bozo's return

Socialism begins at home

Everyone knows Bozo is a socialist.
Everyone knows Bozo dislikes the Labour Party. Blair. Brown. Milliband. Yuck

But this new benefits policy they launched today isn't awful.

It may be awful when it gets to detail. And implementation. But as a headline idea I like it

Why?

Well I believe in socialism as Jesus did. He knew that one of the mysteries is we are not clones. We are all unique. Some are blessed massively. Some born into a life if trial.

We are supposed to take our blessings and freely give to help those less blessed.

Tory policies would be fine if we were a nation of givers. But we are a nation of tax avoiders We follow Dawkins view that we lucked out in some universal lottery. Tough titty on those who didn't. Adapt or die.

But.
This country does offer everyone free education. Everyone. Sure. Some schools are better than others.
But it's free. And you get to choose how hard you work even in a crap school.

So while admitting there are exceptions. And admitting there are extenuating circumstances. The fact remains large numbers of kids laugh in the face of free education. Toss it off till 16. Then expect the rest of us to pay for them for life.

Many of them also want to blame immigrants who bothered to learn to read abd count and spell for taking their jobs.

I believe totally in the social safety net. I believe totally in the obligation of the blessed to give generously to the unblessed.

But. I also believe if you already tossed away one free education you can't complain at being made to accept a second one before the rest of us pick up your sky tv tab.

My mum would never have tolerated my wasting my education. Never.
But then today she'd have ended up in court for giving me a slap when I got out if order.

Socialism begins at home. Caring for your kids includes an obligation to make them actually take advantage of the free education!

My mum didn't slap me often. She didn't need to. But the fact that she could and would helped me become a productive member of society.

A few more would be nice

World Cup update

I had intended to update more often.
But I haven't !

But now everyone has played.

Better England than I expected. But same result.
Not sure where I stand on the Great Rooney Debate.
Talent is one thing. But if he doesn't score his legacy will be tainted in footballing greatness terms. He may end up scoring more England goals than Sir Bobby or Sir Gary. But it's going to need a World Cup semi place to be more than a trivia answer. Sorry that's just how it is.

I think Roy picks him in the hole.

Italy. Class. Not to be ruled out.

Germany scary as usual. But. It must be said Portugal. Like Spain. Are past their sell by as teams. Great players notwithstanding.

Brazil. Disappointing. With a good ref they at best draw against Croatia. Last night v Mexico was pedestrian at best.

Holland. Unexpected. Need confirmation they are as good as they looked last week!

Argentina. Not sure. It wasn't good enough to prevent me watching on fast forward.

Ghana made me sad. So poor against USA.
Cameroon. Nigeria. Awful.
Ivory Coast. Mediocre
What has happened to that vibrant African football?

Russia. Need a goalie. Belgium. Not as good as the hype.

Referees. Inconsistent in the extreme.

Tv pundits. Hmmmm. My jury is out.

I have a question

How come Croatia's goal was disallowed for a foul on the keeper and Holland's third wasn't ? Just asking. I'm glad the tournament came alive last night though. Was kind of twilight zone experience watching Spain's pedestal being dismantled. Finally. In game 3. The tournament became about football playing and not officiating. It's official (geddit?). Bozo is hooked.

The Musketeers, seriously?

So, Bozo has always avoided reviewing things.

When you write - and when your work (rubbish though it might be) is criticised - it feels like you are witnessing your children being slaughtered by marauding savages.

 

So - slaughtering the offspring of hard-working writers seems kinda wrong.

And when you write (and Bozo has started writing screenplays as well as novels) and fail to be recognized - when you criticise the work of someone who has been published or produced - it can sound like awful sour grapes.

But - in this instance - I need to ask a question more than criticise.

 

My question is this.

Is it really only possible to tell a story set 400 years ago on modern television by sacrificing all of the language and cultural mores of the time in question to language and cultural mores of the 21st Century?

Seriously?

If the answer is "yes" and The Musketeers  (Sundays BBC1 9pm) seems to suggest it is - I for one am a bit sad.

A few episodes ago someone said "I have been set up!"

