What To Say Too

Sometimes it seems the Universe revolves around me. Previous week I blogged about words that get molested into carrying negative connotations and how it annoys me. Unbeknownst to me some other words with the same fate were presented in game format. With new interest new programs come in my line of view and with that a whole catalogue of new irritations. This game was part of a radio panel show. I love the radio show and the game within. The game was; find the connection between a list of given words or persons. One list was as follows: manhole, stewardess, ugly, lazy, stupid. The connection was that for all these words other politically correct words existed. Of course that annoyed the crap out of me.

The word “manhole” has a bit of a sexual sound to it, doesn’t it? It makes me laugh, really. No harm intended, surely. In California they were cautious though. They renamed all their “manholes” to “maintenance holes” out of concern for the equality of both genders. Bollocks. As if a manhole is something everybody wants to have permission to go down in. Not that kind of manhole.

According to wikipedia a “flight attendant” is historically known as “steward/stewardess” or “air hosts/hostesses”. Hahaha, "historically". I fail to see how calling a steward/stewardess is offending. Apparently, they felt their job was more stylish or glamorous than the job title suggests. Wikipedia also tells us the word “flight attendant” (replacer of steward/stewardess, because of its gender neutrality) is now slowly being replaced with the word “cabin crew” because of their role as members of the crew. As if we doubted they were members of the crew. For as far as I know, we passengers still call them stewards/stewardesses.

“Ugly“ and “cosmetically challenged” bear the exact same meaning; displeasing to the senses. Sure you can tell someone he’s “cosmetically challenged”. He will probably figure it out thinking: “Wait a minute, she just called me ugly.” Same thing, isn’t it? How is changing the word going to change the use or the meaning? It means what it means and should in all cases used with care. The only advantage the word “cosmetically challenged” has is that it takes people a little longer to figure out what exactly was said; you might be out of the way by the time they have.

The word “lazy” has loads of synonyms, all sounding as tiresome and negative as “lazy”. The only reason to use another word for the meaning “inactive or sluggish” is to have some variation. I’m not quite sure why this word was included in the game.

“Stupid” equals “unintelligent” and means “lacking in intelligence”. Not a very creative description, but the stupid people have to understand it as well I suppose. I don’t know, but I think it doesn’t really matter if you call someone “stupid” or “unintelligent”, the message is clear and will usually result in a negative response. Why bother using a bit fancier word?

This stupid (or unintelligent) way of dealing with words doesn’t help us nor our language. Like I said before it only results in fancy words we can’t write and almost no-one is sticking to the new rules anyway. Why bother with polluting our language like that? Use of these "politcally correct" words won’t make anyone more important or more right; it will only make our communication less clear. In the end we will all sound like politicians and enrage each other, because we’re assuming everybody is saying something bad about us.

I lost the lust for ranting. Charlie's language column is way more fun than mine: Buzzwords for Blowhards

What To Say

This does belong in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series though this will be a bit of a different entry. Just as much things people say annoy me, also the things people don’t say annoy me. The meaning of the word ‘connotation’ is very important.

The term “cleaning lady”. I don’t know about the countries outside the Netherlands, but inside, at some point we were not allowed anymore to call the “cleaning ladies” “cleaning ladies”; they were now to be called “interior carers”. That makes me laugh, still. My mom was a cleaning lady and was told she was not to be called a “cleaning lady” anymore, but a “interior carer”. In return my mom asked: “Does that mean I get paid more or that I have to do other things?” to which the answer was a sounding ‘No’. And my mom said: “Then call me a cleaning lady”. Gotta love her for that.

The word “nigger” is a special one and shows how wrong things can go for words. Initially it meant “black” as derived from the Latin “niger”. Unfortunately, through the consensus of environment and time, the word collected a negative connotation. These days a lot of people will take offence if you call them a nigger, especially when you’re not “black”. So the word “negro” was adopted, meaning the same and even being derived from the same Latin word “niger”. But this word went the same way as its older brother/sister? These days I’m a little confused of what to call them, but then again, I usually don’t use anyone’s ethnic background to refer to them. Most people have names, you know.

