The view from the bench isn't at all great, and it's something Shay Given has rarely experienced in his time as a professional goalkeeper. When you've been a top Premier League keeper for nigh on a decade, oozing class on an impressively consistent basis, first team football is surely something you should be expecting, especially as a 34 year old. A worrying age, maybe, for a right winger, but certainly not a goalkeeper.
Yet, when Given should be starting a new season in goal with Manchester City, with the club's best chance for proper glory in years, he finds himself sitting on the bench, while a young upstart in the shape of Joe Hart is preferred to him.
Let's make no bones about it. At White Hart Lane last Saturday, Hart single-handedly prevented Tottenham from annihilating and humiliating his team mates, the most expensive collection of players in the Premier League. On the day, Mancini's selection of Hart ahead of Given seemed totally justified, as he heroically prevented 3 or 4 certain goals. Given's expression said it all - after his younger comrade tipped over a deflected, dipping volley from Tottenham left-back Assou-Ekotto, a slight shake of the head and wry smirk from the Donegalman displayed his feelings for all to see; how the hell is Given going to get back into this Manchester City side?
Well the most obvious answer there is if Hart loses form; but if he performs at even 50% capacity for the rest of the season, the kid should be fine. He is a very talented goalkeeper and has a massive future ahead of him if he gets his head down and works.
But this brings me to the crux of my article; what exactly WILL happen if Hart loses form, in terms of the media?
I theorize that the only reason Hart was picked instead of Given in the first place is because of the intense pressure from both the English media and fans, with regard to their new buzz word; 'youth'. After a disastrous World Cup campaign, the media and fans alike clambered over themselves to find a solution, and came up with a complete overhaul of the international team; deadwood, underperforming superstars out, young, promising players in. Simple, right?
Rob Green's howler and David James's age put the goalkeeping position under particular scrutiny, and the one goalkeeper who didn't play a minute at the World Cup was hailed as the next big thing. Yes, Joe Hart.
By pure process of elimination, Hart is now England's best keeper, because one is being put out to pasture in League One, and the other's career on the international stage is effectively ruined because of one mistake. So naturally, England fans want their new darling playing regular club football. So now, it's a toss up between an established international goalkeeper with a decade or so of experience in the Premier League, versus a player unproven on the international stage, with three seasons at most in the PL. And obviously we've all seen who came out on top.
But what happens when Hart makes the inevitable howler, or string of howlers, for either City or England? Will the media stick to their guns (like they should when they're zealously calling for the heads of the likes of Lampard and Gerrard, in lieu of 'youth' like it's some form of religion)
or will they dish out the exact same harsh, ridiculous treatment that they subjected Rob Green to? If it's the latter, will we see the pro-Hart City fans do a U-turn and question why they ever dropped Given in the first place, in true fickle English football fan nature?
This is all highly speculative of course but it paints a picture whereby the media hold the real power in English football; they build players up on pedestals and then tear them asunder viciously when expectations aren't met. They never explicitly came out and said that Hart should be preferred to Given, but by their general message they may have pressurised Roberto Mancini in some way to make the selection he did on Saturday.
Had Robert Green played a blinder at the World Cup, would Hart have been glorified by fans and media alike without due proof of his international credentials? I have a strong feeling that Given would have been in goal for Saturday had this been the case.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Goal Line Technology: Necessity or threat?
Lo and behold, the Three Lions let out a feeble roar once again as they were put to the sword by a far superior outfit, in a tournament that most people at home expected them to fare far better in. It's simultaneously painful and boring to yet again see the British media's attitude go from that of glorifying Fabio Capello and the team, to baying for their blood after 90 minutes of football. A dodgy 1-0 win over a pathetic Slovenia side was widely praised in England, where elsewhere in the world of football, an early exit once again was predicted on the back of the same result.
And so it came to pass. But it irks me that not everyone will remember that game for how well the Germans counterattacked and took their goals; the most blindly passionate of English fans will gloss over John Terry's and Matthew Upson's startling inability to form a cohesive and effective defensive unit. What will be talked about until the cows come home is "the goal that wasn't". That unbelievable error by both the linesman and the referee that disallowed a perfectly good goal by the otherwise ineffective Frank Lampard. It would have been England's second in as many minutes, and, admittedly, may have changed the shape of the game, at least for a considerable period of time. However, I am confident the Germans would still have heavily outclassed their opponents.
Yet this is not the centre of the discussion at hand. Naturally, as the English media does, they hopped on the injustice and are now making very loud noises in the direction of Sepp Blatter and co. at FIFA headquarters to introduce some form of goal line or appeal technology, to avoid a repeat of this situation. And with good reason too.
We know ourselves. The now infamous "Hand Of Gaul" incident fecked us over for all our efforts, and the pain and injustice was, and is, still hard to swallow. And yet the dinosaurs at FIFA insist it would riun the flow of the game. Well, do they have a point?
Firstly, the very basic thing that could be done; a 5th official sitting at a monitor would be able to decide in seconds whether a goal should be allowed or not. If a contentious goal is initially allowed, surely that isn't breaking up the flow of play, when play is stopped anyway and the players and referee are awaiting the decision?
However, matters become complicated with something like the very goal Lampard had disallowed. Play continued down to the England end after the German keeper Neuer fished it out of his goal feigning innocence. What would have happened if, during the time a hypothetical 5th official was scrambling to watch replays, Germany had have scored at the other end? Would both goals have stood, or just the English one?
Then the obvious answer to this is goal line technology; place a microchip in the football and have sensors on the goal line. Simple eh? Well, not particularly. FIFA have a point, I think when they say the same rules should apply across the board. Obviously, I'm not talking in terms of grassroots football, but within professional leagues themselves. I've heard £300k quoted for kitting out a stadium with this technology; easily affordable by the likes of Premier League clubs and even some Championship outfits, but how about the lower leagues? The fact is, in a lot of cases, clubs simply would not be able to afford this. But why should their budgets reflect how fair the playing environment in their league is? Clearly, it would be incumbent on football associations across the globe to at least foot some of the bill for this technology, in the interest of the sport.
