Some Things Are Just So Wrong...Aren't They?

Here are ten things that are just so wrong...

1) The process for the selection of candidates and the election that follows for what is arguably the World's top job is just nuts, isn't it? First of all, any candidate that wants to get anywhere close to selection by one of the only two "parties", has to be either seriously rich or able to persuade some seriously rich people to fund their campaign. So, what follows is that the seriously rich run the United States either by being the POTUS or the power behind the POTUS, which is more worrying than having a rich idiot sitting in the Oval Office because at least the idiot has to appear before the public and the media. Either all of that happens or the American people are forced to have an actor in charge.  In  advance of No. 2 (below) there's also the ridiculous coverage by the US News media of the potential candidates with everyone trying to be as awful as Fox News. A perfectly legitimate and possibly even  a worthy, sensible future president can be be destroyed because of a prime-time TV nose-picking incident or just for having a spouse that's a little bit odd (although Michelle Bachman's husband's contention that "gayness can be cured by prayer" could be a bit of a vote-loser here and there, I guess). WRONG.

2) The world is run by media. Not in the sense that press barons and media moguls are actually Presidents or Prime Ministers (not now that Berlusconi has gone), but that the leaders of the free world cannot do anything without some element of the press and other media reporting it, commenting on it, disagreeing with it and generally spinning all kinds of crap around it, thus making it almost impossible for leaders to do what they're supposed to do - like taking difficult, unpopular decisions. Before we had all of this so-called press freedom (as opposed to what it is mostly - press interference) then some leaders got away with murder, literally, and probably, all kinds of other naughty stuff but, as nobody was any the wiser unless they were on the receiving end, did it make that much difference? You know, like if a tree falls in the forest when there's nobody there...does it make a sound? Fifty years ago, Harold McMillan was PM of the UK and being a toff, he used to take weeks off during the summer to shoot in Scotland (grouse, not scottish people). Half the time he was away, he wasn't anywhere near a land line or telegraph so had no idea how things were going and we had no idea what he was doing either. The Civil Service ran government anyway so it didn't matter much. Today, his successor, Dave, another privileged Old Etonian, can't even have a couple of hours' holiday and if News International had its way, there'd probably be a camera in his toilet so we could all see and tweet about the Prime-ministerial evacuation. There has to be a better balance so that these people can get on with their jobs; and it is only going to get more intrusive. WRONG.

3) "Children in Need" is bollocks. This annual celeb-fest of arseholes poncing about doing "fun" things for "charriddee"makes me heave. The BBC bangs on for weeks before the event (and for countless days after) about how selfless all these attention-seeking gits are, because they are doing things so out of the ordinary compared to their day-jobs. No, they're not. They're doing exactly what they and their money-grubbing agents want them to do - increase their media exposure so that they can sell a book or get on the next pile of televisual excrement called "Strictly Whatever" or "I'm an arse, get me out of Whatever". The evening of whacky funstering is a combination of vapid, overpaid, over-hyped twits performing against glitzy backgrounds interspersed with edited footage of the poor so that the viewing public will send money, supposedly just for children's charities in the UK. Given that the organisation of this whole fanfarrande must cost a bloody fortune, the BBC could just take £25m from the licence fee income (that's less than one per cent) and show repeats of Dad's Army instead. WRONG.

4) Sepp Blatter's views on racism in professional football are wrong on so many levels. In fact, Sepp Blatter's views on just about everything are questionable, especially where bribery and corruption are concerned but the daft old git trumped his previous gaffes a few days ago by suggesting that if one player offered racial abuse of another in the "tension" of a professional football match, then it would be OK to just shake hands at the end and put the whole thing down to enthusiasm of play and the various heats of the moments that made someone become a temporary racist. Less reported, however, were some of the reactions to Blatter's idiotic remarks, for which, to be fair, he has apologised...a little bit. Mark Bright, brought on to BBC 5Live on the day of the Blatter bollocks as a formerly racially-abused footballer, made the point that it was OK to insult fellow players on the basis of how they look, their families' idiosyncracies and their abilities or even disabilities. In fact, in Bright's world, anything goes on the football field as far as "sledging and banter" are concerned, as long as it isn't racist. What a tosser. WRONG.