I saw a header in paper requesting the word “allochthonous” become forbidden. The equivalent Dutch word “allochtoon” is a word we use a lot in the Netherlands to refer to people who don’t have the Dutch nationality. It’s an old Greek word meaning “from another country”, which is what these people are. Forbidding usage of this word is ridiculous, because all you’re saying is “this person who is not from this country”. The person can be from a Western country like Germany, England, Italy, Spain or America. The person can also be from an Eastern land like Turkey, Greece, Russia or one of the Asian countries. The reason this person wanted to forbid the use of the word “allochtoon”, because it had a bad connotation for the Moroccan or Turkish people. Bollocks! Sure we can keep to saying “Moroccan” or Turkish, but for a lot of people the bad connotation stays. It’s not about the word, it’s about the people. It’s about how people regard each other and treat each other. If both groups, allochthonous and autochthonous, would learn to tell people apart from groups and judge behaviour per case, a lot of the bad connotations would evaporate. There wouldn’t be a need for a change of usage of words all the time.

I do understand those connotations became more important than the actual meaning of words as stated in dictionaries all over the world, but aren’t we going a bit crazy here? We’ve got plenty negative words to refer to people, objects, events and other things. Why do we have to keep raping words? In the end, if we carry on like this, we will end up with more forbidden words then speech needs and with not understandable positive words. Cocking them up won’t make life sweeter. Can you imagine the amount of beeps on our tv sets if we let this happen? Life is what is, deal with it.

Mob Development

I set myself a bit of a writing challenge. I read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s column and decided to write something based on what they wrote ending up talking about something else entirely. I have no idea how that’s going to pan out.

Charlie wrote about the Ground Zero Mosque wondering what, according to the protesters, would be acceptable. David talked about the school/Uni system and how that is valuable for life experiences. I agree on what Charlie said, I have trouble with David’s column, though I can’t really put a finger to what I have a problem with.

How scary can mobs be? I’m seriously freaked out by a lot of them. Brainless violent protesters throwing around irony in their actions and accusations. Who are these people and where did they come from? Where and why did they pick up such contradicting ideas and opinions? Where does it stem from?

I remember in school, everybody was trying to fit in, except for me. It naturally resulted in me being an outsider and sitting alone during the breaks with the backs of others as my view. It gave me the opportunity once more to observe. I just don’t understand. I learnt to think for myself resulting in turning my back on certain ideas and finding new ones and the contacts according. It took me high school and college to get where I am now; still reasonably alone, but with more inspiring people than ever before.

I forgot a lot about my teenage years. I only remember them being uncomfortable. I feel like, when looking back, I could have missed classes more than I have. I do know I couldn’t talk nor write English properly at the time. Or so I thought. I graduated on my good grades for English; without I would have lost another year in high school. As if it mattered, there was not that much substance to pick up. Now I am wondering what would have happened had I left for a year to travel the world. I would probably have myself killed. I’m not a survivor; I’m a twat. I know I wouldn’t have it in my heart to join a radical group, but in the year loose, I might have changed so much, anything could have happened, that made me think foreigners are weird, dangerous and most of all, wrong about their convictions and therefore should die.

To me it seems, youngsters living in some sort of community have the bigger chance to end up in a radical group. Their minds are constantly fed with the foul information, especially outside school. If there’s anything or anyone who could steer them back to a more respectable and less violent life, it would be school and its teachers.

Allowing some A-list kid to go travel with her A-list famous movie star mom might seem innocent, but don’t you think it may wreck the world from its current axes and swirl into another path of destruction? It sure didn’t do Paris Hilton much good. What you have then is another brainless idiot contaminating society with its out of control life and views trying to convince the people that is what life is and their behaviour is the model to live by. That scares me to no end.

I’m sure Emma Thompson, the A-list movie star mom, has sense and will teach her daughter the goods of life in all its diversities outside of school. I just hope to god the young kid won’t meet the angry mob trying to kill everything with a darker tone of skin than theirs. She might see something in it. She might also understand how dangerous that is, but do children of 10 really? Have they lived long enough to make certain sensible choices, or should they rather go through their puberty first and get a bit more acquainted with how life also can be in a more controlled and graduate pace? All I know is, most of those kids are still so impressionable, it’s dangerous to force certain life lessons onto them already. You never know which way they will turn.

I know there will at a certain time in future again be another mob threatening society. I’d just rather not feed them with my offspring. I’ll probably keep my kids in school till they’re 18 and can consciously make their own mistakes.

Sources:
David Mitchell's "It's the only way to train for life"
Charlie Brooker's "The reality is less provocative"
I don't mean to abuse their titles, but they tend to be too long.