And yet more problems persist.
Where does the line get drawn with this technology? I think it needs to stop at contentious goal decisions, including offsides; only if a ball is put in the net and the play is stopped should the offside be looked at. There's no point stopping play for a suspected offside only to discover that play could have continued, which could lead to even more aggrevation towards match officials. But for the likes of free kicks and throw ins, the concept of appealing these decisions is ridiculous. This is what could possibly happen, with even the most minute decisions coming under scrutiny, because managers know they have the power and the means to challenge them. The solution to this is a no-brainer; much like tennis, introduce a system of a set number of appeals. That way, teams and managers get to challenge the really contentious decisions, without disrupting the overall flow of the game.
Of course, this is a very broad argument, and I'm sure this will be debated by more qualified and experience men than me once this World Cup is over. But it'll be interesting to see how Sepp Blatter copes if another refereeing blunder leaves a black mark on the festivities in South Africa.
OH, AND ANOTHER THING.....:
I was over the moon to see Portgual exit the World Cup this evening; not because I dislike them as a team, but simply because of the antics of one Cristiano Ronaldo over the tournament. He is seflishness and egotism incarnate, and if I was one of his Portugeuse teammates tonight, I'd be infuriated with his self serving shots that only troubled people in the upper tiers of the stadium.
And so it came to pass. But it irks me that not everyone will remember that game for how well the Germans counterattacked and took their goals; the most blindly passionate of English fans will gloss over John Terry's and Matthew Upson's startling inability to form a cohesive and effective defensive unit. What will be talked about until the cows come home is "the goal that wasn't". That unbelievable error by both the linesman and the referee that disallowed a perfectly good goal by the otherwise ineffective Frank Lampard. It would have been England's second in as many minutes, and, admittedly, may have changed the shape of the game, at least for a considerable period of time. However, I am confident the Germans would still have heavily outclassed their opponents.
Yet this is not the centre of the discussion at hand. Naturally, as the English media does, they hopped on the injustice and are now making very loud noises in the direction of Sepp Blatter and co. at FIFA headquarters to introduce some form of goal line or appeal technology, to avoid a repeat of this situation. And with good reason too.
We know ourselves. The now infamous "Hand Of Gaul" incident fecked us over for all our efforts, and the pain and injustice was, and is, still hard to swallow. And yet the dinosaurs at FIFA insist it would riun the flow of the game. Well, do they have a point?
Firstly, the very basic thing that could be done; a 5th official sitting at a monitor would be able to decide in seconds whether a goal should be allowed or not. If a contentious goal is initially allowed, surely that isn't breaking up the flow of play, when play is stopped anyway and the players and referee are awaiting the decision?
However, matters become complicated with something like the very goal Lampard had disallowed. Play continued down to the England end after the German keeper Neuer fished it out of his goal feigning innocence. What would have happened if, during the time a hypothetical 5th official was scrambling to watch replays, Germany had have scored at the other end? Would both goals have stood, or just the English one?
Then the obvious answer to this is goal line technology; place a microchip in the football and have sensors on the goal line. Simple eh? Well, not particularly. FIFA have a point, I think when they say the same rules should apply across the board. Obviously, I'm not talking in terms of grassroots football, but within professional leagues themselves. I've heard £300k quoted for kitting out a stadium with this technology; easily affordable by the likes of Premier League clubs and even some Championship outfits, but how about the lower leagues? The fact is, in a lot of cases, clubs simply would not be able to afford this. But why should their budgets reflect how fair the playing environment in their league is? Clearly, it would be incumbent on football associations across the globe to at least foot some of the bill for this technology, in the interest of the sport.
And yet more problems persist.
Where does the line get drawn with this technology? I think it needs to stop at contentious goal decisions, including offsides; only if a ball is put in the net and the play is stopped should the offside be looked at. There's no point stopping play for a suspected offside only to discover that play could have continued, which could lead to even more aggrevation towards match officials. But for the likes of free kicks and throw ins, the concept of appealing these decisions is ridiculous. This is what could possibly happen, with even the most minute decisions coming under scrutiny, because managers know they have the power and the means to challenge them. The solution to this is a no-brainer; much like tennis, introduce a system of a set number of appeals. That way, teams and managers get to challenge the really contentious decisions, without disrupting the overall flow of the game.
Of course, this is a very broad argument, and I'm sure this will be debated by more qualified and experience men than me once this World Cup is over. But it'll be interesting to see how Sepp Blatter copes if another refereeing blunder leaves a black mark on the festivities in South Africa.
OH, AND ANOTHER THING.....:
I was over the moon to see Portgual exit the World Cup this evening; not because I dislike them as a team, but simply because of the antics of one Cristiano Ronaldo over the tournament. He is seflishness and egotism incarnate, and if I was one of his Portugeuse teammates tonight, I'd be infuriated with his self serving shots that only troubled people in the upper tiers of the stadium.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Lost Finale; Why it was perfect
So it's finally finished. After 6 seasons of pure bafflement, occasional anger, but undeniable enjoyment, the best television series I've ever had the pleasure to watch has come to an unbelievable, and evidently controversial end.
Since roughly around season 2, Lost has divided people among the people that persevered with it's winding, mystery-filled storyline, and the people who became fed up with it. And finale has divided again the group who stayed loyal to it over the years, into people who thought it was perfect, and people who feel completely cheated by it.
And I can see why, in a way. This season, and indeed the finale, has served very little purpose in actually explaining what the hell has been going on on the island for the past few years. It introduced an alternate time-line that seemed to coincide with last season's detonation of the hydrogen bomb, yet it was turned around in the end to be something completely different; and that something was a purgatory-like life.
This is where, personally, my sympathy ends with the naysayers. Purgatory may seem like a complete cop-out, but for me, nothing fits the entire series better than that. I've seen it thrown around that the last six seasons have been rendered completely inconsequential by this ending, but I think that the exact opposite is true.
