Live Ford Super Sexist Sunday

Andy Gray, Richard Keys, sexism in football blah blah blah.

I’m sure you don’t want to read about them any more and I don’t intend to drag this tedious affair on any longer (apart from linking you to some other classic Keys moments, here and here).

However, I do want to say something regarding the idea of prejudice.  We have to remember that something is only racist, sexist, ageist or heightist if the respective issues are independent of the job that someone does.

If somebody is old and this leads them to do their job less adequately than they would as a youngster, it should not be taboo to remove them from the job. If viewers of a TV programme are more responsive to a 30-year-old than a 54-year-old, then age does get in the way with the profits that the TV company could be making.

Equally, if I applied to work as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant, they should have the right to reject me because I am not Chinese. If they employed me, it may make the place feel less authentic, potentially leading to a loss of earnings. Therefore, my skin would affect the welfare of the company and so they can reject me on those grounds.

If a business tends to employ people over 6ft 2inches, this is not necessarily heightist. A colossal robust man is probably more likely to dominate an alpha-male environment more successfully than a 5ft 5 weed. He is therefore more likely to close a deal and so his height does affect the profit a company makes.

The Abercrombie shop in London – possibly the most shamelessly vile place on earth – should be able to pick their assistants based on looks, because the type of individuals that enter that hellhole are responsive to pretty people. It therefore affects how much money the company makes.

My point is this: just because the individuals of a company are skewed towards a particular demographic, it does not mean there is necessarily anything suspicious or prejudicial about their selection policy. People seem extremely eager to jump on a bandwagon just to be seen as politically correct, but we need to think about issues before charging headfirst with accusations of “[insert taboo subject here]ism.”

The fact that our country is one of the most accepting nations on earth is something we should genuinely feel truly proud of. But we also have to remain thoughtful and not become mindless sheep. As for Gray and Keys, their comments were sexist because the fact that linesman (er… lineslady) Sian Massey was female did not impact upon doing her job.

I dedicate this post to Kate Walsh, after watching her on The Big Questions this morning. God, she’s annoying. Just like every fucking bitch in the world.

The merging of two brilliant - yet quite distinct - arts

A clear recent trend has been emerging within the last couple of years. The job titles of ‘comedian’, ‘scientist’ and ‘entertainer’ are no longer necessarily distinct from one another, with all three meeting together inside a rather succulent melting pot of shamelessly nerdy satire. Countless comedians and scientists suddenly appear to be best buddies, performing on stage in an ambitious quest to promote their message in very light-hearted, science-based shows. It appears to be a mutualistically rewarding relationship, whilst the astronomical ticket sales illustrate the enormous audience out there for their slightly quacky, dry comedy.

The two leaders of this march are undoubtedly Brian Cox and Robin Ince. Cox – who gained a PhD in particle Physics and now works at CERN – and Ince – a stand-up comedian – have been the brains behind a series of shows, such as Radio 4’s Infinate Monkey Cage (available on iTunes as a free podcast) and the epic eight-night festive show Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People. In the next few months, they are embarking upon an additional run of live shows, called Uncaged Monkeys.

It is evident from their qualifications that we wouldn't naturally group these two people together, yet the popularising of science through humour – and the evolving nature of comedy to become more sophisticated – has led to a significant (p < 0.05) trend where these two great arts are becoming united. (Hopefully you spotted a joke there; don’t worry if not).

Comedians such as Ince, Stewart Lee, Richard Herring, Ricky Gervais, Ben Miller, Dara O’Briain and David Mitchell are jumping on the bandwagon, whilst scientists such as Cox, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Jim al-Khalili and many others are doing so as well. Why is this?

Firstly, I think it has a lot to do with Robin Ince’s creation of Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People. These stage events (which can easily be enjoyed by religious people, by the way) involve several comedians/ scientists performing ten-minute pieces, in a spectacular mass exaltation of science and the universe, at a time of the year when the godless don’t really join in the exaltation of Jesus. Scientists become more light-hearted so as to appeal to a mass audience, whilst comedians tailor their pieces to the ‘science’ end of the spectrum.

The shows are extremely popular, and so they’ll naturally milk it for all it’s worth and maintain a winning formula. But this doesn’t explain why they’re popular, and I think I’ve worked this out.