An Apology Of Sorts

A new source of things sent me into a paradox once again. This morning I was thinking, how weird it may be, Charlie Brooker inspired me to write. This morning, in an empty attempt to write something professional and therefore not interesting and certainly not funny, I decided to check out whatever else constructed and ordered words have left Mr. Brooker’s typing fingers. There was one article about writing. Ironically Mr. Brooker sometimes has problems coming up with the order of words to make up an article and he told us how useless he is in giving advice about writing. Yet he did give an advice in the article. I understood and recognized the problem of fleeting inspiration and effects and consequences it forced.

I was looking for inspiration so a minute or more I would be feeling the racing touch of my fingers on my keyboard pounding out sentences and the pride of thoughts on paper. Instead I felt incredibly drained and never before so uninspired, it made me want to kick myself in the knees, as suggested only in a different variation. My brain transported into the other wise suggested, but yet not recommended state of nowhere and look there, two paragraphs. Admitted, the conversation evolving in between had me staring with glazed-over eyes while my brain went into overdrive to make sense of the words aimed at me. I tried to explain my unresponsive behaviour, but I couldn’t. I was sure I just lost it.

The irony keeps striking, because the two paragraphs was all that was there. Rereading it I felt satisfied, just not yet enough to call it okay to turn into a blog. Problem is, I’m stuck now. There’s not much more I can think of to write, except for the irony dangling in my face as I think of the two unfinished articles I have in my can waiting to receive an end and the send off to blogger. One belongs in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series and one inspired, or would be inspired, on something else Mr. Brooker has released not too long ago. I don’t know how to proceed with either one of the pieces of text so instead I’ll blog this dribble.

In the meantime I’ll try writing my business documents and finishing my last set challenges and raising my plastic cup to Mr. Brooker’s inspiration. See you next Monday, Mr. Brooker. Or maybe tonight on YouTube.
Source: If you want to write, get threatened

The New Cycle

Like it always does, it goes around in circles. This phenomenon came to my conscience when I was somewhere in my teens. I realized I arrived in a very important stage of my life. I was supposed to make life depended choices and act accordingly; pick an education and start living like your whole life depends on it. In this age there’s nothing more a lie than that.

My first choice was a very old one on my side. I always thought I wanted to be a nurse, I let that one go, but my mind was still in the social sector of business. It was a trick set by all the grown ups. They ask you at very young age what you want to become and frankly, you don’t know. You think you do, but you don’t. Since you know you do, you model your choices to what you think will lead you to your mistaken idea of what you want. My first post-high school attempt was at the Social Pedagogic Service. I flunked the first year gloriously.

After that I was quite lost and did an interest and skills test which resulted in an advice to try Information Management and Services. Even though the study was interesting and laid a broad basis for my further life, I sometimes wonder how I ended up in ICT.

I can do the job, the area I’ve been roaming around in for the last four years. I worked as a developer and grew on to being a functional designer and maintainer to a project coordinator. Most of it quite fun, apart from the developer role. Thing is, you hardly get to see anything of the end users. It almost feels like you’re only doing it for some outside blob, unseen and unheard of. That is not how it should be, but yet is the way it often is.

Working in office bears the danger of collecting dust in your lap and a fog before your eyes. It also resets your idea of what is fashionable and sexy. No wonder the IT-crowd got its own tv show. I’m just not one of them and yet I sit with them and understand the gibberish they’re talking day in day out. I feel like the dust found its way to my brain and my perception ability. What I do has almost nothing to do with living, not even with surviving. It’s life inside a cave only now we’re drawing 0’s and 1’s.

Just like anyone I need some fresh air from time to time and the feel of a sunray on my face. Rain will do too. Just the feeling I’m alive, that the world around me is alive. That there are still colours, many I may never have seen, instead of all the tones of black and grey and white to yellow.

I am back where I started. I am looking beyond what is inside the known circle. I want to try new circles. There’s so much to choose from. I might still be young, but it does feel like I don’t have as much time anymore as I used to. There’s more on the line; my surviving depends on it. I can choose safe and be sure to earn a decent living and go mad slowly, or I opt out to go chase my dreams and starve to death. Neither one is as appealing as it used to be. Just like so many, I reset my mode from ‘Living’ to ‘Surviving’. Surviving on my own without a safety net is a bit too exciting to my liking, though I’m not quite ready to bring forth the geraniums.

To Be Continued...