Fair enough, towards the end, the show took a hugely spiritual and, dare I say it, religious turn in the last few episodes but once you get past that, the resolution is fantastic. All the original islanders from season 1 were, as we saw through their flashbacks, essentially losers in life, all very flawed, with little to nothing left in life for them. And yet they all end up happily in that church at the end, reunited, ready to move on from life after their respective deaths, whenever they may have been. Why?
This is where the island, and everything that happened on it, fills the gap. Through all their individual actions and sacrifices on the island, they all contributed to keeping evil incarnate (the Smoke Monster/Locke/whoever) on the island and away from the rest of civilisation, and therefore their lives were granted meaning, far more than they could have ever hoped to have achieved had they not ever been to the Island. From the dead bleedin' obvious to the smallest way, all the characters that we saw in the Church scene in the end had found the redemption they were looking for on the island, through the actions and decisions they had all made during their time there.
Which made the last scene all the more tear-inducing. Seeing everyone finally at peace with their lives, happy and ready to move into (what I presume was intended to be) an afterlife, while simultaneously watching Jack die with a smile on his face in the actual time-line, was genuinely the most moving scene I've ever had the pleasure to watch.
People are complaining that no questions were answered whatsoever but that really isn't what the whole thing was about. Sure, just as much as the next Lost viewer, I'd like to know what the hell the deal was with Walt, and why being on the Island causes infertility and birth difficulties, but I think, just like the ending, it's all open to interpretation. This may seem like a cop-out for some, but I think the interpretive ending is the most fitting to a show that has never really given a load away. The mysteries were never really the focus; it was all about these characters making something of themselves.
And this is something that we can all relate to. I realise right about now that I'm sounding hugely fruity about this, but it's true. Seeing all these characters suffering and toiling away on the island, trying to escape, when really it's the only thing that, at the time, is giving their lives any meaning, is a simple yet powerful idea. And the fact that they all realise this at the end has an even bigger impact.
Lost was, is and always will be a spectacular, if flawed, piece of work. I recognise all of its flaws, and I think anyone who has watched it from day one cannot deny them. But for me, and I hope a lot of other Lost fans out there, the finale has tied everything up spectacularly. To people who were searching for answers, I'll say this; when you stayed with the show even after the island disappeared, and when time travel was brought in, did you not think, somewhere along the line, that not every single thing would be answered at all? I'm surprised at the backlash this finale is receiving, considering the people criticising it have been some of the people who have stayed with it through thick and thin. I nearly lost faith in the show when the entire island vanished at the end of the 4th season, but I persevered, and was given something I never expected, but thoroughly enjoyed. I'm shocked people expected logical resolutions to everything after we all accepted that the show went into the supernatural.
That said, people are entitled to their opinions, and the writers have said that the ending wouldn't please everyone, a very shrewd prediction indeed. I can see where the haters are coming from (apart from the tools spouting crap like "Oh my god, so the island was just all of them in purgatory", when it was very clearly explained what was real and what was not), but personally, Lost hit heights it has never scaled before with it's final bow.
Since roughly around season 2, Lost has divided people among the people that persevered with it's winding, mystery-filled storyline, and the people who became fed up with it. And finale has divided again the group who stayed loyal to it over the years, into people who thought it was perfect, and people who feel completely cheated by it.
And I can see why, in a way. This season, and indeed the finale, has served very little purpose in actually explaining what the hell has been going on on the island for the past few years. It introduced an alternate time-line that seemed to coincide with last season's detonation of the hydrogen bomb, yet it was turned around in the end to be something completely different; and that something was a purgatory-like life.
This is where, personally, my sympathy ends with the naysayers. Purgatory may seem like a complete cop-out, but for me, nothing fits the entire series better than that. I've seen it thrown around that the last six seasons have been rendered completely inconsequential by this ending, but I think that the exact opposite is true.
Fair enough, towards the end, the show took a hugely spiritual and, dare I say it, religious turn in the last few episodes but once you get past that, the resolution is fantastic. All the original islanders from season 1 were, as we saw through their flashbacks, essentially losers in life, all very flawed, with little to nothing left in life for them. And yet they all end up happily in that church at the end, reunited, ready to move on from life after their respective deaths, whenever they may have been. Why?
This is where the island, and everything that happened on it, fills the gap. Through all their individual actions and sacrifices on the island, they all contributed to keeping evil incarnate (the Smoke Monster/Locke/whoever) on the island and away from the rest of civilisation, and therefore their lives were granted meaning, far more than they could have ever hoped to have achieved had they not ever been to the Island. From the dead bleedin' obvious to the smallest way, all the characters that we saw in the Church scene in the end had found the redemption they were looking for on the island, through the actions and decisions they had all made during their time there.
Which made the last scene all the more tear-inducing. Seeing everyone finally at peace with their lives, happy and ready to move into (what I presume was intended to be) an afterlife, while simultaneously watching Jack die with a smile on his face in the actual time-line, was genuinely the most moving scene I've ever had the pleasure to watch.
People are complaining that no questions were answered whatsoever but that really isn't what the whole thing was about. Sure, just as much as the next Lost viewer, I'd like to know what the hell the deal was with Walt, and why being on the Island causes infertility and birth difficulties, but I think, just like the ending, it's all open to interpretation. This may seem like a cop-out for some, but I think the interpretive ending is the most fitting to a show that has never really given a load away. The mysteries were never really the focus; it was all about these characters making something of themselves.
And this is something that we can all relate to. I realise right about now that I'm sounding hugely fruity about this, but it's true. Seeing all these characters suffering and toiling away on the island, trying to escape, when really it's the only thing that, at the time, is giving their lives any meaning, is a simple yet powerful idea. And the fact that they all realise this at the end has an even bigger impact.
Lost was, is and always will be a spectacular, if flawed, piece of work. I recognise all of its flaws, and I think anyone who has watched it from day one cannot deny them. But for me, and I hope a lot of other Lost fans out there, the finale has tied everything up spectacularly. To people who were searching for answers, I'll say this; when you stayed with the show even after the island disappeared, and when time travel was brought in, did you not think, somewhere along the line, that not every single thing would be answered at all? I'm surprised at the backlash this finale is receiving, considering the people criticising it have been some of the people who have stayed with it through thick and thin. I nearly lost faith in the show when the entire island vanished at the end of the 4th season, but I persevered, and was given something I never expected, but thoroughly enjoyed. I'm shocked people expected logical resolutions to everything after we all accepted that the show went into the supernatural.
