A thought occurred to me earlier. Remember the 1991 song "I Wanna Sex You Up"? It was a big hit. I remember at the time thinking that it was a nonsense phrase presumably invented to avoid censorship of the obvious sexual connotations. The song has been in mind since the story emerged of the "sexed-up" Iraq dossier, which disturbingly is already ten years ago. That's the only other time I've heard the word-coupling, and can't help wondering whether "upsex" is a verb.
Anyway, in the case of the dossier, it makes sense - it just sounds right, somehow - certainly more right than the song title which should simply read either "I wanna make you horny" or "I wanna have sex with you". The dossier was said to be sexed up because the intelligence in it was augmented in order to make the proposition of an Iraqi invasion more attractive and convincing.
Let's apply this back to the 1991 song. It turns out, what sounds like a crude song about someone who's horny is nothing of the sort! But unfortunately the mercy is a small one: If the dossier is anything to go by, the song turns out to be about wanting to make someone more attractive and convincing. This inevitably suggests that the recipient of the ballad is unattractive and not to be taken seriously.
So much for love being in the air.
03 October, 2012
12 August, 2012
Attitudes to Terrorism
On a weekend late last year, I went into Cardiff to do some shopping. On the end of the high street stood two armed police. I know they were armed because they had their rifles on display. Lots of people were looking at them, some seemed in disbelief and some seemed anxious. There was a football match on later, and that's apparently the only excuse they needed. If you want trouble, the worst thing you can do is provoke it. Violent people are provoked by intimidation and the thought of violence. What were they thinking?
Guns on display unnecessarily. Bag searches. Security cameras. Notices on streets, threatening you of consequences to actions that you wouldn't have thought of had the notices not educated you. It all serves to put innocent people on edge, creating paranoia and panic. At best, all of these things make the perpetrators accessories to terrorism. At worst, it makes them terrorists themselves, regardless of whether their aim is to subdue or to provoke, and regardless of whether they had foreseen the consequences of their actions.
If this is seen by nation states as the way forward to tackle terrorism, the terrorists have won. This approach is an obscure form of "if you can't beat them, join them:" This argument is that people need to be terrorised in order to protect them from terrorists. Such steps are necessarily at the sake of civil freedom and liberty. Even accepting the not-quite-paradoxical argument that you need to control people to give them freedom, using terrorist tactics (intentional or not) cannot be the answer. (Or if it is the answer, the very concept of society (and social freedom) is fatally flawed and should be abolished, which admittedly would remove terrorists' main target.)
So what is the right course of action? Anyone sane would have to agree that something needs to be done to curtail the influence of bad people, such as terrorists. The answer simple. I'll split it into two parts.
First, let people know how ridiculously unlikely it is that they will be affected by terrorism. (That is, at least by terrorists; governments are much more of a nuisance in this department.) There are more pressing, more prevalent things to worry about, such as dangerous driving, disease and the increasing prevalence of supermarkets and mindless TV, and the effect on women of and women's magazines. There are more likely things to get you killed, and even they are very low risk: You just have to be careful.
Terrorism isn't any worse now than it used to be. In fact, the situation has improved. Governments spend more money averting it. People are more vigilant. In the last few decades, many prominent terrorist groups - the IRA and al Qaeda and ETA are three obvious examples - have been subdued or eradicated completely. People always point to the Twin Towers. But that was a one-off - and it happened in another country, a long way away! Why are we associating it with our country, for gods' sakes? Numerous mass shootings occur over there as well. Why aren't we equally worried about that? Why one specific thing but not the others? It isn't rational.
Second, terrorism is here to stay. There will always be terrorists, and sometimes, on rare occasion, they'll do something bad. So get people to accept terrorism as a fact of life - the inevitability that it is - rather than making them worry about it. Whereas caution is a positive thing, worry gets us nowhere, except depressed, and it drags people, and society, down. People stop trusting each other, they become more suspicious, they stop communicating, and this makes a bad situation worse. It leads to misunderstanding and eventually hatred. In other words, people stop functioning like the social animals that humans naturally are.
Terrorism occurs, bombs explode, people die. It sounds flippant, but I know and agree it's a huge tragedy, and such things are the necessary price of a free society. So when on the extremely rare occasion terrorist events happen, we should mourn, move on and get on with it. The situation can be controlled more appropriately (and equally well) if governments take greater steps to improve the secret services, so that they can do their job without sacrificing free society and meddling with the average person's life. And I see very little of that happening. Instead, they've taken the easy option and decided to treat everyone as a potential killer.
