Thursday, October 26, 2006

Are celebrities superhuman? RIchard Hammond is OK!

BBC | UK | Clarkson gives Hammond 'All-Clear'

With news that Richard Hammond is all but healed, after being close to death less than a month ago, it confirms everyone's deepest suspicions (well, everyone at Hello Magazine, anyway) - celebrities truly are superhuman.

Consider Bono's escapades in saving the world, while being a mild-mannered rock star by day.

Or the intrisic inability of celebrities to grow old, eg. Halle Berry (40); Johnny Depp (43); Pamela Anderson (39); Brad Pitt (43), and Susan Sarandon, a plastic-free 60-Year-Old.
Also, their chronic inability to die/retire (see:The Rolling Stones - minus Brian Jones, obviously, RIP and all that)

Or their apparent immunity to hard drugs (almost entirely reserved for Motley Crue, and argueably, Ozzy Osbourne)

Or the insatiable appetite for sex (Paris Hilton... she has to be famous for something - otherwise this post is pointless)

So it must be true that people are pre-destined to become celebrities due to their superhuman abilities. Which is why no cumstain from Big Brother has ever been on a TV since. (With the possible exception of Jade Goody, who has the superhuman ability of being thick as monkey shit.)

Update (3 August 2012) -  I'm going to update this post to include the subsequent knowledge (from this South Park episode) that Magic Johnson has AIDS and has managed to avoid the Grim Reaper for years, and David Beckham seems to have a superhuman invulnerability to negative headlines. After countless career setbacks that would have destroyed the mental health of even the most stubbornly saccharine emoticon, including being burned as an effigy for petulantly kicking out at an opponent, acting as Alex Ferguson's target during kicking practice, Beckham has constantly resurrected his career, often in a more successful state then before said incidents. Now, after suffering the ignominy and dream-shattering of not being called up for the Olympic squad, he took part in the opening ceremony instead, carrying the torch. On a speedboat on the Thames. In a tuxedo. Through Tower Bridge.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Al-Jazeera: a godsend for journalism

Al-Jazeera, the Arabic news channel has long been the thorn in the side of George Bush and his cronies.
The White House has long tried to paint the News channel as a terrorist network. They point out that Al-Qaeda tapes often (if not always) surface on Al-Jazeera. This is obviously true, Al Qaeda are hardly going to send tapes to Fox News, where the tranlation will probably be inaccurate, and edited suufficiently to make Dubya seem like the Messiah - if itr even gets shown at all.
What the White House is really afraif of is Al-Jazeera's knack of constantly embarassing their Iraq policy, through good journalism, and proper investigation. And with a new English-language version of the chamnnel opening in Washington, and London, this is likely (here's hoping) increase multifold.
Now it seems that the channel has scored another coup over the regime. One of the top US State officials has said the US' Iraq policy was rife with "arrogance and stupidity."
See, give someone a decent platform, and the truth will emerge.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Does America Have Any Journalistic Credibility?

The Timing Is Irrelevant In Foley Story - Public Eye

Much has been made about America's pro-Bush televisual media, or anti-Bush dead-tree press (a phrase I have garnered from influential blogger Guido Fawkes). An entire documentary has been devoted to Fox News' right wing bias. The leading U.S. newspapers, such as The New York Times, and The Washington Post have to stave off accusations of liberal bias.

Is this the state of Journalism in the most powerful nation in the 'free world'? A childish name-calling squabble?

The biggest news story of the run up to the mid-term elections was the news that a Republican, Mark Foley, had been sending dirty MSN messages to a 16 year old assisstant.
After he resigned, the focus shifted to how long senior Republicans new about this, with many denying knowledge, or shifting blame. Daniel Hastert, the top Republican in the House, and therefore the man who should have known about this for months (some speculate this has been going on for over 18 months) and taken appropriate action. His defence has always been that this story was a conspiracy by the Democrats to derail the Republicans re-election campaign (rather than provide explanation as to why he didn't act).
However, this post, by the CBS News blog team (a blog devoted to the behind-the-scenes working of CBS News) refutes this claim, because they can quote a journalist who was presented with the story in May (it broke in September). The journalist in question, Ken Silverstein goes into signifcant detail about how he was given the story, and practically brags about turning it away, and then cites a further three news sources who did the same.
Surely the journalistic credibility of America has been truly stripped away when they feel that a story about a man in public office, who has been involved in such inappropriate activity, does not need to be disclosed to the American people?
It's a long way down from Woodward and Bernstein

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Stan keeps up the good work! Ireland fail again!

Staunton Gets FA Backing - Sky Sports

My first post on this blog, was my pessimistic view of Steve Staunton's appointment as the Republic of Ireland manager... Results have justified my pessimism.

Now, of course, the Paddywhacks in the FAI see no reason to admit a mistake. One quote I did take note of, was this, by Head Whack, John Delaney. "We've asked him in on a long-term basis to see if he would be prepared to take the team on and qualify us for a World Cup."...
"see if he'd be prepared to..." - it's no biggy really, he can take it or leave it.
"a World Cup"... whichever ones suits him. 2058 sound alright for anyone?

At least the Norners (and Scotland) are doing well for themselves, they just needa watch those teams they should beat.

Someone think of the Children! "Limbo" is abolished!

BBC NEWS | Magazine | How can limbo just be abolished?

His Naziness, Pope Benedict XVI, last week abolished 'limbo.' Limbo was described as the place where unbaptised babies would go if they died. Created on a whim, now, apparently abolished on a whim. Isn't Catholicism so convenient for a sitting Pope?
For hundreds of years, unbaptised children were buried outside the walls of the graveyards, because they hadn't been indoctrinated into the cause. What now of their memory?
Suppose the next Pope doesn't like the idea of heaven? Will he be able to go *poof* and get rid of it?
With that sort of power over zealous catholics (who will no doubt eradicate all trace of limbo from their lives, and memories, and any lives or memories they have control over ie their children), no wonder the Vatican are so protective of their position.