Bleak Opinion: Outrage Jockeys.

We are used to being outraged by Politicians on twitter.

Some of us are genuinely shocked by it. Some of us expect it. Some savour it. Some actively encourage it. Some actively 'seek out' outrage, where there is none.

I'll let you decide where Nadine Dorries latest 'Outrage Offering' sits.
Just so you know, it was to do with an after party for her appearance on 'Have I got News For You', the preferred forum for picking prospective candidates in the London Mayoral Elections. The other Guest was the Comedian, Reginald D Hunter.

Dorries: I have now left the HIGNFY after party. As I looked over my shoulder, Reginald D Hunter was talking to my daughter.#wheresmyshotgunman


When Challenged she replied:  it was something Reg would laugh at.I suggest you watch the prog and refrain from comment until you have.


So I will. No I actually will. I'll admit my jaw dropped when I read it. But I thought about it and I'll wait and see what the show throws up.
But I don't think it can possibly 'harm' her career in the way that some people seem to be suggesting.

Look at Boris... Look at Ken in fact... even poor Brian Paddick...  I wasn't joking about Have I got News for You being a forum for the major parties to get candidates out to non political audience... and that's major candidates for major parties. Imagine some of the publicity junkies we've got hidden deep within the party machine, waiting to 'reveal' themselves... in the niche parties...

Lets be honest. Of this type, the 'crazies' are the funniest, the ones that spit ludicrous soundbites are the most memorable... Each tedious outrage is just another reinforcement that this or that politician actually carries weight in the public sphere. It's a 'Force Multiplyer'. The exact opposite of a distraction tactic.

So, what will happen?

Maybe the HIGNFY appearance will be a comedic triumph,  and put in context the tweet becomes a 'callback' to a gag in the show, or perhaps an entirely innocent play on words (Shotgun Wedding?). Which means she's pulled a very sophisticated move. Win for Dorries. She is not a racist, she is a 'Wit'

Most likely, nothing happens. The show is unmemorable. Something else occurs, blotting the whole event from the collective conscious. Maybe she'll get such a leathering that it will appear that the Tweet has already been 'punished' by the other members of the panel. The comment may still have no real connection to the show, but it might just 'Blow over'.. it was just a misfired joke.

Worst case for her:  The appearance is a disaster, establishing the Tweet in context as 'malicious', 'bigoted' and 'Racist'.  She is disgraced and shamed... Maybe even sacked, humiliated and reviled. This is what some people are suggesting might actually happen.

Then What?

Later she will be 'remembered'... She'd get another job... maybe as a columnist. She will maintain her blog, and continue to raise her profile. She will keep some support. More than likely she will be elected to something. Probably sooner rather than later. For those of you who think that making a horrifically inappropriate remark on Twitter will lose you all support, I dare you to search the hashtag #Banter on Twitter. Your answer is there.

If anyone could politically survive that, it's her. She appears to be one of those savvy MPs who have embraced social media as a platform and have an innate understanding of the nature of memory. If you can get the public 'interested' in you, in even the most tenuous and bizarre way, you stand far more of a chance than even the most able of 'political minds' in any election held amongst human beings, no matter what your actual beliefs are... You can always raise your profile with one section of the public or other, even if that simply means hammering yourself into them at every opportunity with a divisive opinion... Like your average Daily Mail columnist, she could become a part of the public consciousness mainly by her constant appearance in trends, timelines and online news, being outrageous and being written about.... and each event, positive or negative, making her seem more 'important'

...and here I am at 2:00 am, Writing about her...
Bleak.

A Fiends Errand: Operation Instagram (Part 2)

Ok everyone, I'm sure you all remember when we instigated part one of this (my) fiendish scheme. We were all sat, much as we are today... I had just finished my 'day job' as a superhero/astronaut (Who lives on the moon and is 'anything proof')

I remember saying. "Ok everyone. Let's make Instagram really really popular". You must remember, it was in October 2010. I recall distinctly saying, "you should all use this app... now"... I said it on Twitter.... I think. It was late at night... Probably.

Anyway, a lot of people did decide to use it.. It's something to do with drastically reducing the quality of the pictures taken on your very expensive smartphone... or something... I've never used it myself and know nothing of what it actually does...

Anyway, we got it really really popular. And of course by 'We' I mean 'I' because I said that you should all use it... So it was my idea... Got that?