That said, people are entitled to their opinions, and the writers have said that the ending wouldn't please everyone, a very shrewd prediction indeed. I can see where the haters are coming from (apart from the tools spouting crap like "Oh my god, so the island was just all of them in purgatory", when it was very clearly explained what was real and what was not), but personally, Lost hit heights it has never scaled before with it's final bow.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Head Shops: Proving that legalisation is not the answer
So the country’s brief but fiery obsession with head shops and so-called “legal highs” has finally fizzled out, thanks to the government’s blanket ban on the majority of substances used by these shops.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; this is another rant condemning the practice entirely and praising the government to the high heavens for finally putting a stop to all of this. (As someone who has never made use of any of these substances, I’m going to keep this as objective as possible.) But the reality is that this whole drugs situation is much more complicated than merely the black and white of ‘to legalise or not to legalise’.
On paper, when you think about it, the concept of a head shop isn’t an awful idea. It provides safe channels for people who do use drugs to get them legally and legitimately. It almost sounds like an obvious solution to the problem of legalising, but practically, as we have seen, there’s problems abound. A lot of the substances being used in legal highs can be extremely harmful and, more alarmingly, are completely unknown and foreign to doctors. At least with heroin and cocaine, A&E staff know what they’re dealing with, but they’re blind in dealing with some of the drugs coming from head shops.
Another problem is that teenagers experimenting with legal highs are oftentimes unsure of how to take the drug, in terms of quantity etc., because there isn’t as common knowledge out there about them as there would be illegal drugs. Again, it’s the problem of dealing with the unknown.
So, should it be a case then of providing widespread education about these drugs and about drug use in general? This idea doesn’t sit right with me whatsoever. The idea of going around secondary schools and colleges instructing people on how to use drugs if they so wish is an idea I find disturbing, to say the least. That kind of education is bordering on the promotion of drugs, which I think goes beyond all realms of decency.
Then there’s the argument that some form of legal channels have to be put in place to counteract the illegal and thuggish underworld drugs trade. Of course I think this needs to be dealt with in some manner or form but legalising may not be the answer, as we have seen. Several bombings of various head shops around the country, which have been blamed on illegal drug traders, is worrying evidence that the illegal drug practice may not go away, at least not without a fight. Isn’t legalising about ending violence? I’m aware that head shops versus drug barons isn’t a thoroughly accurate indication of what full legalisation would be like (difference in substances being the main difference), but it is a warning nonetheless.
Another argument I’ve heard several times is that the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Of course it would be reduced, because an entire criminal practice would be wiped out. But the social consequences remain the same. If we’re talking full legalisation, it won’t change the life consuming properties of heroin or cocaine addictions. It won’t get the scum off our streets that live their lives for their next hit, not caring who they hurt or what they do to get it. Drug trafficking and illegal dealing would be a thing of the past (if the underworld trade is quashed by legal dealers), but drug related crimes would still remain, and would probably increase due to the hypothetical ease in which people would be able to acquire drugs upon legalisation.
But what about alcohol, I hear the cries? Isn’t alcohol technically a ‘legal high’? Well, yes. And this is where my argument, and I’m sure a lot people’s, falls apart. Don’t we all technically drink to get that buzz (pissed, sloshed, whatever the hell you call it yourself)? Of course there’s social drinkers out there but the reality is that this country’s people, young people in particular, abuse alcohol on a very regular basis, and no one bats an eyelid. Oh, but when hash or some other soft drug is mentioned, that’s a no go. I’m one of those people. I’ll admit that. But I think that’s what we’ve been conditioned to think like. Where along the line did the high afforded by alcohol become completely accepted, celebrated even, while the highs from cannabis remained widely frowned upon?
It’s a hugely complex issue, and I can say with a large degree of conviction that I’m not the only one on the fence over it all. I truly think society would be a poorer place if we legalised drugs, if my prediction that drug use would increase alarmingly does indeed come to pass. I can see some of the benefits that legalisation would bring, but I think for it to be even considered, it would have to be so tightly regulated. Nevertheless, as I’ve hopefully gotten across, there isn’t that much of benefit to society in general to warrant any form of legalisation.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; this is another rant condemning the practice entirely and praising the government to the high heavens for finally putting a stop to all of this. (As someone who has never made use of any of these substances, I’m going to keep this as objective as possible.) But the reality is that this whole drugs situation is much more complicated than merely the black and white of ‘to legalise or not to legalise’.
On paper, when you think about it, the concept of a head shop isn’t an awful idea. It provides safe channels for people who do use drugs to get them legally and legitimately. It almost sounds like an obvious solution to the problem of legalising, but practically, as we have seen, there’s problems abound. A lot of the substances being used in legal highs can be extremely harmful and, more alarmingly, are completely unknown and foreign to doctors. At least with heroin and cocaine, A&E staff know what they’re dealing with, but they’re blind in dealing with some of the drugs coming from head shops.
Another problem is that teenagers experimenting with legal highs are oftentimes unsure of how to take the drug, in terms of quantity etc., because there isn’t as common knowledge out there about them as there would be illegal drugs. Again, it’s the problem of dealing with the unknown.
So, should it be a case then of providing widespread education about these drugs and about drug use in general? This idea doesn’t sit right with me whatsoever. The idea of going around secondary schools and colleges instructing people on how to use drugs if they so wish is an idea I find disturbing, to say the least. That kind of education is bordering on the promotion of drugs, which I think goes beyond all realms of decency.
Then there’s the argument that some form of legal channels have to be put in place to counteract the illegal and thuggish underworld drugs trade. Of course I think this needs to be dealt with in some manner or form but legalising may not be the answer, as we have seen. Several bombings of various head shops around the country, which have been blamed on illegal drug traders, is worrying evidence that the illegal drug practice may not go away, at least not without a fight. Isn’t legalising about ending violence? I’m aware that head shops versus drug barons isn’t a thoroughly accurate indication of what full legalisation would be like (difference in substances being the main difference), but it is a warning nonetheless.