If people accept rather than worry about the unlikely doings of terrorists beforehand, if they're correctly mentally prepared about something over which they can't do much about anyway, then there can't be terror. Terrorists, as a consequence, can't win. In a country where the phrase, "keep calm and carry on" is once again an ubiquitous cliché, why has no-one actually realised what it means?
Guns on display unnecessarily. Bag searches. Security cameras. Notices on streets, threatening you of consequences to actions that you wouldn't have thought of had the notices not educated you. It all serves to put innocent people on edge, creating paranoia and panic. At best, all of these things make the perpetrators accessories to terrorism. At worst, it makes them terrorists themselves, regardless of whether their aim is to subdue or to provoke, and regardless of whether they had foreseen the consequences of their actions.
If this is seen by nation states as the way forward to tackle terrorism, the terrorists have won. This approach is an obscure form of "if you can't beat them, join them:" This argument is that people need to be terrorised in order to protect them from terrorists. Such steps are necessarily at the sake of civil freedom and liberty. Even accepting the not-quite-paradoxical argument that you need to control people to give them freedom, using terrorist tactics (intentional or not) cannot be the answer. (Or if it is the answer, the very concept of society (and social freedom) is fatally flawed and should be abolished, which admittedly would remove terrorists' main target.)
So what is the right course of action? Anyone sane would have to agree that something needs to be done to curtail the influence of bad people, such as terrorists. The answer simple. I'll split it into two parts.
First, let people know how ridiculously unlikely it is that they will be affected by terrorism. (That is, at least by terrorists; governments are much more of a nuisance in this department.) There are more pressing, more prevalent things to worry about, such as dangerous driving, disease and the increasing prevalence of supermarkets and mindless TV, and the effect on women of and women's magazines. There are more likely things to get you killed, and even they are very low risk: You just have to be careful.
Terrorism isn't any worse now than it used to be. In fact, the situation has improved. Governments spend more money averting it. People are more vigilant. In the last few decades, many prominent terrorist groups - the IRA and al Qaeda and ETA are three obvious examples - have been subdued or eradicated completely. People always point to the Twin Towers. But that was a one-off - and it happened in another country, a long way away! Why are we associating it with our country, for gods' sakes? Numerous mass shootings occur over there as well. Why aren't we equally worried about that? Why one specific thing but not the others? It isn't rational.
Second, terrorism is here to stay. There will always be terrorists, and sometimes, on rare occasion, they'll do something bad. So get people to accept terrorism as a fact of life - the inevitability that it is - rather than making them worry about it. Whereas caution is a positive thing, worry gets us nowhere, except depressed, and it drags people, and society, down. People stop trusting each other, they become more suspicious, they stop communicating, and this makes a bad situation worse. It leads to misunderstanding and eventually hatred. In other words, people stop functioning like the social animals that humans naturally are.
Terrorism occurs, bombs explode, people die. It sounds flippant, but I know and agree it's a huge tragedy, and such things are the necessary price of a free society. So when on the extremely rare occasion terrorist events happen, we should mourn, move on and get on with it. The situation can be controlled more appropriately (and equally well) if governments take greater steps to improve the secret services, so that they can do their job without sacrificing free society and meddling with the average person's life. And I see very little of that happening. Instead, they've taken the easy option and decided to treat everyone as a potential killer.
If people accept rather than worry about the unlikely doings of terrorists beforehand, if they're correctly mentally prepared about something over which they can't do much about anyway, then there can't be terror. Terrorists, as a consequence, can't win. In a country where the phrase, "keep calm and carry on" is once again an ubiquitous cliché, why has no-one actually realised what it means?
"Independent" Think-tanks
There is no such thing as an "independent" think-tank. Or at least, if there is, think-tanks' use of the word is misleading, because it relates to independence from particular group-types (such as political organisations), and not independence from all with an axe to grind. They can't be fully-independent: most are privately
funded. Why would companies fund a think-tank that doesn't produce results that benefit them? Conversely, how would a think-tank function if it was completely impartial and thus received no funding?
Take Civitas as an example. It recently made the news for releasing research that showed longer prison sentences were a good thing.
My guess is that most of the companies funding their Civitas think-tank (the funders' names, suspiciously, do not have to be made publicly available) are... those that stand to make money out of running prison services. Longer prison sentences means that more prisons (and thus money) will inevitably be needed. Just fancy that!
My guess is also that other (really-independent) researchers have found longer prison sentences have the opposite effect, and that Civitas has chosen the group most likely to represent the findings that benefits it. In fact, I've found a good example here.
