Democratic Damage

I remember that while in school I always found a lot of pleasure in dragging out strained analogies and comparisons for far longer than they should last. One such comparison occurred to me when I was failing to get to sleep on Saturday night, so I decided I would use it on Sunday's radio show, which is the last Sunday show we are doing for the foreseeable future. We are scaling back our volunteering operations to the Saturday show only, so that we can ensure that our show doesn't descend into barrel scraping tedium, and also freeing us up for sketch filming, or just having a normal day off.

The analogy I developed was one for explaining the current political party leaders in terms which I decided my co-presenters would understand and engage with. They aren't really politically ignorant, but it was good fun to antagonise them in the name of facetiously setting up this analogy. Back when Obama came into office I realised quite how similar he was to The Rock; the sound of his voice, his style of delivery, as well as aesthetic similarities. Even cheeky comparisons to being 'The People's Champion' can be drawn, as well as rehashing The Rock's catchphrase to 'If you smell what Barack is cooking'.

I applied this Politics=Wrestling Theory to the current British parties, and was surprised by quite how many tenuous links I could draw. I started off with the newly popular leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, who has gone quite some distance in shaking up the Tory-Labour dichotomy, and has become the 'trustworthy' face of British politics. The popularity he enjoyed after the first televised leader's debates was described as "Cleggmania", which I personally thought needed a vowel in the middle of. If we apply my vowelisation then it becomes Cleggamania, which is when I was reminded of Hulkamania, and it was then that this lengthy operation began.

Nick Clegg has a lot in common with Hulk Hogan. Both of their forenames have 4 letters in them, and similarly their surnames consist of 5. Could this possibly be mere coincidence? I think not. The 'cuh' noise in the middle of their names could lead to misunderstanding, where someone could believe that they were called 'Nick Legg' or 'Hull Cogan'. The similarities are undeniable!

Both men are heavily associated with the colour yellow, and have a type of 'mania' attached to their names. The 'Hulkamania' which Hogan enjoyed eventually died down, and to kickstart his career it was necessary for him to form a new stable, nWo, consisting of Kevin Nash and Scott Hall. These two wrestlers were hugely dissimilar to Hogan, and yet they had to put their differences to the side in order to have any authority. The actual result of the May 6 election showed that Cleggmania isn't paying dividends in the current, useless, first past the post system, and it will be necessary for him to form a coalition, or at least an agreement with either Cameron or Brown in order to have any sort of sway over the future of politics. My only hope is that Clegg will adopt the methods of the nWo and have teams of Lib Dems interrupting various meetings and laying into other MPs with steel chairs. They could also take notes from Sting, who later joined the nWo, and during a meeting of Parliament they could have Vince Cable descend from the rafters on a rope and cause mayhem with a baseball bat.

The problem with the nWo/Con-Lib coalition comparison is that though Hogan was popular during that time he was still a 'bad' character, and so I hope Clegg doesn't keep his 'Hollywood' Nick Clegg persona for too long. Hogan eventually returned to his Hulkamania roots, and is rich and successful to this day.

The best thing Clegg could do is convince the Tories that he is willing to agree to a compromise, and then when it actually goes to a vote, rip his shirt in half (far easier than it was for Hogan due to buttons) give Cameron a weighty forearm smash and then finish him off with a big leg drop, before playing to the crowd using Hogan's famous cupping the ear gesture.

In contrast to Clegg's heroic wrestling persona, I see Gordon Brown as more of a Mick Foley person. Foley started wrestling out of a complete love of the thing, he once, as a teenager, skipped school, travelled across a number of states to see a huge event, where he saw Jimmy Snuka perform a body splash of the top of a steel cage. I know this because I have read Mick Foley's autobiography, but the details are sketchy because I read it many years ago.

Foley's first incarnation was as Cactus Jack, a slightly unhinged, but earthy, character who was no-nonsense and route one in his approach. Cactus Jack had a penchant for hardcore/no holds barred matches, I don't know what they are called nowadays, they are the matches where people get attached with bins and wood with nails in and the ropes are made out of barbed wire etc. Jack's finisher was the incredibly simple Double-Arm DDT, which is no-frills but gets the job done. I feel this covers Brown's time as Chancellor.

Foley then became the deranged Mankind. This transformation marked his passing into the big time (WWF/Prime Minister). Mankind wasn't overly popular, but he continued in the vein of no-nonsense hardcore wrestling, earning a reputation for being incredibly resilient. Mankind was the first wrestler ever to fall from the top of the Cell, from off've the Hell in a Cell match, crashing through an commentator's table as a result (a potent metaphor for Brown's lack of PR savvy). Mankind was constantly being bashed around by the Undertaker (Lord Mandelson), despite both having the whiff of the dark side, in fact it was the Undertaker himself (Lord Mandelson) who threw Mankind through the commentator's table.