Another argument I’ve heard several times is that the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Of course it would be reduced, because an entire criminal practice would be wiped out. But the social consequences remain the same. If we’re talking full legalisation, it won’t change the life consuming properties of heroin or cocaine addictions. It won’t get the scum off our streets that live their lives for their next hit, not caring who they hurt or what they do to get it. Drug trafficking and illegal dealing would be a thing of the past (if the underworld trade is quashed by legal dealers), but drug related crimes would still remain, and would probably increase due to the hypothetical ease in which people would be able to acquire drugs upon legalisation.
But what about alcohol, I hear the cries? Isn’t alcohol technically a ‘legal high’? Well, yes. And this is where my argument, and I’m sure a lot people’s, falls apart. Don’t we all technically drink to get that buzz (pissed, sloshed, whatever the hell you call it yourself)? Of course there’s social drinkers out there but the reality is that this country’s people, young people in particular, abuse alcohol on a very regular basis, and no one bats an eyelid. Oh, but when hash or some other soft drug is mentioned, that’s a no go. I’m one of those people. I’ll admit that. But I think that’s what we’ve been conditioned to think like. Where along the line did the high afforded by alcohol become completely accepted, celebrated even, while the highs from cannabis remained widely frowned upon?
It’s a hugely complex issue, and I can say with a large degree of conviction that I’m not the only one on the fence over it all. I truly think society would be a poorer place if we legalised drugs, if my prediction that drug use would increase alarmingly does indeed come to pass. I can see some of the benefits that legalisation would bring, but I think for it to be even considered, it would have to be so tightly regulated. Nevertheless, as I’ve hopefully gotten across, there isn’t that much of benefit to society in general to warrant any form of legalisation.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Congratulations Liverpool, after a season of mediocrity, you finally celebrate it...
There comes a point in every football season where some aspect of the goings-on disgusts me. Whether that's due to blatant diving or inexplicable refereeing decisions, there's always one that sticks in my mind (Pedro Mendes' overhead kick against Man Utd years ago, anyone?) but this season something quite different has taken the biscuit.
Rivalries between clubs, and in particular clubs' fans, tend to run quite deep no matter what footballing climate you look at, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't deteriorate into physical violence or serious abuse of players or other fans. But when this rivalry begins to tamper with the dignity of the game, it is going far over the line.
When Liverpool fans began to celebrate their 2-0 loss to Chelsea on Saturday, that's when I feel the line was crossed. The Kop were celebrating what should be an almost inevitable Premier League crown for Carlo Ancelloti's men, at the expense of their arch-rivals Manchester United.
But celebrating when their own team has lost? When there was still some hope of clinching 4th spot from under the noses of Manchester City and Tottenham? When there was still a chance to gain some modest achievement in a season defined by humiliating and humbling failure?
I think the behaviour of the fans is absolutely disgraceful. I did not see the game, but imagine the climate within that stadium had Liverpool been in the lead? What then? Would the Kop begin to boo their own players if they got on the front foot, with only one thing in mind; anything but United?
John Aldridge even admitted in a column the morning before the game that, if he had a 90th minute penalty to draw level with Chelsea in this particular fixture, he'd blast it over the bar on purpose.
Barely understandable from fans, but from a player? It really is shocking stuff.
Again, I did not see the game, but Gerrard's awful backpass to set up Drogba has even been called into question, as to whether there was intent to set up a goal or not. If this is the case, then this match was truly a blight on the game of football. Even more shocking, again, considering that 4th place was still a possibility. Why would a player of Gerrard's calibre and professionalism put petty rivalry over possible success? It beggars belief.
The Kop truly showed themselves to be an absolutely despicable set of fans.
Oh, and another thing:
Why, John Higgins, why? Don't profess your innocence and fear when you're in full swing suggesting getting another mortgage on your Spanish villa to cover up the payments...
Rivalries between clubs, and in particular clubs' fans, tend to run quite deep no matter what footballing climate you look at, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't deteriorate into physical violence or serious abuse of players or other fans. But when this rivalry begins to tamper with the dignity of the game, it is going far over the line.
When Liverpool fans began to celebrate their 2-0 loss to Chelsea on Saturday, that's when I feel the line was crossed. The Kop were celebrating what should be an almost inevitable Premier League crown for Carlo Ancelloti's men, at the expense of their arch-rivals Manchester United.
But celebrating when their own team has lost? When there was still some hope of clinching 4th spot from under the noses of Manchester City and Tottenham? When there was still a chance to gain some modest achievement in a season defined by humiliating and humbling failure?
I think the behaviour of the fans is absolutely disgraceful. I did not see the game, but imagine the climate within that stadium had Liverpool been in the lead? What then? Would the Kop begin to boo their own players if they got on the front foot, with only one thing in mind; anything but United?
John Aldridge even admitted in a column the morning before the game that, if he had a 90th minute penalty to draw level with Chelsea in this particular fixture, he'd blast it over the bar on purpose.
Barely understandable from fans, but from a player? It really is shocking stuff.
Again, I did not see the game, but Gerrard's awful backpass to set up Drogba has even been called into question, as to whether there was intent to set up a goal or not. If this is the case, then this match was truly a blight on the game of football. Even more shocking, again, considering that 4th place was still a possibility. Why would a player of Gerrard's calibre and professionalism put petty rivalry over possible success? It beggars belief.
The Kop truly showed themselves to be an absolutely despicable set of fans.
Oh, and another thing:
Why, John Higgins, why? Don't profess your innocence and fear when you're in full swing suggesting getting another mortgage on your Spanish villa to cover up the payments...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
What'll make headline news? Oh wait, I know....!
Sitting around in college this morning, I was reading an article which I found particularly poor, and expressed my thoughts out loud to friends sitting around me. One of them then remarked that since she's been studying journalism, she's been much more conscious of well stories are written in newspapers. I've found this to be true with myself as well, and this innate critiquing continues into broadcasting also.
