November 2008 Archives

'There are many who are still surprised by the differences in today's children from when they were younger'

"CONSIDERING the graphs of Y = X2 -1 and Y = 1 + √x, and the line Y = X, show that the solution of the equation X2 - 1 = 1 + √x is X = 1/2( 3 + √5 )." This is the point at which a parent, looking at their child's homework, frowns and decides to put the kettle on.

There is the common conception that today's kids are terrorising residents by standing on street corners and poking frail grannies with sticks before mugging them. But, the chances are, they're at home studying the Franco-Prussian War, mastering particle physics or becoming fluent in 23 languages.

The 11-Plus exam has been axed as the last 15,000 pupils in Northern Ireland sat the grammar school entrance tests last week. It has been suggested that the test causes children to feel like "failures" at the age of 11.

There are many parents who, when realising that they can't help their 8-year-old with quadratic equations, seize the moment and start reciting their times tables that they learned parrot-fashion while being smacked with the cane on every prime number back in 1974.

There's something, perhaps satisfactory, in listing the times tables by parents to their children because they know their children don't actually know them. But they don't need them. They have calculators and they know you don't get into NASA's space program from knowing 6 x 6 = 36.

There are many who feel that today's exams are much easier for students than when they were at school. But that all depends if you think being able to recite your 19 times tables is actually; 1. maths and 2. going to amount to anything.

The mobile phones that we use today, the televisions we watch and the pills we take when we are ill did not come from someone with a degree in knitting who knows the capital of Botswana.

There are many who are still surprised by the differences in today's children from when they were younger. While today's 11-year-olds are going on school trips to Science Centres, studying rock formations on the coast, or going in a rocket with the whole of class 6E to see what the Earth looks like from space, there are many who probably remember waiting at the bus stop with a woolly hat and a Penguin Biscuit in their pocket, for the bus back from swimming lessons in 1978. Not really as exciting.

While those who were brought up to sleep in beds coated in lead-based paints, in an age without childproof lids on medicine bottles, and in a time when people thought it was fashionable to have a photograph taken standing next to their car with hair like someone from a Die Hard movie, many only had to worry whether they were going to play out till 8 or 9 O'clock. Today's generation have to worry about the financial crisis, polar bears dying horrible deaths in the Arctic, and being charged with treason for being in support of plastic bags.

And entertainment has also changed. While it may have been mildly interesting to have played with string and mud in the past, today's generation won't touch anything that doesn't have to be plugged in and that doesn't involve shooting virtual people in the face.

And while the Enid Blyton's Famous Five amused previous generations, the children today bought up on Harry Potter; who's stories involve magic, danger and death probably won't enjoy them. Unless they were updated to involve wizards, wands and or something exciting like the murder of an international drugs baron.

"It's the weekend already!" exclaimed Julian, "And I've just heard that smugglers have been seen sailing towards the island! It looks mighty exciting! Shall we investigate?"

"Shut up," said George. "And move your ass out the way of the TV, we're on the last level of Hit and Run Whores 2008 and then we've got some more quantum physics questions to do before bed!"

'It's not the fact that McDonald's are sponsoring the Olympics that's making everyone fat'

WHEN, in the supermarket, we read the back of food packaging and see that "E128, E102, hemlock, and cyanide" is written just above "may contain traces of bleach", we are divided in opinion. Some of us obviously think: "Hmmm... does this really need to be in a packet of crisps?" And some of us must think: "Ooooh! Buy one get one free!"

It's not only the fact that a radioactively luminous boiled sweet causes children to sing "I know a song that will get on your nerves" down your ear canal, scream "I hope you die!" loud enough for the neighbours to hear while the bathroom window's open, and write "Everybody hates me" on the wall in permanent marker; it seems the government are now suddenly concerned with the health risks posed by additives.

Ministers have agreed, this week, that if food manufacturers do not voluntarily phase out the additives, which the Food Standards Agency asked them to stop using earlier this year, they will pursue a ban through law.

Yet another item on the list of things to be banned.