So... Enter the chaps behind Facebook. They want this 'Whatever it is' and have offered a cool Billion for it... That's Dollars by the way. U.S at a guess. They must really like filtered images.

So now it's time to reveal and enact part 2 of this fiends errand.

Hear this: "Everyone can now cease using this App. Instead use any of the myriad other ways that you can convey your own personal Gawp onto the net, albeit without a slight tint that makes it look 'all older and stuff', Then we can all sit around and watch that valuation crash through the Earth's Crust, creating a tunnel that we can then use for trade and tourism"

(In Internet Business Ju Jitsu this move is known as the 'Myspace Jettison')

Oh... and incidentally, I know some 'cynics' are suggesting that Facebook don't really love 'Images that look a bit like they were taken on a real camera, only not really if you look for anything longer than a second' so much they're willing to spend a fortune and are, in fact, just buying out a competitor before it becomes too threatening. If anyone does believe this to be the case I would suggest everyone stop using Facebook as well... just in case.

Now, having said 'a Thing' I can now claim 'Bloggers Prerogative' and if anything even approaching any of this comes to pass I will claim I predicted/originated it. In fact, If even one person stops using either site... ever... for any reason at all, I will now claim to be right on all things...

I am a Blogger, and we do that.

Opinion: Look at the Fucking Pasty!

Who remembers the famous, infamous... In fact, Legendary 'Pasty-Budget' poor poor George O did in 2012?
Yeah... It was all about Pasties wasn't it? It was 'Pasty-this' and 'Pasty-that'... And then there was loads of stuff about Pasties at the end... Oh and he mentioned the word 'Pasty' seventy times at the start.

You DO remember... There were all the headlines the next day. George O's head photoshopped onto a massive Pasty. The Mail did a screaming headline about Pasties as did the Sun... The Conservatives were on the ropes, reeling under a barrage of left and right blows from the Media... And from Greggs of course...

That's how we all remember it isn't it?
Or not... Luckily for me I stopped looking at the Infinitely Alluring Magic Pasty being puppeted on a strings, inches away from my gawping facepiece, for just long enough to check previous blogs...

And... Well gosh-a-rama and crikey Fucksticks...
Pasty tax was actually a 'Fuck all' aspect of the budget. A relatively minor Own Goal in the 'Amazing Budget that Pleased Nobody'
I remember the Headlines being all about 'Granny Tax'... And then of course Cash for Cameron happened. Before that the forcing through of the NHS bill despite large-scale public resistance.

So what would you rather have?
Scrutiny over that, or, a few vaguely embarrassing soundbites by senior figures regarding the last time they ate a Pasty?

It's clear what the government would prefer and consequently we're seeing a deluge of cringe inducing 'stagey' questions about MPs snacking habits, each one universally failing to mention the crucial point, and basis of the entire ludicrous tax: was it a hot Pasty? Answer me Prime Minister! Was it 'Hot', 'warm' or merely 'Tepid'... Answer me! Newsnight should be fun this week

Obviously, Pasty tax is important to the manufacturers, as well as to fans of warm Cornish Comestibles...

But at the moment it seems to be most important for the Coalition... Derision is bad. Scrutiny is worse. As long as we're all lauging about D-Cam and Poor Poor George O we're not asking them all the tricky questions... We're asking them about Pasties... And instead of working, half of our elected MPs are, as we speak, racing to be snapped in a Greggs with a face full of pastry and an 'I'm JUST like you' Grin...

So...
Look at the Pasty... go on: Look, stare, gawp... With your EYES. look. Laugh
Ha Ha Ha. 'Pasty' sounds Funny. Top Tories are 'Out of Touch' Ha Ha Ha.
Now look at the Pasty again...
Watch it... it's warm... Look...
LOOK AT THE FUCKING PASTY!

Opinion: Dr God... Would he need to Advertise?

What would you say if three MPs from the three major parties wrote a letter to the Advertising Standards Agency saying that they demanded that the allow the advertising of 'Magic Spells' as a working, healing practice...

Well... You'd probably laugh loudly and disbelieve the notion...

Ok... What if they went on to demand that if the ASA couldn't come up with 'scientific evidence' that 'Magic Spells' do not work they would go to parliament about it.