I approach this impending rant from a position of the classic journalistic question "what is news?". Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Dublin Airport being closed entirely due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland is news, but you'd think there's only so much you can do with that story, right? Lots of ash in the air, damaging to planes, airport closed. End of story? So you'd think.
For the purposes of this rant, I will dump purely on TV3, considering I haven't watched RTÉ all day today. Not only did TV3 put the closure as their lead story, but they did what was at least 5 minutes of coverage on it. Excessive. Just a tad.
Really, what else can you say apart from the facts? There sat Alan Cantwell, delivering everything in his usual over-the-top dramatic voice. Cut to Colette Fitzpatrick standing outside Dublin Airport for a live feed, pretty much saying exactly what Cantwell did, just elongated. That's enough reporting, isn't it? Oh golly, no! That won't do at all.
Who's that I hear? Is that the dulcet tones of Brian O'Donovan? Oh yes of course it is. What would the top story be without the deep bass rumble of a Cork accent from TV3's most beloved reporter? Brian proceeds to give us an account of what's actually going on inside the airport, while reams of people queue after their flights have been cancelled. Brian proceeds to annoy a few of them, asking their opinion on what's going on.
But really, who bloody cares?! I don't need to hear the opinion of some disgruntled passengers who, in their frustrated state, will probably no doubt start blaming the airlines for not braving highly dangerous conditions just for them. (Disclaimer - that probably didn't happen, but I stopped listening right around then, and I'm in full flow here).
OK, OK, voxpop finished. Can we go back to Cantwell in the studio? NO, Colette Fitzpatrick has returned with some airport official, repeating pretty much what we already know. The madness never stops.
Who knows, it was probably a slow news day. Maybe I'm just not impressed anymore by what other people view as very interesting, important stories. Or maybe I am right, and the coverage was beyond excessive?
Oh, and another thing....:
A news assignment as uncovered that someone is systematically targeting dogs in an Artane estate, by mixing rat poison with food, and throwing it over garden walls. How evil and despicable can you possibly be to try this?
I approach this impending rant from a position of the classic journalistic question "what is news?". Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Dublin Airport being closed entirely due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland is news, but you'd think there's only so much you can do with that story, right? Lots of ash in the air, damaging to planes, airport closed. End of story? So you'd think.
For the purposes of this rant, I will dump purely on TV3, considering I haven't watched RTÉ all day today. Not only did TV3 put the closure as their lead story, but they did what was at least 5 minutes of coverage on it. Excessive. Just a tad.
Really, what else can you say apart from the facts? There sat Alan Cantwell, delivering everything in his usual over-the-top dramatic voice. Cut to Colette Fitzpatrick standing outside Dublin Airport for a live feed, pretty much saying exactly what Cantwell did, just elongated. That's enough reporting, isn't it? Oh golly, no! That won't do at all.
Who's that I hear? Is that the dulcet tones of Brian O'Donovan? Oh yes of course it is. What would the top story be without the deep bass rumble of a Cork accent from TV3's most beloved reporter? Brian proceeds to give us an account of what's actually going on inside the airport, while reams of people queue after their flights have been cancelled. Brian proceeds to annoy a few of them, asking their opinion on what's going on.
But really, who bloody cares?! I don't need to hear the opinion of some disgruntled passengers who, in their frustrated state, will probably no doubt start blaming the airlines for not braving highly dangerous conditions just for them. (Disclaimer - that probably didn't happen, but I stopped listening right around then, and I'm in full flow here).
OK, OK, voxpop finished. Can we go back to Cantwell in the studio? NO, Colette Fitzpatrick has returned with some airport official, repeating pretty much what we already know. The madness never stops.
Who knows, it was probably a slow news day. Maybe I'm just not impressed anymore by what other people view as very interesting, important stories. Or maybe I am right, and the coverage was beyond excessive?
Oh, and another thing....:
A news assignment as uncovered that someone is systematically targeting dogs in an Artane estate, by mixing rat poison with food, and throwing it over garden walls. How evil and despicable can you possibly be to try this?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
"Turn off that crap! Now Dizzee Rascal, there was an artist..."
The evolution of music is something that has baffled me ever since I became conscious of the phenomenon. Mozart, to the Beatles, to the Black Eyed Peas. Chopin, to the Rolling Stones, to Meshuggah. Berlioz, to the Beach Boys, to The Prodigy. Put in those terms, it's unbelievable isn't it?
I'm not sure about anyone else, but many times over the past few years I've had the music I listen to ridiculed by my parents as "noise". Their tastes include bands such as Dexie's Midnight Runners, Westlife and Madness, so that comes as no surprise to me when I'm blaring Devin Townsend at 1a.m. Yet, as I progress into manhood, I begin to wonder if I'm going to end up taking this attitude towards my own children's tastes.
Which then begs the question, how will music have advanced in twenty years time? Can metal get any heavier than it is? Can techno get any more annoying or less musical? I honestly cannot imagine a parent in twenty or thirty years time shouting up to their little sprog: "Turn off that crap!", while citing someone such as Dizzee Rascal as more musical than what the child is listening to. How is this possible unless the music they're listening to is just mechanical beeping?!
OK, I digress. I'm letting elitism seep in. But seriously, what is next? If we compare the Beatles to say, Lady Gaga as idols for respective generations, and then translate that another 40 years into the future, what exactly will we be hearing? Or have our generation heard all there is to hear? Has music changed so radically over the past decades that it really has nowhere else to go? Will our children be listening to pretty much what we're listening to, in complete contrast to the musical relationship between our generation and our parents?
I honestly can't imagine metal getting any heavier anyway. When a band like Sunn 0))) can get away with making entire albums out of low tuned drones and feedback (I'm not hating, I actually quite like them) it puts the whole question of musical progression into doubt.
However, up until now I've only been really speaking about periphery genres pushing their own boundaries. Pop music will probably always be around, not exactly reinventing itself completely but nevertheless generating (just about adequately) unique material as it trods along.
