Question Time!
I'm one of those who's pretty much late to everything, expecially tv shows, so it was on Tuesday that I watched last Thursday's Question Time (hopefully I'll get round to watching last night's later on today).
Now, I fell out of the habit of watching it every Thursday evening (or Saturday morning when the sound jack on my laptop broke) mostly because I realised I was turning into the political equivalent of a 'New Scientist' reader - I thought watching itmade me politically astute when really, all I was getting from it was a much less annoying version of 'What Not To Wear'. Then I realised that as I no longer read the newspapers for the same reason, I had to get my politics from somewhere and as none of my fellow student agitators listen to you if you say you 'got it from a blog'/Have I Got News For You, I ought to give it another go. And it's not so offensive if you just go with it, I suppose, though it's a rare thing for anyone to come out looking good after it.
Anyway, last weeks didn't strike me as particularly interesting in the sense that it was pretty much standard. The politicians behaved as if they had no manners (and wouldn't all be hanging out at a local once the cameras stopped filming) and talked over each other a lot* which was very annoying as you couldn't hear whatever it was they felt was so important to say.
This doesn't mean the topics weren't interesting. It was good to hear each side call each other to task about the change in housing benefit (I didn't know Labour were planning to change the system as well if they'd won the election) aside from when they got a little too dramatic. It was also good to hear Boris being critisised for his choice of language ('social-ethnic cleansing' indeed. As if Londinium's internal borders haven't been drawn ever more sharply since the days of Mayor 'Slimeball' Ken. Just ask anyone who lives in Brixton or Clapham) which should happen more often these days. I am so tired of hearing these extreme analogies being made, expecially when one knows they're being used just to get attention (Look, if it's really that bad, just say it in plain English and we'll get it. There's no need to get offensive about it).
It was also quite fun hearing Scharma do his thing (I still prefer Starkey, if only for the faux-rage. It's a beautiful thing) though I never seemed to understand a word Hugh was saying he rambled so.
The thing that got me and my housemate - of which there will no doubt be many tales - cross was a very incidental and probably quite trivial remark. A question had arisen about the justification of torture, following a related speech of the head of MI6. Hugh Hendry, in his weirdly audacious defense of torture, happened to opine that terrorists - specifically suicide bombers - were cowards which led Scharma to respond that clearly, Mr. Hendry had an interesting definition of cowardice because it seemed pretty obvious that such people were not cowards, evil though they were (and I agree. I often find it strange how people will refer to those misguided who do things that if done for a nobler cause, would be considered brave, as cowards. Just don't call them brave if it hurts so much. Otherwise it seems like a case of the Lady doth protest too much, you know?).
Then up leapt Chris Bryant, shadow something or other, to reprimand the learned Scharma that one shouldn't use words like evil 'because they [might] make people believe there actually is some sort of satan out there.'
Now, firstly I have to say, are we not a privileged electorate to have such a thoughtful shadow something or other who is so afraid that we, in our terribly vulnerable and gullible state might actually believe something said by someone on a tv panel that he would risk openly lecturing a man so learned of history? Tres gallant! Why, before I had no belief whatsoever in supernatural entities of any kind, but when a professor of history (HISTORY!) described wrong (sorry!) non-good (sorry!) non-beneficial-in-a-strictly-utilitarian-sense doers as evil, why I suddenly felt the urge to dowse myself in holy water, sacrifice a quorn burger to The Dagda for protection against evil and buy as many ankhs as I could find.
Honestly.
When I say that people were fed up with Labour for treating them like they were idiots, most of mt friends who are also on the Left-ish (with myself, I mean) never seem to know what I'm talking about. I suspect more than a few MPs suffer from the same problem.
Those of us who do believe 'in some sort of satan' probably do so without any input from Simon Scharma of all people and the oh so much appreciated display of concern is probably a little too late. As for the rest of us... You don't have to believe in God or Satan to think something or someone's evil, you eejit**. All you need is a basic grasp of metaphysics and some sort of moral ratings system and it's fine. Nothing to worry about.
As it is, Mr Bryant is now the first polician to make it on our list of 'Idiot Features' (ZOMG! Congrats!). It may well become our new weekly tradition.
~
*This happens a lot on 'The Review Show' too, which is even more aggravating. What's the point of being a pretentious twit if no one can hear a word you're saying because some other pretentious twit is showing off the fact they too got a GCSE equivalent in English Lit?
I bet it was only an 'A' too. Lol.
**And he is an eejit. Quite early in the show, he turned out to be one of those who likes to use inflammatory analogies for matters that though controversial, are not worthy of them. I really don't get it. Do these guys just dig comparing their rivals to mass murderers/rapists/cannibals? Is it all a Parliamentary in-joke we plebs could never hope to understand? Do they find it arousing? Are they a load of verbally inclined masochists***? I just don't get it.