Of course, the long-term effects of additives are unknown and while we don't want future generations to have two heads, fourteen ears and sound like Joe Pasquale, is it right to forge a slim, smoke-free, tofu-eating society by banning everything that is deemed to be bad?

The government have already banned junk food advertising between children's television shows and it was said last week that 80% of people think junk food advertising makes staying slim impossible. Although, this is more likely an excuse by fat people as to why they're still fat.

Blame it on the advertising.

This may make sense if people hadn't noticed that what you actually receive is never what is advertised.

The fast food you ordered, after looking at it on the poster, doesn't even slightly resemble what actually comes with your meal. Your fries are stale and cold, the chemicals in the fizzy drink are soaking a hole through the paper cup and your Super-Dooper-McBeef-Royale-Whopper burger looks like it's been trodden on by Queen Latifah.

But that's not all.

The debate into food companies sponsoring sporting events have also ignited a recent controversy. Cadbury's, McDonald's and Coca-Cola have already become official associates with the London 2012 Olympics. Carling put their name to the Football League Cup 5 years ago and surely, it should be that brands should be able to sponsor whomever they wish without state intervention.

If Carling wants to be associated with football, and Iceland want to be associated with old has-been "celebrities" sitting in urine in the jungle for the public's entertainment, they should, of course, be able too.

It's not the fact that McDonald's are sponsoring the Olympics that's making everyone fat.

That's just an idle excuse.

It's not even surprising the government gave up on criticising junk food companies who are sponsoring sports: "Welcome to the London 2012 Olympics - sponsored by celery," and "Welcome to the FA Cup Final - sponsored by Organic Whole Wheat Pasta," isn't going to work.

Unless the government come up with some decent, less intrusive and less totalitarian ways of changing people's lifestyles and eating habits, nothing's going to change.

There's even talk of free pedometers being issued to make sure everyone makes their 10,000 steps per day. But everyone already knows it's only 5 steps from the chair to the cupboard for a packet of crisps, 3 steps to the fridge for a chocolate bar, and then about 8 steps to the car.

'Is the strongest argument against democracy, listening to what the average member of the public has to say?'

There has been lots of talk over the last few days about what effect President-elect Barack Obama will have on Britain. People seem to be jumping for joy under the impression that Obama will part the Atlantic, walk straight into Westminster and suddenly sort out the world's problems as well. The global economy will correct itself, the Earth won't boil its way to a bitter end, and there will be no dog crap all over the pavement.

As the world reflects on the image of true democracy; a governmental system where representatives are chosen to embody into commandment the views of the electorate, regardless of social background, gender and colour - many have been asking whether the system we have in Britain is even democratic at all.

Of course, democracy is great. Every 4 or 5 years we get to decide which faction of elitists are going to call us fat, stupid, violent, and poor. If that isn't the defining pinnacle of an autonomous nation, what is?

We get to choose between people who think the population are obese because chocolate bars are placed at the checkouts instead of celery. Or those who think eco-towns are a good idea - where people can live in straw huts and jog to work at the local recycling plant while listening to Michael Jackson's Earth Song on their carbon-neutral MP3 player and be escorted by robins and blue tits in a terribly cheerful fashion.

Although, what about if we scrapped representative democracy? The democracy that thought it was representing the people when they sent the country to war, ensured there was a 48% Duty on fuel, and attempted to either tax or ban everything they could see.

But would it be any better with total democracy, where every issue was voted on by the electorate?

Or is the strongest argument against democracy, listening to what the average member of the public has to say?

Put the running of the country in the hands of the people. The voting system would soon follow a Big Brother-X-Factor style so people wouldn't have to bother going to a polling station:

"Would you like a national network of free chocolate to be piped to every house in the country? Text YES to 000666 if you agree with this proposal or text NO to 0064596827827998376478374918274672897648 if you disagree with this proposal. Texts cost £9.99 each. Lines close in 12 hours. Any votes made after this time will not be counted but you may still be charged or shot."

If this was the case there would also, of course, be no soldiers dying overseas. Fuel would be reduced to about 1p per litre, all cinema tickets would be free, and every Monday would become a bank holiday.