When the script writers/spin doctors realised quite how unpopular and pathetic Mankind/Brown had become they changed tack, and focused on making him/him popular with viewers/voters. It is during this time that Foley became Dude Love, and the new hippiesque positivity and cheerfulness that was forced upon him was unnatural, sinister and wrong. Same goes for Gordon.

In his final incarnation, Foley wrestled under his actual name, Mick Foley, and he seemed far more at ease and became incredibly popular for being eccentric, slightly deranged and cute, in a torn and worn teddy bear sort of way. Brown did get back to what he was good at towards the end of the campaign, but probably too little too late to make the difference. Although if he agrees to get David Cameron in a Mandible Claw I would definitely reconsider my politics.

Cameron is William Regal, a floppy jellybaby man fighting above his ability, unable to escape his posh caricature and eager to go for the low blow and then feign innocence. I wonder if my political tendencies show up in this blog.

I'm not really familiar with the other prominent party members but going on what little I have seen of them, Ed Balls is Kurt Angle;

the Milibands are Kaientai;

Lord Mandelson is the Undertaken (as we have established);

and Lord Adonis is Scotty 2 Hotty, because neither live up to their names.

Nick Griffin troubled me for awhile, it was tied between either Henry Godwin (for his backwards-hickness) or the Iron Sheik, because he'd hate that. I also considered making him Big Daddy Shirley but while the fatness, the ugliness and the Britishness all made sense, Big Daddy is a beloved character, while Griffin is scum. Eventually I realised he was only ever going to be Paul Bearer:

Caroline Lucas is Gregory "Hurricane" Helms.

It would be in bad taste to compare Nigel Farage to Owen Hart, so I won't. Although by pointing out that I haven't pointed it out I have, in fact, pointed it out. I don't really want to make light of Owen Hart's accident, so I won't.

Politics is basically Wrestling without the athleticism. Admit it.

*Update.

Since posting this originally I have gone back and added the photographs. In the intervening time (an hour tops) Gordon Brown has stepped down as the leader of the Labour party. I'm not saying this blog is responsible, but if Gordon turns up in a squared circle near you then you know who's responsible. Me.

Assorted Insecurity

It has been an odd day today.

I spent the morning in a strained state of mind as I was attempting to complete an impossible number of tasks before I had to leave for work.

Forefront in my mind was uploading the new podcast and the new sketch so that I would be able to steamroller through endless plugging throughout the day. Though it can be dispiriting to feel as though the our efforts are merely being uploaded into the void, we are attempting to keep up a constant flow of creativity and content, and the uploading on a specific time is more to adhere to deadlines that we have set ourselves, rather than to placate readers/listeners/viewers.

My reaction when people get in touch out of the blue saying they enjoy the blog/podcasts/sketches is one of surprise, which probably doesn't inspire confidence, and is probably informed by my feeling that all this is in some way a big hypothetical practice run for something more serious. When people do get in touch, it brings home that our inane ideas are getting put completely into the public domain, into the gargantuan pool of creative offerings. The thought that our podcasts could be judged alongside podcasts that I listen to and see as solid, unassaiable recordings it is daunting. The thought that they could possibly be as good is alien to me. I think I need to become more assured, but I also need to try harder.

In other 'I-am-completely-out-of-my-depth' news, polling day is tomorrow, and I have realised that I don't have enough time to actually investigate any policies in any real depth. As much as I have engaged in the run-up to the election, following the various 'game-changers' and 'gaffes' that are far removed from any real focus on politics at all, I haven't really learnt anything of substance. I am pleased that the seemingly inevitable duopoly at least feels as though it no longer holds sway, but I am conscious that serious electoral reform needs to take place before the Lib Dems have any real chance to heavily influence matters.

From what I gather, the constituency where I live is something of a stronghold for a specific party, and it would be hugely unlikely that any other party would get in. It is disappointing that in a country which styles itself as one of the pioneers of democracy that my vote will be effectively shit up a wall in the bigger picture. I feel as though I should be repeatedly pasting the phrase 'ELECTORAL REFORM' for the rest of this blog, but I will now digress.

I have recently become invested in re-watching early episodes of South Park. Their most recent output seems to have attracted so much controversy and praise in equal measure, I thought I'd revisit the show, having not watched it for years. I remember being surprised recently when I saw new episodes, for as a kid watching it when it first came out, it is the childishness and the crudity that I remember. I was really excited by how ideologically strong the show was, and how eloquently and aptly it was able to deal with heavyweight, touchy subjects.

I was delighted, watching back the first series, to find that this wasn't something that developed later, and that the show has actually been touching on sensitive topics from the very beginning, with a deft touch and insightfulness that is packaged in a misleadingly crass package. Needless to say, I am very much enjoying this revisitation, as well as being pleased that there are so many series of this show for me to catch up with.

