically what he’s implied is that some ‘stuff’ simply isn’t an appropriate topic for someone like Mitchell. And, on this list of unacceptable targets for one of Britain’s leading left wing satirists are: bankers, people on the far right, the right wing media, and the current government. Yeah, classic 2015 Mitchell, laying into ‘the government’! BO-RING. People have been criticising the government basically since the government began - can we please just let those in power get on with it? Urgh. 

A stupid point. No denying that. But we may as well explore why O’Neill believes these topics to be out of bounds. 

What it appears to come down to is criticising the state or the right wing media simply isn’t ‘daring’ enough for O’Neill. It’s too easy. “Go on! Be more daring! Say you hate immigrants! Or the poor! Then I’ll recognise you as the leading satirist you once were and not some left-wing homogeneous blob!” He cries. (I expect he does cry actually. Loads.) But it’s a worrying state of affairs when something is so obviously flawed or evil that slagging it off becomes cliché, and I don’t think the solution is to stop mocking that something completely. Especially when it’s as powerful as Rupert Murdoch. 

No. Even, if some things are so shit that their shitty-ness is universally implied, that doesn’t mean satire should turn elsewhere. All it means is that, for any criticism to be worthwhile, it must carry a degree of wit and intelligence. If my housemate walked into my kitchen and said ‘Murdoch is bad’ three times, before promptly exiting, I wouldn’t find that particularly insightful or funny. Well I would find it funny, but you understand what I’m saying. Criticism is only valuable if it’s done well, and personally I think Mitchell’s columns and quips are easily funny enough to justify their arguably easy targets. 

My only worry now is the quality of this article, because my God slagging off The Telegraph is easy.

Another video. Lol.

In case you missed it. Whoever you are.

A new YouTube channel, a new video.

Hello!

If you're visiting my blog deliberately, thanks! I've decided I'm going to start making videos in a similar style to the kind of thing I write here, and for this I've made a YouTube channel poorly titled 'Bullshit this week'. I will also write things here, still.

Anyway, here's the first video I made, with minimal editing skills. And minimal camera-work skills. And minimal performance skills. I hope you watch it.

China, Nuclear Power, and the Problem with National Security

If you went to school, you'll probably remember this kind of crap:

Wind Power

Advantages (2): clean, renewable

Disadvantages (3): eye-sore, noisy up close, needs to be windy

It's an extract from a hand-out on energy sources which I've had to use for some tutoring, and what I find amusing is that no weighting is given to any of the attributes. Wind power here is deemed 'bad' as it has fewer advantages than disadvantages. But a rating system this reductive can present a warped evaluation of pretty much anything, for instance:

Having a serial killer in your house

Advantages (3): Exciting, increases heart rate, chance to meet someone new

Disadvantages (2): Can't be reasoned with, will brutally murder you and your family

Likewise:

Anything for which there are more disadvantages than advantages

Advantages (2): easy to ridicule, useful in weird meta-jokes

Disadvantages (1): more disadvantages than advantages 

FUCK MY EYES ARE SORE

It's a shame that energy sources are so simplified in school because I think they're something the electorate desperately needs an informed opinion on. For instance, the government announced a new nuclear energy deal this week, and there appear to be some disadvantages to the plans not listed on the hand-out.

Can you elaborate?

Basically China's President visited the UK this week, and during the brief moments The Conservatives weren't trying to bustle Jeremy Corbyn into an airing cupboard so he couldn't mention their human rights record, it was agreed that China will fund and possibly build the UK's next few nuclear power stations. I find these developments quite scary, not least because they sound like 'Phase 1' of a project where the final phase is entitled 'Completion: Harvesting Brain Tissue from The Remaining Western Population'. Indeed, British intelligence agencies have voiced concerns about the plans, claiming that they can 'never know what hidden capabilities are built into the plants' software'.

Yep. Hidden capabilities. If something’s hidden that can mean one of two things: it’s evil or it’s embarrassing. Basically our next nuclear power plant is either going to have a secret Porn, Candy Crush and ABBA lair, or the potential to kill us all. Admittedly every nuclear power plant has the potential to kill us all, but you see what I’m getting at. These plants could be used by China against the UK.  

Surely that’s never going to happen?

I agree it’s unlikely. I mean, I own loads of products made in China and none of them have ever turned on me (apart from my GAP ripped jeans which turned on me in about 2010 by becoming deeply, prickishly unfashionable) so it’s unfair to assume all the power plants will feature a self-destruct button cleverly mislabeled ‘press for a smaller dick’. That said, I don’t think it’s unfair to see the deal as some sort of threat to national security.  

Does anyone disagree?