Of course we all knew what he meant.

But not a single soul in 1630s paris would have had a clue.

Of course I grew up with Dumas (well not physically - he died 100 years before I was born - even Bozo isnt that old!) - I must have read the Three Musketeers a dozen times. As well as Twenty Years On and the rest of the adventures.. So I love it as it was.

And then in 1973/74 - probably before the Writers of The Musketeers were born Richard Lester directed a masterful screenplay by George Macdonald Fraser to produce the two classic movies which I still enjoy watching.

In those - the Musketeers manage to convince me they are in the 1630s, but remain perfectly understandable.

So, the question remains - can you not persuade anyone to make a period drama in which people act and speak in at least a reasonable facsimile of a period way?

And don't get me started on Mr Darcy leaping in the lake. Sheesh.

Of course you are the TV experts - so if you tell me you cannot have an audience for a period piece unless you use modern street-talk and modern issues (noble though they might be - like women's rights) as cornerstones of story and dialogue - then I have to believe you.

But when I was young -  and I was 15 when Richard Lester's Three Musketeers came out (oops, gave away my ancient-ness) - I found that I learned a lot of history  - and certainly a lot of my interest in history - from the way Lester and Macdonald Fraser told the story.

I hope no one takes the Paris of the Musketeers, or the social life portrayed as anything like a picture of actual 1630s France.

And if you say to me - of course they won't, people aren't that stupid!

Then I will say to you.... Excellent, then stop pandering to them with 21st century dialogue that doesnt stretch their ears.

This is not meant to be an unmitigated slagging off of the series.

I like it actually - it just disappoints me.

The stories are fun (if often historically implausible) and reasonably well told. - Of course it is streets behind dramas such as Justified or The Americans as far as plot, story, character and suspense go - but it's a creditable effort.

But my question still remains - does this actually mean that if my period novel is to be published everyone needs to speak as if they are in 2014 Hoxton?

If my period spy screenplay is to get produced does it really need to sound like Spooks?

Because if it does I may actually prefer to remain unpublished and unproduced.

 

My call is not important to you

I am no big fan of listening to recordings when I call a service provider - but then again - I don't know who is.

 

My particular irritant is the phrase:

Your call is important to us.

Because I believe it is a bare faced lie.

If my call was important to you, I would be speaking to a person, not a machine.

When your Chief Exec calls Goldmans to discuss your IPO, does he speak to a recording?
NO! Because HIS call is important to them!

 

If my call was important to you - I'd be speaking to a person.

In fact if my call was VERY important to you, I'd be speaking to a person IN MY COUNTRY.

Someone you employed in my country, to boost the economy of my country and reduce unemployment in my country - because you want to use the money I and others in my country like me pay you to support the country we live in and stop it going to hell in a hand basket.

But no, you let me speak to a recording  - and a disinegenuous recording at that.

So, at least be honest with me - at least let the machine say to me:

Your call is moderately important to us. But not as important as paying massive dividends to our shareholders. or as important as paying massive bonuses to the senior management. Despite the fact that the shareholders are already getting 15-20% ROI in a world where interest rates are 0.5% we want to give them more so they won't be peeved. And even though our CEO hase three homes and 5 cars we need to pay him another 7 figure bonus because its hard to find CEOs who can make people redundant and replace them with machines that make you queue on a phone line that isn't even free, it's national rate.

But, deal with it dude, if you take your business elsewhere you will (a) not upset us all that much and (b) still be talking to a machine anyway.

So, you remain in a queue, talking to a machine, because frankly we don't give a toss about you. And by the way we just made 50p while you listened to that KACHING!

 

At least be honest with me.

 

 

Twitter - the final death knell of democracy

Twitter did not cause the degeneration of democracy.

I think that began a long while ago.

After JFK in 1960 - political operators realised that image mattered as much as policy. That made elections into the marketing of products and not the competition of ideas.

And now - we live in the Twitter generation.

In 140 characters:

you can say you like or dislike something.

You can say you love or hate something.