5) Idiots in the popular media that ask the question, "How are you going to pay for Christmas?" These fools seem to be worrying on behalf of people who might be feeling the pinch of the recession and call upon "experts" who come up with solutions on how to borrow your way through this or, worse still, Kirstie-bleeding-Allsop being asked to blether on about home-spun ideas that will save you money, just so long as you have lots of it in the first place and can afford to knock some Christmas delights up from your spare antiques and silverware. It's quite simple. If you have to ask the bloody question in the first place, then the answer is, more than likely, "I can't". So don't have an excessive, gluttonous Christmas, then. Just be nice to one another, instead. There's a good idea for a present. But then we'll have the British Retail Consortium lobbying the government to make us all spend more money that, for nine items out of ten, will simply be lining the pockets of the Chinese. WRONG!

6) The Royal Bloody Family. Some fool asked the Duke of Edinburgh his opinion on wind farms a few days ago and got a vitriolic, nonsensical reply from the nonagenarian old fart who declaimed that wind turbine electricity generation was "useless", a "disgrace", that they "never work" and that their supporters are people "who believe in fairytales". It's not that there might not be an argument there, it's just that we shouldn't be asking for the opinions of privileged twits on things that they aren't qualified to speak about and then report them as if they're important. This bunch of inbred toffs have no fucking idea about anything outside of their privileged existences and should never, ever, be allowed to influence government on anything. Why not ask Prince Andrew his opinion on the struggle in Burma and the heroic efforts of Ang San Suu Kyi? The answer would probably be along the lines of, "...oh, yah! Burma! Trade missions there were just so sooper. Bang on hotels and lots of lovely 'brine' envelopes,  dontcha know? Ang san suckie who? Oh, yah, probably met her...ha!" Or we could seek the Prince of Wales opinion on...er...OK let's not. WRONG!

7) Ant and/or Dec. Poisoned dwarves. WRONG!!!!!

8) Celery. What on earth is this vegetable all about? Radishes and fennel are bloody awful too but celery has no redeeming features at all. It tastes inexplicably awful. It sounds worse than it tastes when people are eating it. Undoubtedly  it is the Robert Mugabe of vegetables and should be removed the surface of the earth. WRONG.

9) Rich Bastards. The lack of philanthropy in the modern world is shameful. OK, we have, thankfully, the Bill Gates's around and, to some extent, the Rothschilds and Warren Buffet, but these people are and have been so seriously wealthy that there is almost an embarrassment factor about not giving some of it away, which some of them do and, to some extent, they're damned if they do (because some might argue it's not enough, which is a tad unfair). There are others to whom it doesn't even occur to be philanthropic; Eccleston, Goodwin, Abramaovic come to mind among so many thousands of others. They may have some excuse in that they would not wish to have their cash distributed to the feckless and that might be why so many rich bastards don't bother. But why not give it a go? The current Lord Rothschild made the point on Ian Hislop's polemic about "Good Bankers" of the past, that he can only eat so much and spend so much on essentials for his well-being and the rest...well, it may as well go to those less deserving, as his family have always considered to be the correct things to do. Taking my own bete noir (Goodwin), he may not now be inordinately wealthy (I understand he may currently be unemployed, in the sense that he doesn't get  a wage, only consultancy fees, dividends and huge amounts of interest on investments to rely on, poor soul) but if anyone should be giving everything he's got over and above an income that doesn't attract 40% tax, then he's the fucking one. And if anyone wants to to understand the avarice that exists amongst the super-rich, then have a read of George Monbiot's  article in the Grauniad this week. Rich Bastards...WRONG!

10) George Gideon Oliver Osborne and Ed Balls. Wrong. The pair of them. Just so utterly, unremittingly, WRONG. (Worse than celery, by the way).

AND THESE AREN'T EVEN THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT ARE REALLY WRONG, ARE THEY?...they're the just the ones that occurred to me just now. More later, then, I guess...