I can't really see music being that drastically different by time I'm the uncool dad. In fact, I think some of the stuff I listen to at the minute will still be regarded as experimental at that stage.
I'll leave it up to you readers to think upon this; musical stagnation - good or bad?
I'm not sure about anyone else, but many times over the past few years I've had the music I listen to ridiculed by my parents as "noise". Their tastes include bands such as Dexie's Midnight Runners, Westlife and Madness, so that comes as no surprise to me when I'm blaring Devin Townsend at 1a.m. Yet, as I progress into manhood, I begin to wonder if I'm going to end up taking this attitude towards my own children's tastes.
Which then begs the question, how will music have advanced in twenty years time? Can metal get any heavier than it is? Can techno get any more annoying or less musical? I honestly cannot imagine a parent in twenty or thirty years time shouting up to their little sprog: "Turn off that crap!", while citing someone such as Dizzee Rascal as more musical than what the child is listening to. How is this possible unless the music they're listening to is just mechanical beeping?!
OK, I digress. I'm letting elitism seep in. But seriously, what is next? If we compare the Beatles to say, Lady Gaga as idols for respective generations, and then translate that another 40 years into the future, what exactly will we be hearing? Or have our generation heard all there is to hear? Has music changed so radically over the past decades that it really has nowhere else to go? Will our children be listening to pretty much what we're listening to, in complete contrast to the musical relationship between our generation and our parents?
I honestly can't imagine metal getting any heavier anyway. When a band like Sunn 0))) can get away with making entire albums out of low tuned drones and feedback (I'm not hating, I actually quite like them) it puts the whole question of musical progression into doubt.
However, up until now I've only been really speaking about periphery genres pushing their own boundaries. Pop music will probably always be around, not exactly reinventing itself completely but nevertheless generating (just about adequately) unique material as it trods along.
I can't really see music being that drastically different by time I'm the uncool dad. In fact, I think some of the stuff I listen to at the minute will still be regarded as experimental at that stage.
I'll leave it up to you readers to think upon this; musical stagnation - good or bad?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
John Terry and his cheating: Why no one should care
Apparently, John Terry has cheated on his wife/partner/girlfriend/whatever she is to him. I heard this on the grapevine. Through the subtle and tasteful network of information that is the weekend tabloids (...), we have been informed of this, then slapped across the face with it, beaten over the head with it, and had its sorry, unimportant arse rubbed in our faces. And for what reason?
SO WHAT!? I genuinely feel sorry for people who find this kind of garbage news interesting enough to warrant frontpage coverage, with follow up stories and way too many inches of comment articles from loudmouth journalists over the course of the week, that have taken to this with dispicable glee.
And I've rarely been more infuriated when reading a newspaper than when I read the two cents of Terry Prone (Evening Herald, 3rd February). It's bad enough that there was yet MORE coverage of an ENGLISH football player in an IRISH tabloid (that wasn't the sports pages), but when Prone began to condone this kind of coverage and analysis of something that really should be kept private, my letter-of-complaint writing hand began to itch quite badly.
It was as if this event is something monumental, not just in the world of tabloid journalism but also in the sporting world, which anybody knows is pure bull. As a sports journalist myself, I know that when I'm reporting on a match or commenting on a player's ability, I certainly do not delve into his private life (apart from the possible one use of the horrible "playing offside" joke in passing), yet Prone seems to think that sports journalists gloss over private lives of sports professionals in fear of not getting an exclusive interview. Absolute madness.
She then shakes her head in disapproval because he is the England team captain, and he is an idol for millions of young English footballers. He shouldn't cheat because these kids will learn to copy him.
Did she stop to think for one second that the very thing she was doing was adding fuel to that fire? These young footballers would never hear ANYTHING about Terry cheating if the tabloids had eased up on the coverage, and the sports journalists focussed purely on the football side of things (which in most cases, they did).
I'm beginning to get the feeling that every woman feels personally insulted when a public male figure cheats on his wife. I can't remember the last time there was as much furore over a female celebrity cheating on her husband. Well, I'll be waiting in the wings with bated breath and keen interest to see how the media reacts to this next case of this.
SO WHAT!? I genuinely feel sorry for people who find this kind of garbage news interesting enough to warrant frontpage coverage, with follow up stories and way too many inches of comment articles from loudmouth journalists over the course of the week, that have taken to this with dispicable glee.
And I've rarely been more infuriated when reading a newspaper than when I read the two cents of Terry Prone (Evening Herald, 3rd February). It's bad enough that there was yet MORE coverage of an ENGLISH football player in an IRISH tabloid (that wasn't the sports pages), but when Prone began to condone this kind of coverage and analysis of something that really should be kept private, my letter-of-complaint writing hand began to itch quite badly.
It was as if this event is something monumental, not just in the world of tabloid journalism but also in the sporting world, which anybody knows is pure bull. As a sports journalist myself, I know that when I'm reporting on a match or commenting on a player's ability, I certainly do not delve into his private life (apart from the possible one use of the horrible "playing offside" joke in passing), yet Prone seems to think that sports journalists gloss over private lives of sports professionals in fear of not getting an exclusive interview. Absolute madness.
She then shakes her head in disapproval because he is the England team captain, and he is an idol for millions of young English footballers. He shouldn't cheat because these kids will learn to copy him.
Did she stop to think for one second that the very thing she was doing was adding fuel to that fire? These young footballers would never hear ANYTHING about Terry cheating if the tabloids had eased up on the coverage, and the sports journalists focussed purely on the football side of things (which in most cases, they did).
I'm beginning to get the feeling that every woman feels personally insulted when a public male figure cheats on his wife. I can't remember the last time there was as much furore over a female celebrity cheating on her husband. Well, I'll be waiting in the wings with bated breath and keen interest to see how the media reacts to this next case of this.
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Internet: A Breeding Ground of Ignorance and Hatred
Anybody with even the vaguest experience of a Youtube comments page will know what I'm talking about already. That user that writes walls of text with incorrect grammar, that uses words and phrases like "fag" and "that sucks" like a young teen uses Kleenexes....when he has a terrible cold. Or how about that other user that cannot get it through his impenetrable skull that, oh no, God forbid, somebody has a differing opinion to him about a particular issue/band/song/whatever it may be.