AND> If you are a clever wise-ass who is good with words and has a sense of Zeitgeist you can prove to your gazillion followers that you are indeed a clever wise-ass who is good with words and has a sense of Zeitgeist.

But what you cannot do is explain or sell a truly great idea.

***

Now wordiness is no proof of genius - I fully accept that. A sign in a pub loo I saw this weekend said (and I abridge - but only because I cannot remember all of them...)

Pythagoras' Theorem - 24 words

Lord's Prayer - 66 words

Gettysburg Address 238 words

US declaration of independence - 1700 words

... and EU regulations on the sale of cabbages - 26,700 words.

So let us not mistake my argument - wordiness is not in and of itself a virtue.

But the clever soundbite - and the ability to hire clever people who will write them for you - is not proof of great ideas or great leadership.

Getting elected these days seems to be about telling people what they want to hear - in the shortest possible time - so they can get back to watching X Factor.

In 1996 Tony Blair repeatedly said 4 words.

"education, education and education"

and everyone cheered.

18 years later the legacy of the Blair years is - war, war and war.

The soundbite was lovely - but does anyone think state education is better now than it was in 1996?

Let me give you another one.

"Peace in our time!"

4 words - that everyone cheered.

Both those 4 word soundbites would have made great Tweets - but they made little actual difference.

Tony Blair didn't stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Let alone fix state education.

Neville Chamberlian didn't stop Hitler. Let alone prevent a war that cost millions of lives (and don't get me started on Ukraine - the potential Munich of 2014)

But they both sounded great.

You may say to me - well it's easy to criticise the politics of marketing and soundbite - but how do you suggest the politicians engage the actual electorate in a debate over real ideas and real policies and real leadership, clever clogs Bozo?

And I say to you...in all honesty - I am not sure I can.

But I am totally sure I cannot do it in 140 characters.

 

RBS. Gotta admire their chutzpah

Let me put on my old cracked record.

We put people who stole trainers in the riots a few years ago in prison.

Management of RBS have scammed the entire country for many years now. Costing us billions and billions. More than a few pairs of trainers. And instead of locking any of them up we are paying them another £500m in bonuses.

Puke

Is the blame properly apportioned?

I have decided I am heartily sick of one particular comment. You will all have heard it, it goes along the lines of: "why does God allow all the poverty and starvation in the world?"

You really think that is God's fault?

Really?

Apparently people do - and think that the existence of poverty and starvation is a kind of proof that God cannot exist.

So. You don't think that God has provided us with enough resources in this creation to feed, clothe and house everyone?

Because I think He has. I think the problem is distribution. I think the people on earth are really very bad at distribution.

So let us consider a case study of an acquaintance of mine - who shall remain nameless.

He loves football a lot. He subscribes to Sky Sports - and BT Sports and he has a season ticket to Chelsea. Now that's quite an investment. £900-£1250 for the season ticket. According to the Sky website the Sports package is £22 on top of the £21,50 for Sky. So that's coming up to £500 a year - without even allowing for the BT Sports bolt on. Let's say a conservative £1700 a year for the lot. That's just under $2,800.

That is close to the per capita GDP for Laos - and just behind Pakistan's $3056. According to the IMF (data found here on wikipedia). According to that data. There are 47 countries whose per capita GDP is less than the cost (pre tax) of following Premiership football to the max. Our anonymous Chelsea season ticket holder needs to earn about £3000 before tax to keep doing that. This is a reasonable number to look at - as if it went to charity - it would be deductiible! £3000 is about $4900 dollars and now exceeds the per capita GDP of 63 countries.

And where does his £3000 of pre tax cash go? Well Sky pays most of their share to the Premiership - who pay their teams - who pay their players. Last week Chelsea fielded 11 millionaires with another 5 on the bench. Any profits made by Chelsea end up with Roman Abramovich, who, according to therichest.com was worth $13.6 billion back in May 2013 (although other web sources put the poor man back at only $10.6 billion).

Phew! So at least it's all going to good homes.

Now my friend cries out (trust me he does) "I earn this money - I work very hard for it. And I have the right to spend it however I want!"

And, guess what. I agree with him!