There are so many people out there who really bloody love science. However, general society doesn’t seem to feel the same way. So there’s a slight incompatibility between these feelings and the desire to live a normal life and not repel potential mating partners. I find this rather frustrating and I’m led to think that this major part of me must be kept under wraps because it is just a bit too nerdy for civil society. It seems like thousands of people also feel this way, and the platform that Ince and co. have provided allows us to satirise this to the maximum. We’re laughing at ourselves in many ways, slightly ashamed that we find Robin Ince’s impressions of Carl Sagan so amusing. The society at large wouldn’t accept such humour and this creates an underground network where people can say, “I HAVE WATCHED THE WHOLE COSMOS SERIES FIVE TIMES. I KNOW MOST PEOPLE FIND THAT SLIGHTLY ODD BUT I LOVE IT.”

Thankfully, there seems to be a major group of people who all feel the same way, and therefore there is a niche for these Celebriscientists to tap into. Furthermore, being a comedian isn’t easy. You have to be intelligent, with a thirst for learning and an eye for irony. They are forced to think about things and so I don’t think it’s a major coincidence that comedians do appreciate science, because I’m convinced that any thinking person inevitably will.

So, considering the audiences of the two fields are probably quite similar, it’s not actually hugely surprising this form of entertainment has emerged. It even appears, dare I say it, rather intelligently designed. 

A shit article

The Daily Mail is, without exception, the worst national British newspaper in print. I know that attacking the company is rather fashionable, and I hate to jump on a bandwagon, but I write this to tell you why it is both inferior and more dangerous than all the other newspapers. I shall do so in a rather droll – yet I feel accurate – analogy.

The Sun and the News of the World are, in my eyes, pieces of shit. Everyone can see they are shit, and they know themselves that they are shit. They look like shit, smell like shit, and whenever you pick them up, you are just holding a pile of shit. However, shit is also quite funny. It appeals to our basic sense of humour, and whenever we can’t be bothered for anything intellectual, looking at shit can be both comical and undemanding. These newspapers make it absolutely clear that nobody should take them seriously, as shown by the bright red panels and decisions to daub Katie Price all over the front page. They are essentially telling everybody, “Don’t take us seriously! We are sloppy shits!”

The Daily Mail, however, is a pile of nutty shit in a cheap suit. The black font and elaborate crest on their logo gives off the illusion of an up-market brand. Unlike The Sun, they don’t suddenly put the odd word in caps-lock LIKE THIS, and it seems that they are able to use correct grammar. Hence our subconscious wants to think that these are informed people writing such articles, and that we can trust the ideas that they churn out. Alas, in these cases we are not looking past its superficially presentable suit, and that the most important issue is actually the pile of revolting smelly shit that sits underneath. 

Their attitude towards science is reprehensible, and usually factually wrong. They publish any nonsense story from either an untrustworthy source or misleading piece of data and blast it across the pages to scare us. The readers then believe this fetid narrative because it is written in a paper that gives off the impression that it knows what it’s talking about. The public learn to mistrust and fear one of the most magnificent, inspired – and let's not forget profitable – establishments on earth, which is, of course, science. They then turn the page to the Horoscopes section, only to be told that they’ll meet someone special because Jupiter is crossing with Pluto.

Their conservativeness is almost satirical. I am neither liberal nor conservative, as I feel every issue requires an objective viewpoint, but if you are a conservative then you should hate this newspaper most of all! They extrapolate the conservative stereotype to a shameless degree, allowing your position to be so easily mocked, which it very often should not. Conservatives frequently have brilliant ideas, but deceptive piles of shit like the Daily Mail tarnish you all with the same brush, which can only be destructive to your position.

Newspapers really do influence people’s opinions, and so the Daily Mail needs to work out what it is. Is it a respectful entity in a Calvin Klein suit, or is it a pile of proud, wet steaming shit that we can all recognise and enjoy? It really does matter, and they have a responsibility to the opinions of millions of voters. Because right now, the Daily Mail is a sweaty turd wrapped in a £10 Primark jacket, with shit quietly oozing through the buttonholes like rancid toothpaste from a decrepit tube. It spews out nonsense similar to The Sun, but merely with correctly constructed sentences and an appealing aura of intellect.