More "Old Holmes" Musings

Here are some more musings about that last sketch:

It felt misplaced. While Blackadder was a great situational comedy show that built up to the ending so that it felt appropriate. There was the one sketch in one episode prior to the last one with them talking about the meaning of that last scene of Blackadder. There was no proper built up for that sketch, it stood apart from the other sketches in that episode. It came unexpectedly.

It also seems to suggest it’s an end to the series, like the Blackadder scene. Another sketch in that same last episode had them talking about “branching out”? and moving on, because Peepshow was not going to be forever either. It sounded like they were slowly drifting apart to do things on their own.

It seems a quite logical choice. They’ve been working together for a very long time and they always made it quite clear the comedy part, the job part was the main reason to not blow it apart. Now they’re established, they finally can go their own way. I’m just guessing here.

So that Old Holmes sketch had a bit of a build up. The one sketch in ep 5 or 4, and that one sketch in ep 6. When Holmes was talking to Watson about “...not being able to clear the fog...” was he, David, talking about not being able to work together anymore?

TM&WL - Sherlock Holmes sketch

I feel compelled to say something about TM&WL’s last sketch aired yesterday. It was about an aging Holmes suffering from dementia. Watson was visiting him and a string of things happened as they do when you’re visiting someone with dementia. Watch here:


The reason I’m blogging about this is, because I feel the people who feel offended and the people who are not sure what M&W were trying to do don’t quite understand what happened or what M&W’s intentions were. Obviously, I too can only guess, but my take on their reality makes me see the good in that sketch.

First of all, that sketch wasn’t only designed to make people laugh, or as some offended said ‘...to ridicule dementia...’ Especially the ending was merely designed to make people think, or to at least leave an impression. They sure succeeded in the latter. Comedy is not only to laugh. Comedy is also there to provoke to think about things.

Secondly, like some other people said, they were rather ridiculing themselves, like so many times before. I have to rewatch to say something sensible about that though.

Thirdly, it seemed to be designed to end up in the last episode of this series and with some intent. I’m not quite sure what they intended to do, but if I grab back to a sketch in the penultimate episode of this series, their intent seemed to aim at a poignant ending á la Blackadder, last episode of the last season, season 4. This is the only point where I disagree. The ending of Blackadder was this poignant, because not only the viewer understood there was something big and inevitable going on, it was also a very definite goodbye to characters we learned to love over the course of 4 seasons. Oh, wait, I think I’m getting to the root of the Holmes sketch. Now I need to rethink.

Fourthly? When I play back the sketch as it’s cemented in my memory, I only saw a conversation and reaction in such way conversations tend to go with people suffering from dementia. It is funny sometimes. Painful, but still funny. I remember laughing at my grandma because she did or said something weird. What was I suppose to do, cry? Sure I’ll cry, just not the whole day through. I need to get through life just as much, so let me laugh from time to time. The best we can do anyway is our best.

Fifth: That, in my opinion, wasn’t crass, offensive nor tasteless. It was what it was. It was how life can be. Holmes was not ridiculed, he was pitied. No-one came in pulling his pants over his head, nor did Watson try to make a fool of him; he was cared for.

That’s why I refuse to be offended and choose to be very grateful. It might have been an eye opener to some people. It might have been a reminder to others, including me. That sketch teaches us to deal with life as it comes. I’d say kudos to Mitchell & Webb for that one.

Dangerous choice though.

Peepshow

I thought it was only fair to update the latest in my quest that is checking out what and who Mitchell & Webb are.

Yesterday was themed 'Peepshow'. It started with me concluding that I was Jez @ Mark's work. That's Freaking depressing thought. I might have tweeted that, but I'm not sure. Memories of yesterday are a little hazy.

In the evening I had to decide what to do; 1) Turn on telly to conclude nothing interesting was on or 2) Turn on PC (yes, PC not Mac) and watch Peepshow since that's the only thing I haven't seen all episodes of. I finished watching the first season a few weeks ago and wasn't thinking anything of it. Must be said, I watched it drunk. I knew I ventured somewhat into the second season so I picked one episode I was sure I hadn't seen yet and watched from there on.

Low 'n behold, I was laughing my ass off at some point and started to develop a weird kind of liking for both Mark & Jez.

So my advice: If you tried to watch Peepshow, but didn't like it; Try Again. Make sure you have a steady and sensible head on. The show is actually quite funny and Mark & Jez are endearing in their own weird ways.