So, having spent a rambling entry detailing my creative insecurities, my political insecurities and my enjoyment of a show with a scope that is awe-inspiring, I will end this with a limp plug. Our newest sketch is up on our youtube channel, I am uncertain whether I should be sincere and implore you to check it out and hope that you enjoy it, or whether I should be obscenely over the top about it.

I will just be sincere and say that this one sketch is our best piece of work to date, it is better than the entirety of South Park added-up and distilled into a nugget form and that the sketch agrees with Nick.

And being serious for a second, I hope you enjoy it.

@adamgilder
www.theacre.net
acrecomedy@gmail.com

Mousemats, Traffic and Politics

While in work today I noticed the shiny new mousemats that the centre have forked out for. Their shinyness is worth commenting upon, for they are noticably shiny. However, each individual computer in the cybercafe is attached to an LED mouse, so having a mousemat, especially one that is shiny and dimpled, makes using the computer harder. These are the petty niggles which rule my days.


I also discovered writ large upon the back of the mousemats that they are 'indestructible under normal use'. That is a quality I really look for in my mousemats. Indestructibility. This mousemat is surely the Superman of the mousemat race.


There is a stretch of road between my house and work, which is handy otherwise I would live in my workplace. HAHAHAHAHA.


There is a stretch of road between my house and work which is being given a new layer of cement or whatever it is the government have to feed the road to sate the fury of the road. It resents being driven on.


This re-tarmacking is a nuisance as it causes a huge traffic jam due to the inevitable bottle-necking. I appreciate that this is unavoidable and that the cement people (people who cement, not people made out of cement) are doing us proud and keeping us safe by spreading more molten rock on the road, but I was slightly put out by it so I feel I have the right to lash out mindlessly on the internet. And I do.


In the traffic jam I nobly allowed a gargantuan cement truck to merge from a junction and go in front of me in the queue which was snailing its way forward. This was fine, I didn't feel threatened or encroached upon by the colossal truck, the tailgate of which was, at some points, almost hovering over my head. This all changed, however, when an ambulance and a police car tried to force their way through the gridlocked throng.


Again, I appreciate that the amblumance people (purposeful mispelling) and the po-po were on their way to assist in an important matter, such as to apprehend a thief who had stolen a vulnerable person's heartbeat and to re-instate said heartbeat into the vulnerable person. I momentarily forgot what the other emergency service was. Fire engines.


So I was slightly intimidated and befuddled by being jammed behind a cement truck with an angry looking amblumance man glowering at me. I would like to say to that amblumance worker; "I am not Inspector Gadget. My car cannot perform physics-defying transformations. Suck it".


It is good to see that the country is still basically functioning even though all the leaders have taken time off to go and win a popularity contest.


I am particularly galled by the Conservative 'policy' which will run a project called 'School Stars' which is essentially X-Factor in schools. I would stick my neck out and say this is a bad idea. We already have X-Factor, it is called X-Factor and it is on the television and it is cackworthy shite. Surely running that sort of project can't be a political policy? That's not going to solve anything.


How do we solve the problems? GARY BARLOW WITH KIDS!! Excuse me? GARY BARLOW WITH TEH KIDDEZ!!


It's an odd one though, I don't oppose the putting of kids on stage in a competitive form. I have fond (if occasionally bitter) memories of the various Eisteddfodau that I partook of as a child. But I think the main difference between these and 'School Stars' (apart from the obvious cynical political manipulation that is inherent in it) is that the Eisteddfod's scope is huge, with events including oration, singing, musical recital, dancing, with the main focus being on writing. I think the focus on writing is an admirable thing, I feel that writing is implicitly more creative than singing. But I suppose I would say that, I love writing. In fact, I am writing right now. While I acknowledge that singing well is a talent and not an easy thing, I feel the individuality and creativity needed for things such as writing, composing etc makes efforts in those fields more valuable, and I feel it is something of a pity that singers can make a fortune simply rehashing other people's creations. MAKE SOMETHING NEW.


The consensus seems to be that Nick Clegg won the recent debate, which of course means that he did. I don't know who I'll vote for at this point as I haven't yet taken the time to research any party's manifesto, but I feel that if the Lib Dem's can build on this burst of popularity that would be a positive thing. From an incredibly selfish point of view I would welcome them coming to power if they stay true to their pledge of scrapping tuition fees. I think if that happened I'd go back to University. Which is reason for everyone to vote Lib Dem.


These are the policies they should be leading with! Nick Clegg says he'll put Gilder back in Uni!


I suppose what we'll find out in the next couple of weeks is whether voters would prefer to see kiddies played off against each other a la X-Factor, or if they'd rather see them in University.


I'd usually be pessimistic about it, but we must bear in mind that we did get Rage Against the Machine to number one.