I did some research into Civitas, suspicious as to why news articles seem to be so keen to associate the spin agency – er, think-tank – with the word "independent." Do a search for that word on this page. It turns out that the oft-used phrase "independent think-tank Civitas", comes from... Civitas press releases! So when it comes to corporate news, the agencies get it from the mouth of the company they're reporting on. (Incredibly, although The Guardian succumbed to using the corporate brainwashing word "independent," BBC News didn't.) And it's so good to see that Civitas are impartial enough not to promote itself in a good light by flooding news articles with the word "independent." Do call me a cynic. Or a realist.
Imagine how many other articles you're reading that are dictated directly by corporations, and how many you should be reading but aren't because they portray corporations in a negative light. Do you trust your beloved news source now? Do you think you're getting the news, the whole news and nothing but the news?
Take Civitas as an example. It recently made the news for releasing research that showed longer prison sentences were a good thing.
My guess is that most of the companies funding their Civitas think-tank (the funders' names, suspiciously, do not have to be made publicly available) are... those that stand to make money out of running prison services. Longer prison sentences means that more prisons (and thus money) will inevitably be needed. Just fancy that!
My guess is also that other (really-independent) researchers have found longer prison sentences have the opposite effect, and that Civitas has chosen the group most likely to represent the findings that benefits it. In fact, I've found a good example here.
I did some research into Civitas, suspicious as to why news articles seem to be so keen to associate the spin agency – er, think-tank – with the word "independent." Do a search for that word on this page. It turns out that the oft-used phrase "independent think-tank Civitas", comes from... Civitas press releases! So when it comes to corporate news, the agencies get it from the mouth of the company they're reporting on. (Incredibly, although The Guardian succumbed to using the corporate brainwashing word "independent," BBC News didn't.) And it's so good to see that Civitas are impartial enough not to promote itself in a good light by flooding news articles with the word "independent." Do call me a cynic. Or a realist.
Imagine how many other articles you're reading that are dictated directly by corporations, and how many you should be reading but aren't because they portray corporations in a negative light. Do you trust your beloved news source now? Do you think you're getting the news, the whole news and nothing but the news?
02 January, 2012
Tweeting
Can you transform yourself spontaneously into a member of the bird family? No? Then you can't tweet.
It sounds so crap. "I'm tweeting," "I've just tweeted." Sounds like a euphemism for breaking wind discretely. Or an involuntary tic.
We don't tweet. We compose text messages. Whether on your phone, or in an e-mail, on this blog or on an arbitrary bulletin board such as Twitter, Facebook or the millions of others that are less cool. They're nothing special, they're just different ways of composing text messages. We've been doing it since the '80s.
Twitter is just a mediocre site that does the same as many other sites. Despite this, it's not only transformed into the bulletin board of choice, but the marketers managed to invent a word specific to their site that has entered common language. Even the media use it. "If you want to know more, follow our tweets." No thanks, and if you want to know my opinion, you sound as if you need to see a doctor about that irritable bowel syndrome. They're just Doctor Evils, saying "look, we're hip, we're with it." It's all just a load of crap designed to sell an idea, and they've fallen for a cheap fad for the sake of publicity.
"Tweeting" is a way of making something mundane sound new and better than the rest, just like marketing does with all other products and services. But it isn't new, and it isn't better. Forget about the preconceptions you've been fed, and just think about what it is. It even has a severe restriction on the number of characters you can type in per message, which in fact makes it worse than some of the others. "Don’t let the small size fool you", Twitter's about page tells you. "You can share a lot with a little space." Well yes, you can, but you can share even more with a better bulletin board with fewer restrictions. And even the word "tweet" means to write a text message on Twitter. Not any of the other sites, just Twitter. If it's not Twitter, you're not tweeting. Don't you see what they're doing? Don't you see?
In short (but using more than 140 characters - just because I can, as I'm not using Twitter), it's nothing more than a tragic marketing trumph. Every sucker has been pulled in, lured by the prestige of "tweeting" and the cool, shallow connotations that it provides.
The idiot public is suckered into it just so that can say they've "tweeted", which is somehow a good thing, and the media is suckered into latching on to something trendy for their own pretentious reasons. You know all those pathetic adverts that you've watched on TV and thought, "who on Earth is gullible and moronic enough to be taken in by that shite and buy the product?" Well, if you use Twitter, that person is the likes of you.
Let me market a slogan of my own: "Don't be a twat, stop using Twitter."
It sounds so crap. "I'm tweeting," "I've just tweeted." Sounds like a euphemism for breaking wind discretely. Or an involuntary tic.
We don't tweet. We compose text messages. Whether on your phone, or in an e-mail, on this blog or on an arbitrary bulletin board such as Twitter, Facebook or the millions of others that are less cool. They're nothing special, they're just different ways of composing text messages. We've been doing it since the '80s.