You'd probably be twirling your fingers by your ears at this point, in a juvenile gesture that implies a mental issue. (But obviously in a vaguely ironic, Ricky Gervais fashion, whereby you are clearly not satirizing any specific condition)

Ok... What if those demanding, accepted that it didn't work 'all the time', but didn't seem to think that was a problem, and cited their own, utterly unverified experience as proof that 'Magic Spells' actually work.

By now you'd probably be wishing I'd shut up about it...

Ok, what if I told you these 'spells' were being uttered in the direction of a God... Most likely the Christian-lite deity of the Church of England

Well, the penny would drop, you'd immediately understand and you might even be moved to joyous applause at what a clever textual device I just used.

Yes, three honest-to-goodness REAL MPs, obviously with VERY little to do (I mean, we've only got NHS reform going on... Oh, and a budget... And Cash for Cameron.. And Leveson... And a Global Economic crisis... And Constitutional issues in Scotland... And... Oh... You get the point) are actually mounting the campaign detailed above, albeit without the 'hilarious' satirical diversions.

Anyway, these (alleged) 'Utter Fruitloops' are asking the ASA to change the guidelines so 'anyone' can legally shill God as a Healer...
They want it to be legally able to put out an advert saying: 'Prayer can cure your hidesously Prolapsed Rectum'... Or some such thing...

Ok... First. If you believe in God, you believe he can heal... No big shakes for a 'First Cause' of everything. Maybe he also has little to do and will drop everything to Treat your athlete's foot if you're too busy to go to a chemist... Maybe.

That said, does 'God' really need to be able to advertise? He is pretty well known around the world, despite the best efforts of the likes of Dawkins, the Late Christopher Hitchens and all that 'Science'. Seems open and shut to me. If he does exist, then all creation already serves as an advertisement. Surely to do more is at best 'gilding the lily'

Also, who are you to advertise on his behalf? Maybe he's got enough on his plate without you whoring his service to every dumbass with a cold. After all, in that world-view, he put all the illness there in the first place, presumably as part of his 'great plan' are you really that confident that you'd argue that he should 'heal' something he's obviously gone to great lengths to set in motion.

So... Bit presumptuous there for a start.

Now I'm an atheist, so maybe I don't understand all the arguments here. That said I would never want to insult a theoretical super-being by being a condescending fusspot who wants to 'stand up' for them like they were a poorly puppy at a rescue centre. This is supposed to be GOD. If he wants the ASA to lift this regulation, I'm sure he'd find away... If not something Old testament and grandiose, I'm sure he could at least influence the ASA directly... Why use try-hard MPs as a go-between, especially if they don't even have the faith to believe that God can 'get things done' on His own...

Perhaps they are just trying to piggy-back on the recent anti-secularism movement for their own ends, hence my decision not to name them (5 seconds on Google should do it)... If this were to be the case, I'm sure their God will see through such a shabby trick and punish them accordingly...

Speaking of 'Shabby Tricks' how about using unverified anecdotes for your point... I.e: my hand got magically healed... But asking for a full scientific investigation from your opponent? Pretty good that, particularly since the Church itself is loath to put religious ideas to the test under laboratory conditions. This is for the simple reason that it tends to put on rather a poor show. No. A wise person of faith accepts that they should let the world of science and faith remain separate, as the Kingdoms maintain, at best, an uneasy peace.

So how could the ASA prove that prayer doesn't heal... Particularly in light of the earlier caveat that it isn't always effective? Well, 'proving a negative' is difficult to the point of near impossibility... Oh and it's utterly unscientific as well... The correct way round to word that request is: prove that prayer does work...

Oh and you would need to keep that prayer a secret from the subject in order to rule out the Placebo effect making an appearance. (The most startling thing in medicine in my mind, a regular, earthbound and measurable scientific miracle... And one that is actually getting more effective as we continue to evolve)

So... To those MPs: if you submit 'Prayer' to the same process as medical drugs go through before they can be 'advertised'... And they pass the double blind trials at a rate that betters Placebo, then we can talk about your request.

Or... A quicker way to prove to me the 'Truth' behind the effectiveness of prayer is this:
Pray for me to convert.
If there is a God, should be simple enough to do... And I will immediately denounce this post as heresy...

Of course if I remain an atheist I will assume that prayer doesn't actually work and we can all go on with our lives.