***That's a bit rubbish, actually. I will try to come up with something better.
Now, I fell out of the habit of watching it every Thursday evening (or Saturday morning when the sound jack on my laptop broke) mostly because I realised I was turning into the political equivalent of a 'New Scientist' reader - I thought watching itmade me politically astute when really, all I was getting from it was a much less annoying version of 'What Not To Wear'. Then I realised that as I no longer read the newspapers for the same reason, I had to get my politics from somewhere and as none of my fellow student agitators listen to you if you say you 'got it from a blog'/Have I Got News For You, I ought to give it another go. And it's not so offensive if you just go with it, I suppose, though it's a rare thing for anyone to come out looking good after it.
Anyway, last weeks didn't strike me as particularly interesting in the sense that it was pretty much standard. The politicians behaved as if they had no manners (and wouldn't all be hanging out at a local once the cameras stopped filming) and talked over each other a lot* which was very annoying as you couldn't hear whatever it was they felt was so important to say.
This doesn't mean the topics weren't interesting. It was good to hear each side call each other to task about the change in housing benefit (I didn't know Labour were planning to change the system as well if they'd won the election) aside from when they got a little too dramatic. It was also good to hear Boris being critisised for his choice of language ('social-ethnic cleansing' indeed. As if Londinium's internal borders haven't been drawn ever more sharply since the days of Mayor 'Slimeball' Ken. Just ask anyone who lives in Brixton or Clapham) which should happen more often these days. I am so tired of hearing these extreme analogies being made, expecially when one knows they're being used just to get attention (Look, if it's really that bad, just say it in plain English and we'll get it. There's no need to get offensive about it).
It was also quite fun hearing Scharma do his thing (I still prefer Starkey, if only for the faux-rage. It's a beautiful thing) though I never seemed to understand a word Hugh was saying he rambled so.
The thing that got me and my housemate - of which there will no doubt be many tales - cross was a very incidental and probably quite trivial remark. A question had arisen about the justification of torture, following a related speech of the head of MI6. Hugh Hendry, in his weirdly audacious defense of torture, happened to opine that terrorists - specifically suicide bombers - were cowards which led Scharma to respond that clearly, Mr. Hendry had an interesting definition of cowardice because it seemed pretty obvious that such people were not cowards, evil though they were (and I agree. I often find it strange how people will refer to those misguided who do things that if done for a nobler cause, would be considered brave, as cowards. Just don't call them brave if it hurts so much. Otherwise it seems like a case of the Lady doth protest too much, you know?).
Then up leapt Chris Bryant, shadow something or other, to reprimand the learned Scharma that one shouldn't use words like evil 'because they [might] make people believe there actually is some sort of satan out there.'
Now, firstly I have to say, are we not a privileged electorate to have such a thoughtful shadow something or other who is so afraid that we, in our terribly vulnerable and gullible state might actually believe something said by someone on a tv panel that he would risk openly lecturing a man so learned of history? Tres gallant! Why, before I had no belief whatsoever in supernatural entities of any kind, but when a professor of history (HISTORY!) described wrong (sorry!) non-good (sorry!) non-beneficial-in-a-strictly-utilitarian-sense doers as evil, why I suddenly felt the urge to dowse myself in holy water, sacrifice a quorn burger to The Dagda for protection against evil and buy as many ankhs as I could find.
Honestly.
When I say that people were fed up with Labour for treating them like they were idiots, most of mt friends who are also on the Left-ish (with myself, I mean) never seem to know what I'm talking about. I suspect more than a few MPs suffer from the same problem.
Those of us who do believe 'in some sort of satan' probably do so without any input from Simon Scharma of all people and the oh so much appreciated display of concern is probably a little too late. As for the rest of us... You don't have to believe in God or Satan to think something or someone's evil, you eejit**. All you need is a basic grasp of metaphysics and some sort of moral ratings system and it's fine. Nothing to worry about.
As it is, Mr Bryant is now the first polician to make it on our list of 'Idiot Features' (ZOMG! Congrats!). It may well become our new weekly tradition.
~
*This happens a lot on 'The Review Show' too, which is even more aggravating. What's the point of being a pretentious twit if no one can hear a word you're saying because some other pretentious twit is showing off the fact they too got a GCSE equivalent in English Lit?
I bet it was only an 'A' too. Lol.
**And he is an eejit. Quite early in the show, he turned out to be one of those who likes to use inflammatory analogies for matters that though controversial, are not worthy of them. I really don't get it. Do these guys just dig comparing their rivals to mass murderers/rapists/cannibals? Is it all a Parliamentary in-joke we plebs could never hope to understand? Do they find it arousing? Are they a load of verbally inclined masochists***? I just don't get it.
***That's a bit rubbish, actually. I will try to come up with something better.