So now I'm a Peepshow convertee. I think I tweeted that today, I'm not sure though. Today is even hazier than yesterday.

My first M&W related blog

Interviewers, what to do with them?

Aren’t they listening? Are their brains turned off? Some people don’t get subtle reactions. Why do these people have to be interviewers?

Why does he keep asking questions he already got an answer to?


One thing can be said, she keeps making the same mistake; she’s consistent.

Comedians, what to do with them?

On a lighter note...

There are a few of them I love, because it’s mandatory: the Pythons, everybody who appeared in Blackadder, a bit (more) of Fry & Laurie (they should be regarded as part of the Blackadder family and as a separate unit).

Then there are the others.

Comedians I indulge: Jimmy Carr and Charlie Brooker. They’re annoying in their own special ways. Jimmy Carr’s face just seemed to be glued to my screen and Charlie Brooker is ridiculously outspoken. What’s not to like....?

Comedians I like as a person: Dara Ó Briain, Rob Brydon, Clive Anderson, Sandy Toksvig, Reginald D. Hunter. They can be funny, but more often I only think of them as nice people, though I suppose I find Reginald D. Hunter more (deadpan) funny than a nice person....Robert Webb.

I warmed up to: Lee Mack. He's, to my irritation, actually quite funny.

I feel for: Alan Davies. I want him as my puppy dog so I can hug him when he’s puppy dog eyeing me and punish him when he’s ripping apart a paper or chewing off ears from unfortunate tramp dolls.

Last, but far from the least, I utterly love and am devoted to David Mitchell. Anything you want, dear. Well, not really anything, but y’know...

My Flat (Less Eloquent Version from a Fan)

This made me ache:
“As my mum excitedly said to me: "You'll be like a normal person!"
David Mitchell Observer Column

It reminded me of my mum saying to me: “Why aren’t you normal!?!?”

She didn’t mean to make it sound so harsh, she was merely wondering why I couldn’t fit in, be like other people. I just don’t, because I’m not ‘other people’; I’m me. Honestly, if I had any choice in that, I would be more like anyone else, because being me even puzzles me. I don’t want to be ungrateful, and I’m not. I only wished my head and heart weren’t filled with so many paradoxes.

I’m afraid of ‘being normal’, because I’m not sure what that is. To me it is a very personal idea of what anyone thinks something is or should be. Everybody has his own ideas, so I don’t think telling me to be normal is justified.

I love that column, because it is like my mum/me relationship. She keeps telling me to clean the kitchen and paint the balcony door. In my opinion the kitchen is clean enough and the colour of my balcony door doesn’t really bother me. I don’t even notice the walls or windows in my house anymore. Just like David, as can be read in his column, I don’t really care much for repairing, replacing, repainting and redecorating. It’s the kind of fuzz I’m not willing to go through if I don’t really need to. Even changing a light bulb is not something I’m likely to do. My bedroom is dark and so is the toilet. I’m not bothered.

So, to my mortgage advisor; “Yes, I did think about what I want in my new house. I want a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom (maybe toilet apart), some storage place, a bedroom and maybe one extra room. That’ll be less than what I have now, but frankly, I’m only using my kitchen, bathroom and dark bedroom and toilet...and some storage room.”

And to mum, I’ll try to make things right when I have to anyway, but that’ll be it for the coming years. Stop whining about the colours and my unmade bed; you know I’m not going to change it.

So, David, you’re not alone at all. It took me my own house and a year to find out that I actually couldn’t be bothered what my house looked like or how messy it was. It’s home to me, and that is what counts.

P.S.: I don’t even use my wardrobe anymore; I hang everything on my bedroom door or on chairs.

Freedom of Speech (Things You Shouldn’t Say)

Yesterday I started a bit of series about 'Things You Shouldn't Say'. I'm not sure if after this blog I'm done (don't think so), but this certainly qualifies as an entry to this series.

~Part 2~

It gets more sensitive when the content of our speech reaches over boundaries like in subjects about religion, traditions, and countries; in short all subjects with a subject in humanity. We almost all agree, in the West, that freedom of speech is very valuable and should be maintained. We also agree you shouldn’t offend people. It automatically raises the question ‘What is off boundaries?’ Can we really just say anything we think? Cause if we do, we’re bound to offend people. And does the location, where you say certain things, count? Should we allow a foreign preacher saying things to his flock in our country? Is that off boundaries? Maybe we should not mingle? Or should we, because this is our country, not his, though it is his flock? What about the position a speaker is in? Should we limit what public figures say and does that mean the man on the street can get away with more?

