Daily Star Columnist shows class (or lack thereof)

A columnist with the daily star has caused controversy by not only making light of Ricky Gervais and his weight loss, but by his remarks which stink of homophobia and a distinct lack of tact.
See below for said picture:


















I don't think I need to tell you that such a comment is wholly unncessary and careless.
I would write more but it's been done quite well elsewehere.

For example "The New Statesman:"

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/-3

And "Pink News:"

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/04/12/daily-star-columnist-if-ricky-gervais-was-gay-youd-think-he-had-aids/


For a larger picture on this Joe Mott idiot read Charlie Brookers excellent blog post on him:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/26/pressandpublishing.digitalmedia


That's all for now folks!

Cleggs war or Nepotism

Nick Clegg the deputy Prime Minister has dropped the ball, again.
He has said recently that internships given to people by family members are "unfair" and that he seeks to level the playing field. The word for this is "nepotism" which means:

"Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business."

or:

"Favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)"

I actually don't see a problem with nepotism but I'll come to that in the moment.
The major way in which Nick Clegg has has put his foot in it is by bringing this up and more or less declared war on nepotism. Except he was given an internship at the "United Trust Bank" whilst on a gap year because his father worked for that company, and because his father "had a word" with a friend who worked at a Finnish bank. Oops.

Now onto the concept of nepotism. Why do I think it is acceptable? Well I certainly don't think it is morally wrong. I have been helped by nepotism, because of nepotism I am in my current job. You could say my father also "had a word", from which a work experience position was created for me. Two a bit years on I am now a contracted worker. Does this make me biased? Well maybe but it doesn't cloud my judgement.
I think nepotism is good because if a person is struggling to find work no matter what background they come from, if you help a person out that you are related to or you know then you are first and foremost putting a person in employment. You are giving them a leg up.
I was in part time employment, had I not been giving the opportunity to work where I work now who knows where I would be. I might be working in part time retail or I might be unemployed.
I want to be clear that no-one lost out because of the opportunity I got. I did not get the job over someone else just because of nepotism, although a position it seems was created for me and for that I am forever grateful.

If you look at nepotism and it's definition it doesn't have to apply to just office jobs and high paid employment. Technically you could say if a builder gives his son work then that is nepotism. It works on many levels.
However it is obvious at which level Nick Clegg is aiming at here. He is obviously looking at the higher end of the scale where he seeks to drive such a practice out despite the fact that he got work experience because of it. He wants to increase the chances of the less fortunate getting employed that is fine. I agree with that, but doing so by waging war on those fortunate to know someone? That's just wrong
Just for the record I am only in favour of nepotism if it is harmless. I don't agree with it if someone who is more qualified loses out and doesn't get a job.

So in conclusion, nepotism isn't always bad and shouldn't be condemned across the board just for the sake of it, and Nick Clegg is a hypocrite and should think more carefully about his dreams of solving unemployment.


Links:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/clegg-labelled-a-hypocrite-after-nepotism-revelation-1.1094760

http://www.answers.com/topic/nepotism

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:nepotism&sa=X&ei=GoWcTYGJA9SZhQf_tZzOBg&ved=0CBYQkAE

Lehmann Sue's over Jibe

I may not be correct, but I am under the distinct impression that professional football players (or soccer players to our American cousins) are a bit soft. They dive at the first sign of contact and writhe on the floor looking for pity and attention until they get it and a free kick too.
Despite this I have been under the impression that goalkeepers are better. Not much just slightly, however I'd be wrong!
Jens Lehmann, the reserve goalkeeper who has only recently returned to the North London club is threatening to sue Werder Bremen keeper Tim Wiese because Wiese said Lehmann should go on the Muppet show. He said:

"He should go on the Muppet Show, That man should be on a couch. Maybe someone would be able to help him there. Commit him - best to an asylum."

Why did Wiese say that? Because Lehmann had criticized him heavily during a game between Wiese's team Werder Bremen, which is a German side, against Tottenham Hotspur, another London club.
Apparently Lehmann didn't like this retort and is now suing for £17,500 because he felt his "personal rights were violated."

Oh dear poor Jens Lehmann, were your feelings hurt? Is your ego bruised? Bless.
What's that famous phrase? Something about people in glass houses, throwing stones? Oh nevermind.

Source:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05042011/58/bundesliga-lehmann-suing-muppet-jibe.html

Anorexia in the Media

It is often that television programmes hit upon a touchy subject, but you don't often expect it from an popular TV animation.
"American Dad" is a fantastic cartoon, made by Seth McFarlane, the man who brought us "Family Guy." It is often well animated and well written and it proves to be very entertaining.
So imagine my surprise when in one episode they hit upon a tough subject: anorexia.
In the episode "The American Dad After School Special" Stan's son Steve starts dating a larger girl. When Stan finds out she is fat he is horrified and reacts badly which causes his wife and daughter to berate him claiming he is overweight.
You see Stan starting to do more and more exercise under the guidance of a personal trainer called "Zack." He also becomes quite paranoid that his family do not want him to lose weight and that they are injecting fat into his foods. Eventually under the instruction of Zack, Stan confronts his family at which point his family make him realise the truth. He isn't fat, he is in fact thin, and he is anorexic.
















He also realises that his personal trainer "Zack" is actually a hallucination. Once Stan realises he is anorexic "Zack" fades away for good.
The rest of the episode involves Stan going to an anorexia support group and his family trying to make him eat.


I was pleasantly surprised by this episode because I found it topical and not in the controversial way. They covered a tough subject in a way that wasn't insulting or patronising or obtuse, they showed the effects that anorexia has on an individual and those around them. I would like to think that amongst all the satire and comedy in "American Dad" and as well the brilliant story lines, there will be more stories like this because this is a good way to get through to some people. It is a good way to drive a point home, it is a good way to plant an idea and a thought into a persons mind.

To Seth McFarlane and the others who make "American Dad", I tip my hat to you!

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Dad_After_School_Special