Well that’s the thing: it very much depends who you ask. Media coverage of the security issue has been predictably inconsistent: The Guardian dedicated an entire article to the concerns whereas The Sun failed to mention them completely; meanwhile The Mail went with ‘30 reasons why China is trustworthy’ followed by a highlights reel of Tom Daley's Beijing Olympics and some tits. (I'm not totally sure the tits were part of the same article, but to be fair I was wearing my Mail Online Bile Protection Suit and sometimes the anti-bullshit goggles steam up a bit.)

Bet she's just got straight vodka in there

As for the government? Well, not much has been said. This could mean David Cameron doesn't think China are a problem, but when you consider that he recently declared a 66 year old manhole-cover-enthusiast from Islington a threat to national security, your perspective changes a little. Basically, it's very hard to ascertain what's a threat to national security when your only sources of information have a vested interest regarding who's in power. 

Or, in Cameron's case an 'un-vested' interest. He's topless, and his 'biased twat' tattoo is for all to see.

The UK and Saudi Arabia: Corbyn is right to hate Britain

This week the UK ditched plans to bid for a Saudi Arabian prison contract, and in my opinion this was good news. 

You see, providing expertise to the Saudi Arabian prison system is a lot like acting as a design consultant for The Second Death Star, or giving ‘Ebola’ notes on how to become a more effective disease. The Saudis have got a pretty shaky record when it comes to treating people humanely, to the extent that Amnesty International’s last report on their human rights was just the words ‘fuuuucking shiiiiiit’ written in the ‘Impact’ font, followed by a video of a monkey using a dead frog to masturbate. 

I mean, I have lied there, technically, but only because it’s genuinely quite hard to put Saudi Arabia’s moral track record into words, or at least words that don’t make everyone want to cry. And that’s not my aim with this blog. (It’s tricky to gauge how well I’m doing though; the last article I wrote got 140 views but only 7 likes, so I think it’s safe to assume there were at least a few tears.)

David Cameron with Ricky Tomlinson on an insensitive stag-do

That said, I think it’s important to look the festival-portaloo of morality that is Saudi Arabia’s human rights record in the face, so here are a couple of facts:

Fact number 1: Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch and probable German, recently described Saudi Arabia as ‘the world’s most misogynistic regime.’ 

Hang on. The most misogynistic. That's one hell of an accolade, because misogyny is for my money the most competitive industry on earth. Every day literally millions of men, families, corporations, newspapers, video games, songs, lipsticks, hoovers, coffee machines, dogs, fonts, and women compete to prove they hate women the most. When I gave misogyny a go, by calling my mum ‘a bitch’ back in 2007, I didn’t even crack the top billion, so I have no idea how you go about winning a competition like that. My only guess is bribery. Either way, when it comes to hating women Saudi Arabia are absolutely killing it. And them.

Fact number 2: Saudi Arabia frequently engages in 'torture, ill-treatment, racism, xenophobia, and arbitrary detention.'

That’s got to be the most upsetting list since ‘Schindler’s’, and as someone who has experienced arbitrary detention (two minutes late for science in Year 8, and the lesson didn't start properly until ten past) I feel personally hurt just reading it.

But wait. Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Council, so they can’t be that bad, can they?

Well, their membership is surprising, but there are a couple of important factors here. First, Saudi Arabia’s membership doesn’t so much validate the Saudi regime; it more helps invalidate the council. In fact, take a look at the full list of members and you’ll come across a whole number of human rights violators: 

UN Human Rights Council – Most controversial members

China

Pakistan

Cuba

Qatar

Hitler’s ghost

The Sarlacc

Literally ALL wasps

9/11

Mrs Brown’s Boys

The Go Compare Man

PAHR (Pricks against Human Rights)

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Saudi Arabia are on the council partially because of us. It was recently revealed that the UK engaged in a secret vote-trading deal. This meant we promised to vote for the Saudis if they promised to vote for us, which is I imagine what David Cameron thinks Fair Trade is. Interestingly, though, the deal wasn’t just a straight exchange; according to the Prime Minister himself we have to play by the Saudis’ rules because they provide us with vital security information such as terrorist intelligence and their Paypal password (womenareshit48). 

Remember when Cameron fucked a pig haha

So we're staying their mates?

Looks like it. And to be honest I'm pretty ashamed of the UK right now.  

That's not very patriotic.

Well let's face it, patriotism is irrational. No intelligent person loves their country just because they were born there, in the same way no good parent loves their children just because they're their own: they've got to earn it. My parents don't love me, but then I didn't get all A*s at GCSE so it's completely justified, and to be honest I'd disown them if they did. 

How are you going to form a tenuous link to Jeremy Corbyn like you always do?