Take for example the Dutch Wilders who plans to go to New York to speech against the build of a Muslim meeting/prayer(?) place on Ground Zero. Should that build be stopped? Maybe it’s good integration and it will bring the Muslims and Americans together? Who’s to say? Certainly not Wilders? Dutch cases might be his concern, if any, not American cases. Yet he uses the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument to justify his support in New York dismissing possible danger he causes for the Dutch people, because now a lot of Americans and Muslims think that is how the Dutch people think about the Muslim society. He also dismisses the emotions of the Muslims who do want to integrate, but also like to be able to do their things in New York, and the possibilities the build can create. Casually, because he hides behind the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument.

Yesterday I watched pieces of a British discussion program. They discussed if Jimmy Carr, a British comedian, went too far with a joke about military men who lost limbs and possibly would form a strong Paralympics team. Did he go too far or were people over-sensitive? Dissecting what he said it doesn’t seem that offensive. Those military men are strong, trained individuals and expecting them to excel in their sports if they make the Paralympics team is a compliment. Or isn’t it? The fact is, people were offended, but more people didn’t seem to be that offended. Did he cross the boundary? So how much ‘Freedom of Speech’ is Jimmy Carr allowed?

Those two are public figures, the former in politics and the latter in the entertainment. The man on the street has his opinions as well. Those opinions often translate into public opinions, whether it’s justified or not. In New York there’s obviously a group of Americans who are against the Muslim build on Ground Zero. I know of groups of people who hate an entire ethnicity and use their ‘Freedom of Speech’ to air their opinions. We can’t accept just anything from then, can we?

So what does ‘Freedom of Speech’ really mean? What Shouldn’t We Say? Can we draw a line? Can we brush aside a minority of people who are offended and let the general public have their laugh?

To Mitchell - Things You Shouldn't Say

The first thing you shouldn’t say is the title of this very blog. The problem I have with that phrase is that I seem to think I can say what anyone else should or shouldn’t say. Still, there are things that irk me. It’s not even the potentially offensive stuff or swear words. It’s things that seem blatantly wrong to me or presumptuous or based on people’s own opinions.

To give a simple example: “It’s not funny”.

You shouldn’t say that, because what you find not funny someone else might find funny. When you state ‘it’s not funny’ you imply someone has a wrong sense of humour. You can’t have a wrong sense of humour; you might have an offensive sense of humour (if that even exists), but it can’t be faulted, because what is funny is not defined. There’s a good reason for that: ‘Everybody is different and therefore might think of different things as funny’. This is once again partially aimed at David Mitchell, because he said something about a sense of humour that made me think ‘You Shouldn’t Say That’. Of course I forgot what. I don’t seem to be able to remember anything he or Robert Webb said. They really are going to hate me.

It just annoys me that opinions are passed on as facts and people get judged based on those opinions.

I’ll try to come up with a better list; my brains are like a sieve right now; it holds nothing.

ETA: Of course he tweets this one day before I burst:

To Mitchell&Webb - Commercial Thing

This keeps coming up and it annoys me enough to finally put my two cents in (I’d like them back afterwards, btw).

I do agree it was not betrayal or selling out. I even thought those Mac commercials were quite charming and sometimes I even cracked a smile. But M&W (that is Mitchell & Webb) defend it by making assumptions on why people were against it concluding it was not because they thought it was “betrayal” and/or “selling out”, but because of some other reason I conveniently forgot. Maybe I should shut my mouth about it, because I would be the third party pointing and making assumptions and that’s exactly what I’m aiming not to do. Beside that, I really did forget what they (M&W) thought it really was; something about a baby killing machine (edit to wink: ;-), I did get what you were saying M&W).

Here’s my view on the subject. I don’t find celebs very cool for putting their faces on a product. By doing that you pretty much say: “Buy this, because I support it.” It takes your innocence off of the business side of things. It does indeed say you’re going for the big money. Sure, almost no one would decline it, would they? It’s just not charming.

That was hardly a good defence or attack or whatever it even was anyway. It’s just that it’s something I wouldn’t do as quickly and I’m not very likely to approve of such choices. I don’t wear logo’s. I refuse to do advertising for anyone. I only advertise myself and I don’t understand the concept of money enough to say I’d go for the big money.

