HOME Sunday, 04 May 2003

I think it was some German who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually people will begin to believe it." So it is with George Bush and his pursuit of an American empire. Again I saw him on EuroNews today, droning on about the "connection" between the former Iraq government and Bin Laden's gang. Although Hussein said America deserved what they got re the September 11th terrorism, there has been no proved connection between him and Bin Laden. No "weapons of mass destruction" have been found to date, nor any evidence of chemical weapons, yet, now that the war is over, a lot of people who opposed it in the first place are saying that Bush did the right thing. "Why?" you ask them. There is a slight pause and then they say indignantly, "Well, Hussein was evil and he did very cruel things to the Iraqi people." There are evil people all over the world and George Bush is one of them. There are cruel regimes all over the world, but as long as they are "friendly" to America, it does not matter what they do to their own people. Hypocrisy does not any longer seem to be regarded as something undesirable; it does not seem to be regarded at all. Rules are there for no other reason than to prevent the world from slipping into chaos. One of the rules is that you do not attack another sovereign country and invade it. The main reason for this rule is to prevent many people from both sides being killed, and killing people is wrong. "Defence" is another excuse that has been used for the attack. Well, maybe I'm stupid or something, but I always thought that Defence meant that you were in your own country, fighting off attackers from somewhere else. No country has attacked America, yet they attack others. Who has Bush lined up next? We had all better pray that he looses the next presidential election. If he wins, he may send the American nation down the slopes to Hell, and pull the rest of the world with him.

HOME Saturday, 10 May 2003

As Homer Simpson famously said, representing bewildered TV watchers everywhere, "5000 channels - there must be something to watch!" But there wasn't. About 80 percent of Sky's output is unwatchable; it's up there merely to stop the screen from going blank and to fill in time. It's there to create an illusion of television; it's not real television. Never ending repeats, stereotypes ad nauseam, recycled characters and ideas. Sitting out in the sunshine (if you can find some), watching a spider crawling up a wall is more invigorating (and probably more healthy). The problem with repeats is that you can never safely say, "Thanks be to Christ that garbage is finished", because, come, next Thursday — "... re-showing all episodes., starting with the very first one!" Oh, God ... Who remembers Din-ner-din-er, din-er, din-er, din-ner-din-er, din-er, din-er- BATMAN! Do you remember the joke someone with time on his hands made up about that? (How does Alfred the Butler tell Batman his dinner is ready?) Almost as excruciating as the show. Mind you, the chap who used to play Alfred was the only one on the cast who could act. Holy Migraine! To the next bat-paragraph! I like watching cookery programs when someone is actually doing some cooking on them. Watching good food being cooked is almost as good as eating it. Save me from Far Flung (Keith) Floyd, frying ungutted fish, heads, tails, eyeballs and all, out in the middle of the arctic waste, with wolves howling in the distance. It's probably only a recorded soundtrack, since you never actually see them having to drive the wolves away. But maybe Floyd's cooking does that. And then there are the people who heat a lump of raw meat for a minute in a pan, ladle it out on to a plate and cut it open. "There you are," they say as the blood pours out. "Absolutely perfect!" Maybe for wolves. To paraphrase Charles Dickens: "In my heart of hearts, I have a favourite chef and his name is - Ainsley Harriot!" It's so obvious that's it's all a marvellous game for Ainsley, you can't help but be interested in what he's cooking, even if you would never eat it in a nightmare. He bubbles over with infectious enthusiasm and I have to say for him, that he doesn't smother everything in herbs. With other, more grim cooks, its a case of seasoning the mixture of herbs with a little pinch of chicken wing. ("Just a little - we don't want to loose the taste.") Why is it that the wealthier and more comfortable people are, they more they hanker to live in the savage stone age. We are treated to a panoramic view of their rustic cottage in the countryside, set amidst "rolling hills", with all mod con. They look the interviewer smugly in the camera lens, as if to say, "Aren't we the hardy lad and lass. We left the comforts of the city behind for this." Where is the mud? I say. Where is the blood? Where are the tears?" Why all the extremely ugly characters in cartoons lately? Have the artists from the Beano and the Dandy finally made it to Hollywood? Even the mothers of these characters could not love them for their looks! If I watch Television at all, I watch it for relaxation, to dream about that perfect world. I do not want to be brought face to face with grim reality. I only have to pop outside the door for that. So TV Executives, please nurture our dreams, don't feed our nightmares.