But Carol Vorderman would become Chancellor of the Exchequer, 24's Jack Bauer would be the new Defence Secretary and the new Foreigner Secretary, A Place In the Sun's Amanda Lamb, would be forced to make sure no one puts their towels on sun loungers at 4am when we're on holiday. And all people in Europe must now except, and not scoff, at British culture whilst on holiday: that is getting drunk at 5pm and spending the rest of the evening on our backs in a pile of vomit.

A new conflict would soon arise in international relations. A new battle would be waged with Greenland cos she looked at us funny. Belgium better run cos she called our Queen a tramp, Italy can watch out cos she said our hips look big in these jeans or somfink, and France better watch their back cos he's been disrespectin' us. Innit?

'...there are many people out there who aren't happy until they're angry'

FORTY-FIVE-THOUSAND people are said to be killed in the Congo every month, many pensioners can't afford to pay heating bills this Christmas, and people are being stabbed to death in the streets. Yet there are a certain number of people who still find the time and effort to call Ofcom and complain that Have I Got News For You is on the same time as Midsommer Murders and 'it's just not fair'.

When we hear that over thirty-thousand people have complained about comments made on a Radio 2 show; we imagine crazed, Dawn-of-the-Dead-style riots with angered townsfolk carrying pitchforks and firebombs on their way to Radio 2 studios to end this 'crime against humanity.'

And when the Prime Minister spontaneously takes a break from disillusioning the country to make an announcement, we would expect him to make a speech about ending child poverty or preventing knife crime. Instead, he condemns Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for 'inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour'.

Of course, the deplorable comments of Radio 2 presenters should bring the whole country to a standstill. The flag at Buckingham Palace should be flown at half-mast and Bob Geldof should organise a Brand Aid concert on account of Brand and Ross being placed on the Sachs Offenders Register. A necessary ministerial grumble if ever there was one.

Suddenly, thousands of people feel the need to complain about the childish answer phone messages. But, if any of those thirty-something-thousand complainers saw Andrew Sachs being beaten with a golf club in the street, they would probably find a really interesting particle of dust in the other direction.

Perhaps the situation wouldn't have been so challenging if the calls were made to the phone of another 'edgy' comedian. But Andrew Sachs? With his crossword-by-the-fire lifestyle and his pockets full of Werther's Original?

If people put even half of their complaining-effort into real issues affecting Britain; the economy, violent crime and war, we would be closer to finding solutions.

We accept bankers running off with our money, not being able to leave the house without getting mugged, and paramedics carrying body bags in our streets. But if Jeremy Clarkson comes on and makes a joke about prostitutes, he should be burned at the stake, or worse; be made to present Songs of Praise.

There were also several hundred complaints when ITV's Central Tonight announced plans to merge with the East Midlands broadcast.

However, those people who like their daily dose of inane, drip-fed regional television and have been complaining about the merger, will be glad to hear that; instead of having overweight diplomats of free-thinking mindsets wearing 'Save our school' t-shirts on news bulletins in Birmingham, we will soon be having the Melton Mowbray equivalent counterparts fighting to save a school sixty miles away. Oh great.

Whilst we must admire the deep sincerity of local news television, (placing a story about a soldier killed fighting for his country between a feature regarding a cat who's swallowed a ping pong ball and a middle aged woman who's entering a pie-eating contest to raise money to have her sister's bunion removed), it may not always be the most informative news medium.

Yet people complain when they think they won't be able to watch it any more. 'It's an infringement of our civil liberties.'

Let's face it, councillors with the personality and intellect of a frying pan talking about new 'cost-effective' recycling plants, have never really been the cutting-edge of regional broadcasting.

You wouldn't really think the country's in a recession and at war overseas. You wouldn't even think we've witnessed the end of the biggest and most expensive presidential election result in history. It seems that there are many people out there who aren't happy until they're angry. Complaining about trivial issues when there are bigger things at hand only ends up in the same old situation where it's usually the wrong heads that roll...