I suppose we prefer our favourite artists to be clean and innocent. It has something to do with the soft side of art being it is all on principle and not for the money. It’s something we believe is having heart for something doesn’t go along with money making. It’s something like going for the money makes you less believable about your art. It’s like your heart is not really in it, and that we don’t appreciate. Art is about emotions, money is not.

I had to get this off my chest. The things said on both sides seemed wrong to me and especially to M&W I wanted to explain where they went wrong....twice.

They’re going to hate me.

In the Office

Why do those artists keep making these condescending and annoying assumptions in public about what they think an office job is? Even though I agree with them an office is not the most inspiring environment, it still can be quite exhilarating. There’s a lot to be done in an office; exciting things like projects, building and creating things, making things better, things that have actual substantial, more than art often has.

I remember Jason making such a remark about how lucky he felt he wasn’t stuck in an office. Maybe good for him, but there are people who are really happy in an office. He can’t say anything like that, because he doesn’t really know how it is to work in an office. I think lots of people working in an office have way more to be proud of than he has.

I was watching Stephen Fry, no I was watching QI with Stephen Fry hosting. He said something to the effect that working in an office is not inspiring. Admitted, the buildings are usually grey and boring. It’s not the buildings matter, it’s the people inside them. And excel is actually a very interesting piece of software to burry yourself in for a day. I mean, call me boring, but when I’m bored at work and I want to do something fun, I’m very likely to start making some excel tool thing with all kind of fun functionalities. Excel is not just typing in numbers and maybe put some things together. Excel is logic thinking, it’s creating and making things easier to enter and do with what you need it doing. It's brain training in the truest sense.

Then again, I am aware of the fact that when you work in an office and especially in IT your idea of what is sexy and good looking does change a little. I must admit I get quite excited at a working excel with smart functions in it. Just don’t go saying my career can never be exciting. Yes, my heart is with art, but when I’m in a project trying to make things work, or creating and building things, that can be thoroughly satisfying.

Let’s Call it Religion and Start a War

Like always I’m reacting on reactions. The reaction I’m reacting on is a comment made on a column in the Guardian by David Mitchell. I promise, for today that will be the only mention of DM. I want to share a few thoughts about our beliefs on our environmental habitat.

Some of the commentators made good points. I especially like this one:
“You say to me "prove it!"
Is my answer of "you prove otherwise!" sufficient?”

Let’s put a few facts together (in no particular order):
- The earth exists for a very long time (how long is beside the point);
- The earth has seen many life forms blossoming and going extinct already due to bad surviving techniques or environmental issues;
- We, the human beings, been on this planet for a relatively short time;
- People tend to break things, but so does Mother Nature (think volcanoes, earth quakes, a bit too strong breeze);
- The earth is in constant movement pulling things apart, putting things together and breaking it again to sprout something else;
- The earth is very powerful;
- We people think we’re very powerful, but are we really?

Now our beliefs:
- We think we’re God. Admit it, you know you do;
- We’re wrecking the earth, but do we really?;
- The end is near. We always believe that; we just set another date if it didn’t happen.

Now I’m going to ask you a few questions:
- How powerful do you think we are to be able to create new stuff, repair and save or for that matter break down, wreck and kill? Of course compared to how powerful you think Mother Nature is to do all above mentioned. (Don’t forget about the volcanoes, earth quakes, etc.)
- What makes you say what you believe is true?
- Couldn’t it be possible the other one is true?

See how vague this is? I agree with the whole theory that this is a scientific astrology idea of what is and what’s not. Some say it is us who are the main offender. Other say we’re not able to match Mother Nature or the Universe or which other creation or event causes the climate to change. To me it’s all beliefs; the word of one man against that of another man. It’s like a religion; we’re having ideas and act accordingly. Believe and fight. And like in religion, we’re all only just a little bit right. The question is; "Now What?"

Thus far, I didn’t take a stand in my blog. I have in real life and I’ll tell you my believes:
I believe all the above mentioned with on top:
- People tend to break things, but so does Mother Nature;
- Whatever is happening to earth is only for a little bit in our control; we’re only a cog in the wheel;
- It’ll take its time (it always has. Think evolution);
- And yet we seem to be running out of time, and go back to the second point;
- Since I believe we’re a cog in the wheel, I also believe that we should play our parts and pay respect where it is due. This means repairing the damage we made and trying not to wreck too much. Though living doesn’t really come without wrecking, hence the repairing. In more handy recommendations: Try to recycle as much as possible. Don’t overuse anything really, only take what you need. Though the repairing thing is really hard.