Twitter is just a mediocre site that does the same as many other sites. Despite this, it's not only transformed into the bulletin board of choice, but the marketers managed to invent a word specific to their site that has entered common language. Even the media use it. "If you want to know more, follow our tweets." No thanks, and if you want to know my opinion, you sound as if you need to see a doctor about that irritable bowel syndrome. They're just Doctor Evils, saying "look, we're hip, we're with it." It's all just a load of crap designed to sell an idea, and they've fallen for a cheap fad for the sake of publicity.
"Tweeting" is a way of making something mundane sound new and better than the rest, just like marketing does with all other products and services. But it isn't new, and it isn't better. Forget about the preconceptions you've been fed, and just think about what it is. It even has a severe restriction on the number of characters you can type in per message, which in fact makes it worse than some of the others. "Don’t let the small size fool you", Twitter's about page tells you. "You can share a lot with a little space." Well yes, you can, but you can share even more with a better bulletin board with fewer restrictions. And even the word "tweet" means to write a text message on Twitter. Not any of the other sites, just Twitter. If it's not Twitter, you're not tweeting. Don't you see what they're doing? Don't you see?
In short (but using more than 140 characters - just because I can, as I'm not using Twitter), it's nothing more than a tragic marketing trumph. Every sucker has been pulled in, lured by the prestige of "tweeting" and the cool, shallow connotations that it provides.
The idiot public is suckered into it just so that can say they've "tweeted", which is somehow a good thing, and the media is suckered into latching on to something trendy for their own pretentious reasons. You know all those pathetic adverts that you've watched on TV and thought, "who on Earth is gullible and moronic enough to be taken in by that shite and buy the product?" Well, if you use Twitter, that person is the likes of you.
Let me market a slogan of my own: "Don't be a twat, stop using Twitter."
01 January, 2012
Present Tense in News Reports
There's a clue in the name, and it's only a one-word name: 'News' is a collection of reported events that, although new (hence "old news" makes as much sense as "new olds"), have already occurred. Even news reported in breaking events has already occurred; the rest is speculation and thus not (yet) news.
So why do the news media insist on using present tense in their reports? Here's an example from your favourite news source and mine, BBC News (although you can readily find your own examples from other sources). "Biker Jorge Martinez Boero dies on Dakar Rally first day", it claims. Oh, really? How often does he die? Or is it a fictitious plot, and BBC News is reading from a manuscript? (BBC News is not known for the high quality of its reporting: In the same article, at the time of writing, the opening sentence says, "Argentine motorcyclist Jorge Martinez Boero had (sic) died in an accident". Presumably, they think he's now recovering from the ordeal.)
Perhaps it's done to exaggerate the currentness of the events and the report: "We're so reactive to events that we're reporting it as it unfolds." Except that they're not: Rather than being there before the event occurs, to "catch" it as it happens (because they can't be everywhere), they're largely told the details by Reuters and other agencies.
In a sick world, run by groups of people who no doubt manipulate and fabricate a lot of the news stories for their own gain (and I don't necessarily mean governments, or even journalists), "fictitious plot", which I jokingly mentioned in paragraph two, is hardly out of the realms of possibility. To make things worse, they also suspiciously call news articles "stories". Is this a deliberate sick joke on the rest of us, or is it blatant, blasé honesty?
So why do the news media insist on using present tense in their reports? Here's an example from your favourite news source and mine, BBC News (although you can readily find your own examples from other sources). "Biker Jorge Martinez Boero dies on Dakar Rally first day", it claims. Oh, really? How often does he die? Or is it a fictitious plot, and BBC News is reading from a manuscript? (BBC News is not known for the high quality of its reporting: In the same article, at the time of writing, the opening sentence says, "Argentine motorcyclist Jorge Martinez Boero had (sic) died in an accident". Presumably, they think he's now recovering from the ordeal.)
Perhaps it's done to exaggerate the currentness of the events and the report: "We're so reactive to events that we're reporting it as it unfolds." Except that they're not: Rather than being there before the event occurs, to "catch" it as it happens (because they can't be everywhere), they're largely told the details by Reuters and other agencies.
In a sick world, run by groups of people who no doubt manipulate and fabricate a lot of the news stories for their own gain (and I don't necessarily mean governments, or even journalists), "fictitious plot", which I jokingly mentioned in paragraph two, is hardly out of the realms of possibility. To make things worse, they also suspiciously call news articles "stories". Is this a deliberate sick joke on the rest of us, or is it blatant, blasé honesty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