The Daily Mail can be personified by The Apprentice’s very own Stuart Baggs. He did fool us for a bit and, sure, he may still convince some people now. However, Lord Sugar eventually saw past Baggs’ deceptive appearance, felt humiliated at ever being taken in by it, pointed at him and irately exclaimed, “You’re full of shit, basically.”

Let’s all react this way to the Daily Mail.

The Glory of YouTube

My appreciation and understanding of the natural world can be attributed to one thing above all else: YouTube.

This may sound odd for a medium that is used primarily to watch sneezing pandas or X-factor clips, but YouTube is genuinely the most incredible educational tool. Think of virtually anything– from Quantum Theory to DNA splicing – and there will probably be a fascinating short video discussing it. There are videos for all levels of detail and presumed knowledge. There are discussions and debates to learn about related issues. It really never has been so easy to learn about the world we live in. I only did physics up to GCSE, but countless videos explaining the Higgs Boson and String Theory means I feel I’ve got at least a decent grasp on many rather complex issues. I promise you, the more you learn, the more you appreciate this incredible cosmos.

You don’t need to go out your way to find a book, or even be alert enough to bother reading. Just type in a word you think may be interesting and there’s likely to be an American professor explaining the issue to you from the comfort of your bed. That, if you ask me, is truly amazing, and something which the internet doesn’t receive enough credit for.

People think that reading makes you a more intelligent and interesting person. This may well be true. But it’s not reading per se that is significant: it’s the information. You can read crap books forever and still be remarkably stupid. Equally, you could watch fascinating concise clips on YouTube and listen to absorbing Podcast debates and lectures, teaching yourself masses of data whilst kicking back and letting technology do the work. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it should really be encouraged.

Never before have we been able to learn so much in such a languid manner. For inherently lazy yet curious people like me, it really is tremendous.

Ratzinger: Condoms are OK... in certain circumstances

Finally, the Pope is cracking. As has happened so often in the past, the reasonable people of this world are getting through to the Vatican, and Joseph Ratzinger has legitimised condoms in ‘this or that case’. It is yet another instance when I wonder why this wasn’t ‘revealed’ to the Pope earlier. I’ve gathered that he has a hot line to God – if it’s OK now, why wasn’t it OK in the past? Has God changed his mind? Why, today, does the creator of the universe approve of condoms, albeit in certain instances? If we had been told of this loophole earlier it certainly would’ve stopped Ratzinger becoming the immoral laughing stock he is today. And it probably could’ve prevented many torturous deaths of people who are convinced it’s better to get AIDS than the possibility of burning forever in hell.

I know the Vatican strongly advocates celibacy, which is obviously the best way to prevent AIDS. And I know people don’t really think, “AIDS or hell? I’ll choose AIDS,” but for an establishment that ‘accepts’ evolution, they have a lot of learning to do. We are here because of our sex drive: those who want to have sex the most produce more little babies, which will grow up to have the same subconscious urge for sex. Sex-crazed organisms take over the world, and it is not surprising that every species follows this pattern. It is why we are here, and so, Ratzinger, you won’t stop people from having sex.

But this is what people have been saying for decades.

Condoms are the way forward, and there’s very little reasoning you can do to deny that. You’ve now opened the door to common sense. So I’m just waiting for you to cave in, slowly and surely, to the reasoned voices of the world. As has happened so often in the past.

(Full text of the Pope’s comments at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798) 

How Long Before We Kill The Oceans?

On the 23^rd September, the first independent, peer-reviewed paper on the size of the Gulf of Mexico oil leak was published in Science. It concluded that some 4.4 million (± 20%) barrels of oil escaped into the ocean, and that is after taking into account the 804,877 barrels that BP collected at the site. That equates to 127,965 cubic metres of oil that has been pumped straight into the sea.

We’ve all seen the pictures of the poor birds struggling to breathe and flap their wings upon the shore. Now extrapolate that millions of times and try to comprehend the utter destruction we are subjecting the most important ecosystem on earth to. Think of the suffering, but, in a more long-term stance, think of how it will affect population numbers of fish, marine mammals, plankton, algae and all those other vital organisms that never reach the headlines. The release of toxic chemicals such as benzene, napthalene and toluene will cause unimaginable amounts of death and suffering.