I also like a lot of Jason Mraz’s ideas about how to do it like the local shopping. Unfortunately, like always, our own cultural existence stands a lot of these low key solutions in the way. And beside that, trying to care really isn’t that fun, because it would mean we have to return to our uncomfortable lives.

Life really is hard and living creatures really are scared, hungry and miserable. Human beings just happen to be the best at making themselves comfortable.

Source: DM Guardian column

Don’t Insult My Canned Laughter

Today has a feeling of dread and the promise there are no laughs left, because we covered it all. Or maybe it’s me, as often is the case I think. Yet, the real truth hearted laughs seem to have dried as well. The complaint of someone saying sketch shows and sitcoms are out of fashion and not funny at all anymore is still echoing in my head. The idea of in the future there are no laughs to be had is frightening. Surely it can’t be true that life has gotten so sour that a sense of humour and a well aimed joke at our suffering can’t provoke at least a smile. Yet, this seems to be the case. I can’t say I find any sitcom or sketch show worth watching. I’m not watching anymore; not that. I am watching panel shows, because these do make me laugh now and then. Though lately, I’ve been disappointed a lot. After every show having missed the feeling of an uncontrollable laugh makes me feel sad, tired and afraid of what is to come.

I’ve been checking out Mitchell & Webb, which you could guess. I can’t say I’m a fan, because I’m obviously not. I don’t recall laughing out loud, because I think I haven’t. I’ve tried liking and getting into Peepshow, but I got bored and gave up. I’m now also giving up on their sketch show. I think I’ll stick to panel shows, even though I only watch QI, because it really is quite interesting. I watch WILTY because I laughed two weeks ago. But I don’t like the feeling of disappointment I had after last Friday’s episode. The main thing I remember about watching that was that I was eating pizza. That’s not a good thing. Also waiting for David Mitchell to go into a rant is getting old. I’m not particularly fond of one-trick-ponies. But if he does go into one, I at least have a laugh. Then there is the feeling with WILTY (which stands for Would I Lie To You, btw) that it somehow resembles Big Brother. I’m not sure I want to know some of those personal anecdotes, not even for the sake of keeping the show funny and afloat. I really don’t feel the need to know the smallest tidbits of DM’s and Lee Mack’s life. Yet replacing them seems like suicide for the show. Or maybe fresh blood could make it fun again? I’m not sure.

I’m increasingly getting tired to see the same people over and over again. Almost every single one of them does his or her trick on every given channel available. How much of the same can we take? Like I said before, I tend to get bored with one-trick-ponies.
I find myself more amused and delighted by the comments from choice internet surfers on articles, reviews and video’s on online papers and youtube. Yes, you come across the dumbest and rudest people there too, but the choice is at least various and not all people commenting are idiots. Their views tend to be even more refreshing and thought provoking than that of the comedian. It’s an observation that worries me a little. What if the best comedians are sitting at home behind their computer or television shaking their heads? It arises the prospect of having to get out of the house again, after all these years. Maybe the fresh air will help us getting some new ideas and we can do it again.

I do believe comedy will always be there in some sketch form or sitcom form. It being there doesn’t mean it’s funny and nice to watch. Not anything human beings ever made up has gone completely extinct, there’s always someone still practising the old craft. It just doesn’t feel new anymore. It doesn’t excite me that much anymore. I care less and less with every minute. I hate caring less with every minute. But the canned laughter are testimony to what’s happening right now. It’s hard to ignore that, especially when you’re really in it for the laughs. I don’t want to write about this, because I want to reserve the hope for more fun. I want to be sure I will laugh in the future. I want to be sure there are still ways of escaping every day drama that is life. I’m not God though. I can’t snap my fingers and have sketch shows and sitcoms exciting and funny again, like it used to be.

This is not even half empty glass, this is a glass from which we’re draining the last bits till there are only drops left for the people who are truthfully passionate about it and don’t get bored so quickly. I know I’m not drinking from that glass anymore; I’m only staring at it hoping someone will refill it for me. It seems I’m going to have to go up to the bar myself and in that case I will try a new drink.