Microsoft Songsmith has taken some flak for being the worst and most evil thing ever. But the clip below more than makes up for its sins. Mediocre near-forgotten Britpoppers Oasis, with their dull hit about some kind of wall… but TEKNO!
I really like Mock The Week; it’s one of my favourite TV shows. Frankie Boyle is perhaps the best comic of the last 30 years; Dara O’Briain is hard to spell but excellent; Hugh Dennis was the funniest one in the Mary Whitehouse Experience and remains so; Russell Howard is remarkably entertaining for a small child; and guest panelists ranging from David Mitchell through Rich Hall to Jo Brand add sparkling wit and entertaining excellence.
But Andy Parsons is the most unfunny, dislikeable, tedious wanker ever to have appeared on the television. Why is this thick, irritating eejit allowed anywhere near humans, never mind what would be, apart from his own revolting visage and distressing voice, the best show on television?
Seriously. What the fuck is this man doing being rated by anybody, ever?
If you like Andy Parsons, please say so in the comments. If, more likely, you don’t, then please repost this on your blog if you’re a massive geek, or forward this to your mates if you aren’t. I’m desperate to know who finds him funny, or why the hell he’s on telly if – as I suspect – nobody does.
I’m normally good at trying, and even enjoying, weird and wonderful and mildly gross-looking foods.
However, following a lunchtime experiment today, I can honestly say that this does not apply to jellied eels.
I’ve already made arrangements to move away from East London in shame.
Buy sterling. Buy lots of sterling. 1.40 is an insanely low rate; anyone who believes it to be sustainable is, quite literally, mentally ill.
(also, our banks are less fucked than yours; our government is just less dishonest than yours about it…)
…although this is better:
…and, as discussed previously, this is best:
Hooray for Obama’s America.
I don’t have enormously high hopes that everything will become groovy, excellent, liberal, etc, and I know that the President’s impact on what happens in the states is somewhat limited – but the fact that the Californians have taken a cop who shot a harmless, unarmed civilian, charged said cop with first degree murder, and refused to let him out on bail is still a rather jolly and heartwarming starting point for the new regime.
Now, if David Cameron were to promise to do the same for all UK cops found in the same situation, that might sway my voting plans…
(backing Ian Blair over Jean-Charles de Menezes’ murder was the one thing that made me seriously consider not voting for Ken at the last mayoral elections. Had any candidate explicitly spoken out againts shoot-to-kill-for-suspected-comedians [*], and not had utterly ludicrous policies on everything else [**], I’d've voted for them…)
[*] it flatters the incompetent, trivial jokers we’ve had to oh so bravely struggle against in the UK to refer to them as ‘terrorists’. There’s no terror. The guys in Mumbai are terrifying. Ours are idiots who set fire to themselves [***].
[**] in this context, neither Boris’s nor Brian’s policies would’ve been ridiculous enough to deter me.
[***] and I’m slightly embarrassed when Londoners claim July 7 2005 as a serious piece of terrorism. Cock off: New York had its two biggest landmarks destroyed and 3,000 people murdered; we had the same death toll as four hours’ worth of smoking, plus the same disruption as when Metronet mess up the engineering works. Nothing to see here; trivial nonsense; get lost.
Excellent-but-unreadable economist Willem Buiter pretty much agrees with me on the inevitable collapse of the dollar – although his timeframe is 2-5 years rather than my best guess of six months to 2 years. This will see the $/£ exchange rate going back to somewhere around 1.65.
The interesting bit will be whether the changing $ value will create a perception of rising energy and commodity prices, or whether everyone will be sensible enough this time round to realise that it’s largely a mirage. The evidence from last time isn’t entirely heartening…
I try and avoid these, because they’re insanely geektastic.
Nonetheless: a bunch of whining has gone on lately about failures on the trains, in the coldest and iciest week of the last 15 years. For most of today, the M1 was closed, for almost exactly the same reasons. Anyone who slates the former and not the latter is an ignorant moron.
Things break in this country [= England + lowland Scotland] when it’s terrifyingly cold, because it’s very seldom terrifyingly cold, so it’d be stupid to build them to deal with terrifying cold. These things include cars, trains, school boilers, and generally everything non-life-critical.
We can’t defeat the weather, no matter how hard we try. So chill out (haha), and if you live somewhere insanely remote then light a fire, climb into a warm bed, and deal with the fact that you can’t get into the office by car nor train (oh no! disaster! surely you’ll die!)
Update: Andrew Gilligan, the unthinking man’s ignorant moron, thoroughly jumps on the bandwagon.
OK, so we appear to be in the early stages of a major recession, which may well go on for years. A whole load of people may well lose their jobs, pay rises will be a thing of the past for people who keep them, and overall incomes from working will fall substantially.
Meanwhile, inflation has fallen to pretty much nothing. Falling fuel and food prices are among the main drivers of the fall in inflation. Imported consumer goods, of the sort that kept inflation low during the boom, have risen in price due to the pound’s devaluation.
So let’s think about the people who’re left worst-off by this. Are they:
1) people living on fixed incomes (ie pensions or savings), who’re seeing their living standards remain pretty much flat, who have no chance of a catastrophic decline in incomes, and who spend disproportionately on heating;
2) people not living on fixed incomes, who’re seeing their living standards fall, who’re at risk of losing their jobs, and who’re much more likely to spend on imports, but who have relatively large savings to cushion the blow if anything bad happens;
3) people not living on fixed incomes, who’re seeing their living standards fall, who’re at risk of losing their jobs, and who’re much more likely to spend on imports, but who have debts to service that will utterly crucify them if bad things happen?
The answer, fairly obviously, is group 3. People with decent net savings are just fine: if they never had jobs, they’re insulated from anything bad happening anyway; if they have jobs now, then they can afford the time taken to find a new job if they lose the current one.
So the new Conservative party policy of punishing people in group 3 to reward people in group 1 [*] can only be viewed in two ways: either breathtaking, witless stupidity, or the intergenerational equivalent of class warfare, deliberately screwing over economically productive people even more than the recession will do anyway to give money to the elderly, who the recession won’t have any impact on. [***]
[*] in group 2, where I’m lucky enough to sit, we’ll gain slightly on the tax breaks but lose out from the spending cuts [**].
[**] To “they’ll be funded by cutting waste not productive spending”-ists, that’s not the point. If you’ve got a plan to cut waste, great – but you still need to explain why the benefits from that plan should accrue to people who’re doing fine, rather than something sensible like a rise in the income tax allowance to benefit the working poor.
[***] Of course, the working poor are busy either working or drinking themselves into a stupor to forget their miserable lives, whilst pensioners spend their time talking to Edna in the post office about absolutely nothing, and therefore voting rates for the latter group are far higher than the former. This is another reason why democracy is A Bit Pants, Even If It’s Better Than The Alternatives.