God gave us all free will. So we all get to choose what to do with our hard earned money.

I just think that what my friend doesn't get to do is blame poverty on God.

***

There is of course an addendum to this. My friend would ask - why does God not arrange the distribution fairly in the first place?

But would you want Him to do that? Really?

My friend would. But only by creating much, much more in the way of resoruces, so the poverty stricken and starving could get taken care of without anything being taken away from him personally!

The world has enough food and enough money - it is the choices of all of us with free will (and I do include myself in that category) means that it is unfairly distributed.

It makes no sense to blame that on God.

If you think God shouldnt allow it - then be careful what you wish for - because most people read the book of Amos - which is a pretty clear vision of God's opinion of people who don't look after the poor - and think that it makes God the bad guy when he wants to punish the haves for ignoring the have nots!

So...

• If you don't want God to forcibly take what is yours - that's fine.
• If you don't want to freely give what's yours - that is fine too.

But stop blaming Him for not sorting it out.

 

Women Bishops

According to a report from the BBC (here):

The Church of England is preparing for a debate at its ruling general synod about how to create women bishops.

 

According to BBC Radio 4 news just now women Bishops are opposed by "high church Anglo-Catholics" and "low church" evangelicals.

 

Both sides apparently have issues with the Biblical basis for women Bishops.

The thing is - a very close review of the Bible over the past few years by Bozo has failed to find any mention whatsoever of "Bishops" (of either gender) in the Bible.

So it seems to me - if the various denominations that have Bishops are happy enough to have made up this position with no Biblical basis - they ought not to have a big issue over the gender of people holding this non Biblical post.

The book of Acts - which is fundamentally the history of the creation of the Church in the 1st Century doesnt mention Bishops at all - but mentions many women as having significant roles in the congregations (the word most commonly used in English translations prior to the King James version deciding it should be "Church")of that century.

So frankly - once humankind has made up the post of Bishop without reference to the Bible - it shouldn't use the Bible as a rationale for disallowing a gender should it?

Memphis or Soweto?

I have never been to Memphis, There - I admitted it.

So it's only being honest to say that my "sense" of the scariness of parts of Memphis came originally from the movie The Blindside. However - Although in the movie a part of Memphis called "Hurt Village" was portrayed to be as about as safe as downtown Damascus right now it is also true that according to this article three areas in Memphis are among the most dangerous in the USA.

Scarier still - the three worst areas in the USA according to the same article all belong to Detroit!

 

Now I have been to Soweto. To many white South African's we met in Johannesburg before going, the visit that Mrs Bozo and I made there in 2009 was an act of madness. And let us be honest - many of the amazingly warm and generous black South Africans we were hosted by in the township advised us not to wander the streets around our hotel at night. 

My point is this - generally speaking I didn't feel that scared in Soweto - maybe I should have - but I didn't. But both the article linked above - and the movie - gave me a very strong impression that parts of Memphis were arguably far more dangerous than Soweto.

Is it just me that wonders how parts of the richest (and we are led to believe "free-est") nation on earth are scarier than a thrid world township with a history of homicidal racial violence?

In the 20 odd years since the failure of the Soviet experiment (and we have to admit it failed) the west has seen the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer - every year. Every single year.

And, when the banks caused the almightiest financial disaster the world has ever known. That process actually accelerated! We bailed out banks whose balance sheets were destroyed by imprudent investment decisions - and then subsidized the bonuses still being paid to the losers who made those decisions! Except they aren't losers are they?

We are.

They get richer and richer.

No one ever ever ever got arrested for the dodgy dealings surrounding the crash. A crash that caused more harm to the world than the riots of a couple of years back - for which hundreds of people were jailed!

The reason that Memphis - and Detroit - and increasingly parts of my own fair city are becoming more dangerous than Soweto is complex. I admit that. But anyone who doesnt think that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer doesnt play an enormous part in the process is - well - a bit dim.

Of course if we keep voting for these policies we will have to live with them. We do after all get the government we deserve. But Let us not expect our country to become a nicer place to live. 

Unless you are rich of course.