This devastation may well, of course, go unreported, because we have a habit of ignoring the way in which we abuse the oceans for all it’s worth. It really does seem that, because the carcasses are well beyond our horizon or beneath the waves, we do not see it as a problem. We have a history of this.

The (primarily Asian) delicacy of shark fin soup – as well as the irrational belief that its meat has healing powers – has led to the plummeting of shark populations worldwide. It is now commonplace to see a 90% decrease in shark numbers since 1970. What happens as a consequence? The sharks’ prey numbers escalate enormously, and in turn their prey collapse. The whole ecosystem is subject to uproar. Those species which do rise in numbers will eventually cave in due to over competition and not enough resources for them. It is thought about 75 million sharks are killed each year, although this number could be vastly larger due to lucrative illegal businesses. To put that into context, the British human population is 61 million; consider killing everybody in Britain, plus many, many million on top of that, each year. It equates to killing the population of Luton (205,000) each day.

Our methods of fishing are abhorrent. We cast kilometre-wide nets – by their thousands – into the ocean, weighted by heavy balls of metal. The nets sweep up everything in their path, regardless of what it is. The carcasses of turtles, sharks, dolphins and undesired fish are thrown over the side as bycatch. Simultaneously, the weights at the bottom of the net scrape along the ocean floor, ripping up whatever happens to be down there.

Remember that these organisms have lived in a delicate balance without us for millions of years. Our arrival, as relentless predators of the guardians of the oceans, will create unrivalled desolation. We are utterly raping the ocean, and I would not be surprised if it were dead within my lifetime. Why do we let it continue? I can think of no other reasoning but because the trail of destruction immediately sinks. It is out of sight, and so apparently, out of mind. Would such actions be tolerated if they were on land?

It is estimated that between 70 and 80% of the atmospheric oxygen comes from marine plants. As we have established, disrupting ocean food webs could cause this number to fall dramatically. Hence therefore, we have a selfish reason to preserve the oceans, as well as a moral one. The statement that we’ll not have any fish to eat in future is one that is almost too blatant to point out. The rises in ocean temperature, acidity and the tremendous pollution we are pouring into it are merely afterthoughts, despite the horrendous potential each has for ruining our seas.

We depend upon the oceans for our lives. I don’t know why people overlook such a major issue. Possibly because data are difficult to obtain for an accurate picture to be formed (as Professor John Shepherd said, "Counting fish is like counting trees, except they are invisible and they keep moving”)? Possibly due to scientific illiteracy, and governments not appreciating how vital a role they play? Possibly due to deluded ideas that the world is for us to harvest (as proclaimed in Genesis)? Possibly because the carnage is out of sight? Possibly because there will always be the demand, and illegal fishing is so easy? I suspect the reality is a combination of each of these poisonous explanations.

Paper cited:

Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Leak, TJ Crone & M Tolstoy.

Published online 23 September 2010; 10.1126/science.1195840

A Short Note About Anti-Blair Protesters

I’m thinking of heading up to London to acquire a signed Tony Blair book on Wednesday. I looked up the details on the internet to learn that, surprise surprise, bloody anti-war protesters are hoping to arrest him.

Well, you inconsiderate louts, I think Tony has got the point. He’s not going to see you and think, “Oh dear, I thought they all wanted us attack Iraq. I totally misunderstood the millions that protested in 2003.” Even if he did, nothing can be changed now, you’re just clogging up the streets, making me angry and delaying the queues. So, shut up and stay at home. This is the most mindless expression of opinion, and I’m getting quite tired of hearing your opinions. Do you reuse your anti-war T shirts and banners every time you and your pals protest? Because your tedious arguments have been recycled over and over again for as long as I remember, whilst your attendance on Wednesday will not change anybody's opinion. Rather like every time the BNP are mentioned, people seem to find it necessary to go mental and shout about how much they hate Tony Blair whenever he’s in public. Fine, we get it. We know what you have to say. Everyone does. But we’ve formed an opinion in our own heads, peacefully and logically, as has Mr Blair. You don’t have to spoil my chance of obtaining a signed book from one of the most influential people of our time.

Alas, you won’t stay at home. Because I know how much you love protests, feeding off the passion of each other in a rather ugly positive feedback loop.

Unbelievable.