I'm glad you asked. Recently The Conservatives have been peddling the idea that Jeremy Corbyn hates Britain like that's a bad thing. But looking at our relationship with Saudi Arabia, hating Britain is probably the most moral and rational standpoint available. I just hope it doesn't transpire that Corbyn unconditionally loves his children, because there's no way I could vote for someone like that.

The London Mayoral Candidates: How They Stack Up

The London Mayoral elections are just around the corner, and personally I think Boris Johnson is a tough act to follow. 

Not in the sense that he's been particularly good, it's just his sheer level of novelty makes anyone else seem impossibly bland. It's tough for even a good politician to follow Boris in the same way that it's tough for The London Symphony Orchestra to follow 'The man who can scratch his back with his dick'; the audience probably don't want to watch anything else, in fact they need a break to think about what they've just witnessed. 

Either way, someone will have to fill the hole left by the giant display-only teddy bear, and on Friday The Conservatives announced their London mayoral election candidate: Zac Goldsmith. Labour apparently chose theirs a while ago when I wasn't paying attention (Sadiq Khan), so for the first time we can assess the match-up between the likely front-runners.

Conservatives: Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park. 

 

Photo courtesy of ominous-close-ups.co.uk

                                              

Clumsy, unsubtle parody of every Tory stereotype ever, Zac Goldsmith is the son of a billionaire tycoon and went to Eton. He also attended 'The Cambridge Centre for Sixth Form Studies', which I think is what The Grafton is now. Chances are he has such a removed perspective on money that he has to Google the price of milk, probably via the following searches:

'how much is pint of milk' 

'is 45p a lot'

'where can I buy 45p coin'

'viola teacher-student porn'*

*He'd need a break, and this is just what I imagine he's into.

Policy-wise, he's keen on environmental issues, and opposes a third runway (hasn't said anything about a fourth or fifth one though, so watch out); he also wants to build 200,000 houses during his first term, and as he lives in Richmond they'll presumably be sweeeeet.

Perhaps the most eye-catching fact about Goldsmith, though, is that he recently divorced a woman genuinely called Sheherazade Ventura-Bentley, who sounds like both the love interest in a straight to DVD Austin Powers spin-off, and an £8000 aftershave you'd find in the duty-free catalogue on an Emirates flight ('smell like the void in your life'). That said, without its preposterous double-barreled appendix, 'Sheherazade' actually teeters between being unfathomably posh and unfathomably working-class, something I don't think any name has achieved before. It's enough to give Katie Hopkins an aneurysm, meaning we should probably call every child born in this country Sheherazade until Hopkins explodes in a mushroom-cloud of flesh and whatever her species has instead of blood.

(Of course the real worry would be that, if Katie Hopkins were destroyed, they'd just build another, which to our surprise would be fully operational long before it appeared to be finished. However, we'd most likely be able to destroy The Second Katie Hopkins using a pretty similar method to the first.)

To summarise, Goldsmith is out of touch but has some reasonable policies, and I am easily distracted. Moving on.

Labour: Sadiq Khan, MP for Tooting.

 

Photo courtesy of peoplenearlyastallasbigben.com

                                       
Sadiq Khan has described himself as Mr London, implying he thinks you have to change your name to wherever it is you live: an embarrassing start. That said, he does seem to fit the Londoner bill pretty damn well. The son of a bus driver, raised in a council flat, and he's lived in the capital all his life - he just needs to have been in a gang of musical pick-pockets to complete the set.

As for policy, Khan has responded to Goldsmith's green-focus by saying he'll 'plant a million trees', which sounds like something an 8 year old would suggest when asked how his school could 'make the playground better'. He's also keen on housing, and wants Londoners to have 'first dibs' on homes. I don't know what a dib is, but I think it's something technical to do with rent - either way it's good to see he's not dumbing down.

Interestingly, Khan was the 'mastermind' behind Ed Miliband's successful Labour leadership campaign, and guiding Ed Miliband to victory is a bit like guiding a new-born goat through one of the harder levels on CBBC's Raven, so it bodes well for him. He's a good choice for Labour.

The Battle

It's someone's attempt to make David Cameron on The Sims 3 versus how José Mourinho would look in one of my less vivid dreams, and I'm excited.

However, what puzzles me is who the undecided voters will be. I know they exist, but I just can't picture them. What kind of person can't choose between a candidate so incredibly Tory and a candidate so incredibly Labour? I can only imagine it's someone who sits exactly half way between them. Liz: a 43 year old daughter of a billionaire chimney sweep who grew up in a council house she inherited before going to Eton to study lorry driving. Liz is going to decide the election. Alone.

No pressure, Liz.