As a short P.S. The sight of George Osborne still makes me retch. That is all.

Fiction of a Political and Scientific Nature

The title of ‘most annoying news article of the day’ is shared between articles from the BBC and the Guardian today, though it seems self-defeating to award this prize, as they are the only news sources I habitually check.

The BBC article that has caused some annoyance to me is one that states:

“The Electoral Commission has said it will not be able to police the expected explosion in spoof internet videos at the next general election.”

What throws me slightly about this claim is that it is based on the presumption that spoof videos should be ‘policed’, as surely that would be quite a shocking example of censorship. The article doesn’t really go into details with regards to what constitutes a ‘spoof video’. This interests me quite a lot as I have written a sketch that is essentially a mock party political broadcast, and it intrigues me that if they could, the Electoral Commission would attempt to pull it. I could of course be misunderstanding exactly what sort of policing they had in mind, and it doesn’t really affect me directly as the sketch doesn’t exist as yet, but I reserve the right to follow in the proud British tradition of grossly overreacting to nothing in particular.

“complaints about potentially defamatory material, under electoral laws, remain a matter for the police and that cases will be investigated”.

The article fails to define the term ‘defamatory’, whose synonyms range from ‘insulting’ to ‘libellous’. While I agree that genuinely libellous claims are damaging, surely merely insulting videos are hardly a ‘matter for the police’? Or maybe I am just a desensitised cynic. We’ll take my sketch as a case in point.

Regardless of whether you believe the sketch would be funny, I am interested in whether it could be considered ‘defamatory’. It was meant to be a short sketch, opening on a shot of a chubby man sitting behind a desk, looking pristine in a suit. Without saying anything the man would then begin to growl softly, slowly building up to a crescendo where he starts barking, jumps onto the desk and eventually attacks the camera. The sketch would then end with a voice over disclaiming “this was a party political broadcast for the ”. I was wondering whether this sketch, which is clearly meant to be comedic in nature (whether you would be amused by it or not) would be considered ‘defamatory’ and removed. I hope not, otherwise I’d have to become righteously indignant along lines of free speech, harrumph.

The other article which rubbed me up the wrong way is one in which the Booker Prize, and more specifically its perceived bias toward historical or ‘worthy’ novels, was discussed. The article retold the opinions of one Kim Stanley Robinson, who I am told (by the article) is a well famous sci-fi author all up. He believes that the genre of sci-fi is tragically overlooked by people who are predisposed to judge sci-fi as being of no artistic merit. He believes that “the best British literature of our time” is based in sci-fi, and believes that there are “very brilliant writers doing excellent work who are never in the running at all, for no reason except their genre”.

I am not a huge fan of sci-fi, having grown up reading more fantasy-based swords and sorcery novels, and taken quite a sharp turn into straight fiction as an ‘adult’, but the sci-fi novels that I have read have all been utterly wonderful, however they have all been classics. So while I think that ‘I am Legend’ and ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ are magnificent and thought provoking works, I’m not really in a position to comment on more contemporary sci-fi works, which is why I shall be reacquainting myself with the genre in the near-future. Whether or not Kim Stanley Robinson has a point, though I would argue he does, what aggravates me the most is the reply from Booker judge and all-around-numpty John Mullan.

Now what is particularly worth bearing in mind when you read the quotation I am about to provide, is that John Mullan is a Professor of English at University College London, and, therefore, should know better. In regards to why sci-fi isn’t better represented he says:

"When I was 18 it was a genre as accepted as other genres," he said, but now "it is in a special room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to and meet each other."

Now the words I would pick out of that sentence as being of note are ‘special’ and in particular ‘weird’. People who read sci-fi are, apparently, “a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to”. I’d say that statement is hardly more intelligent than the childish labeling of people as ‘nerds’ and ‘freaks’ whilst in school. He is essentially saying “Oh of course there’s no sci-fi in the Booker, sci-fi is for weirdos”. What a knob.

If it was less depressing it would be amusing that someone holding a position at a University, who I would hope to be slightly less close-minded, would view a section of the public in that way. The way in which he describes readers of sci-fi sounds as though they have some kind of dubious sexual fetish. Of course I have fallen into my own trap there, by marginalizing individuals with a colourful sexual preference, which I have only done so that I am able to highlight this mistake in this sentence you are reading here. Huzzah, I am the King of self-referential meta-bloggery.

John Mullan seals his fate by denouncing the complaints as “absolute bullshit” at the end. I have no problem with University Professors swearing, but it hardly lends credence to your opinions, and makes you look like a reactionary dunce, cloaking the fact that you have no real evidence to back up your claims with aggressive language.

Schaa~ I am tempted to end this on a hilariously ironic fit of swearing to send up my own conclusion, but I like my last sentence so much, I shan’t.

You twonk.