These sad, lonely individuals hide behind the anonymity and facelessness afforded by the internet, and in a way, provides an insight into how a lot of individuals are underneath the facade they construct to hide the qualities they feel will hamper them in life, such as their baffling intolerance and borderline hatred to anything that doesn't conform to their view of the world.
For the purposes of this post, I'm doing a little bit of research. I typed in Linkin Park and clicked on the first video I found (I love them, but they generally get a lot of hate). Sure enough, about twenty comments down, I come across "fuck this song". Three words, no elaboration on the comment or any sign of tolerance towards others opinions. It's as if, in this person's own little world, it is plain fact that the song in question is awful, and there can be no debate about it. To quote a very wise man, it really "grinds my gears".
Another angle I took while researching was a classic cleavage filled with tension and controversy, American politics. On one video, the user posted the following in the info box: "I had stopped the comments on this video for many reasons, for example: racist rants, death threats, calling out for murder". (I'll take the user's word for it, considering there's thousands of posts). But is this not an awful sign of what we're really like? When the reins are loose, when we're allowed the luxury of pure free speech without consequence or the possibility of it being traced back to us, we are animals. The fact that people would make death threats over differing political views is truly shocking.
As a journalist, I often wonder also how easy it for people like this to get their views onto a pedestal more public and accessible than Youtube. It really is a simple matter of copying and pasting from Youtube, correcting all grammar mistakes, capitalising where appropriate, removing any expletives that will give them away as the immature, spoilt brats they are, and, hurrah, they have an opinion column on some random website. And of course, it being the internet, these distorted, warped, hateful views of our world will probably appear somewhere in, oh I don't know, a college essay, or serious publication, citing this verbal vomit as fact. False information has been posted on the internet before for experimental purposes, which has in turn been posted, so what's to say the opinions and spewings of these nutcases could be misconstrued as fact?
Everyone loves the internet, for a variety of (sometimes private, best left alone) reasons, but the dangerous mixture of unlimited free speech, anonymity, and ease of publishing information has lead to it becoming largely a dangerous concoction of distorted facts and extremist opinions, that only serves to spread all of this around until nobody really knows what the truth is.
A half an hour examination of comments pages and forums about anything, from politics to porn, will prove this, and will really make you fear for the future of humanity..
These sad, lonely individuals hide behind the anonymity and facelessness afforded by the internet, and in a way, provides an insight into how a lot of individuals are underneath the facade they construct to hide the qualities they feel will hamper them in life, such as their baffling intolerance and borderline hatred to anything that doesn't conform to their view of the world.
For the purposes of this post, I'm doing a little bit of research. I typed in Linkin Park and clicked on the first video I found (I love them, but they generally get a lot of hate). Sure enough, about twenty comments down, I come across "fuck this song". Three words, no elaboration on the comment or any sign of tolerance towards others opinions. It's as if, in this person's own little world, it is plain fact that the song in question is awful, and there can be no debate about it. To quote a very wise man, it really "grinds my gears".
Another angle I took while researching was a classic cleavage filled with tension and controversy, American politics. On one video, the user posted the following in the info box: "I had stopped the comments on this video for many reasons, for example: racist rants, death threats, calling out for murder". (I'll take the user's word for it, considering there's thousands of posts). But is this not an awful sign of what we're really like? When the reins are loose, when we're allowed the luxury of pure free speech without consequence or the possibility of it being traced back to us, we are animals. The fact that people would make death threats over differing political views is truly shocking.
As a journalist, I often wonder also how easy it for people like this to get their views onto a pedestal more public and accessible than Youtube. It really is a simple matter of copying and pasting from Youtube, correcting all grammar mistakes, capitalising where appropriate, removing any expletives that will give them away as the immature, spoilt brats they are, and, hurrah, they have an opinion column on some random website. And of course, it being the internet, these distorted, warped, hateful views of our world will probably appear somewhere in, oh I don't know, a college essay, or serious publication, citing this verbal vomit as fact. False information has been posted on the internet before for experimental purposes, which has in turn been posted, so what's to say the opinions and spewings of these nutcases could be misconstrued as fact?
Everyone loves the internet, for a variety of (sometimes private, best left alone) reasons, but the dangerous mixture of unlimited free speech, anonymity, and ease of publishing information has lead to it becoming largely a dangerous concoction of distorted facts and extremist opinions, that only serves to spread all of this around until nobody really knows what the truth is.
A half an hour examination of comments pages and forums about anything, from politics to porn, will prove this, and will really make you fear for the future of humanity..
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A country going backwards
On the 1st January 2010 the new blasphemy law came into effect in this country. It outlines that a person can be fined up to €25,000 by the State for saying anything "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion".Naturally there is global outcry over this mind-boggling law that is a throwback to the middle ages. In the age of free speech it's an appalling step backwards.
Let's not assume for one minute that I think hardened atheists should be swanning around spewing hatred and insults to the religious folk out there, upsetting them as they go. This isn't acceptable in any walk of life, not just with regard to religion. And neither do I for a minute think this will ever be enforced on any meaningful or consistent basis, as unless someone writes a blasphemous statement down and exhibits it to the public, I can't really see our Gardai ever catching anyone.
Anyway, what was Justice Minister Ahern thinking when he introduced this bill? It was clearly high on his list of priorities, in a year when gang violence terrorised neighbourhoods and towns across the country. His priorites beggar belief. According to a post by the group Atheist Ireland on Blasphemy.ie, "Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at U.N. level." This could conceivably open the floodgates for similar laws to be introduced in other countries around the world and, more frighteningly, for bodies such as the EU to adopt them and enforce them on member states.
As I've said already, the scope for proper prosecution with this bill is slim, considering that real crime is rampant and it would be very hard to catch someone being blasphemous, but the principle behind it is worrying. Have we as a nation instigated something worldwide?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
