My spirit animal

I will preface that it's taken me a while to come to the realisation that Charlie Brooker is my spirit animal. He is pensive, introspective, industrious and, for the liberal lavishing of icing on top of this steadfast foundation, he also has a good command of the language. It is nice to find someone else who skewers cultural devolutions and hypocrisies with such a driven consistency.

He first entered my consciousness at the point where I was first discovering Doug Stanhope - and much to my chagrin, some of his best bits came as a result of this unholy tryst (although I don't really mind - I just wanted more gold to be mined from Doug). Charlie was able to give me Doug and I was happy. Initially I wrote Charlie off as merely a TV host with nothing more to say than the words he read from the teleprompter. But I was wrong. Interestingly his views on film almost always aligned with mine. It was nice that he thought in a similar way to me and had similar views to me. But similarities do not mean you are the same entity.

His next notable foray was when he created Black Mirror which (I came to realise) is a series of disconnected episodes which almost always had a strong commentary on societal disconnects or the superficial, vapid desires which make up our culture today. But it all started with the first episode. I didn't like it, which was a problem. I was under the misconception that the next episode would follow on chronologically from this - and unfortunately I didn't enjoy the setting. But then, months later, I gave it another go and, lo and behold, the next episode was completely different ... and it was actually good (well, to my taste). This was my in - my gateway into bingeing everything else. I also realised that this Brooker fella couldn't be pigeon-holed (outside of having intelligence and high production values). Each episode was a present, waiting to be unwrapped - and then immediately tossed away. Watching on Netflix makes even great content disposable but the good shows still resonate in your subconscious even if they have seemingly been forgotten. Which brings me to my review of the latest season of Black Mirror.

Would you believe that a season could be as short as three? Nor did I but I don't mind. It had notable stars and very high production value (I would estimate at least 20 million per episode) but overall I was a little disappointed. The first episode was a bit bubble gum and a little too on the nose, with the evil music producer commoditizing a burned out pop star - and a cutesy CG robot doll. It was too meandering and not as subversive compared to the earlier seasons. The second episode was good, following the story of two old friends connecting through an innocent VR fighting game. It posed some pertinent questions which still resonate in my subconscious - even if I wish they wouldn't. Then we have the paint-drying hostage negotiation story with some bludgeoned-in cues around the evils of social media which is a little annoying. All in all I think Brooker is running out of cool ideas to pose. Perhaps it was just that he was contractually obligated to deliver a season and was forced to throw out a few B-roll ideas. I can't blame him, though - it's just that I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get more scathing social commentary. For those of you who haven't, check out Black Mirror - and stick through the episodes you don't like because I can guarantee that at least a few episodes (and, dare I say it, seasons) will stick with you - even if you don't enjoy them directly.

It seems so obvious

Now, unless you've been on under a rock for quite a while, you would probably know that the weather hasn't been aligning with our expectations and is trending ever-warmer as this animation shows pretty effectively. Naturally, people are getting exasperated because they're towing the line by, you know, recycling and driving a hybrid and buying locally-sourced food stuffs and cycling and using reusable shopping bags and ... But that is not enough. The smoking gun is not your living habits.

It's pretty simple because it's a just a game of numbers. If each person on average produces 200 kilos of carbon a year, if you translate that over the rest of the world, that results in 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon being generated each year. So, whether you're able to reduce your own impact to 25% of the average, as a whole, that doesn't make a lick of difference. So, that really isn't a solution as third-world countries are industrializing, our average environmental footprint is set to go up.

Then there's the projection which states that by 2050 the world's population will balloon to almost 10 billion people. Let that sink in. So, really, your altruistic desires to save the dolphins are not going to have much of an effect on the world's problems. Even David Attenborough is of the belief that we're heading towards our own demise. Simple factors like clean water, sufficient fuel, sufficient food become a much tougher balancing act when you have 10 billion people to satisfy. The other problem is that we are trending towards an aging population. How long will it be until the governments impose an age limit and start weeding out the oldies? Or possibly imposing a military mandated one-child policy? As the Aztecs can attest, at some point the land will reach the physical limit of what it can provide and result in cataclysmic famine.

The simple solution is to follow the great Doug Stanhope's message of love and acceptance (very NSFW) or make friends with the venerable Mad Max. Enjoy!

A reverse-swing in-seam

Well, it's official: The former Top Gear team now have a name for their Top Gear 2.0, namely: The Grand Tour. Maybe a little underwhelming as a name choice, yes ... but, if you break it down, it makes sense. 

A lot of cars have 'GT' on the end of their names, there's a Grand Touring race which usually involves a relatively long cross-country drive, GT is the reverse of TG (or Top Gear) ... and, for most people, the most entertaining parts of Top Gear are usually the Grand Tours through various regions of the world.

Personally, I think the move to Amazon was the right one. Considering the incessant censorship and back-pedaling they needed to do to remain on the air (mostly due to Clarkson), it only seems right that they move over to the Wild, Wild West of streaming. What was once restrictive is now seemingly free of the shackles of government-regulated content. I think this is brilliant. There is no longer a need to replace bleeps for their blasts and, quite possibly, we are in for even more unruly views on the goings on of past wars ... and I can't wait. As long as hate speeches don't become de rigeur, I don't mind a little tasteless humour to go with my affinity for Doug Stanhope and other gutter-dwellers.

The energy in profit

I've always been pissed off at the backwards way in which energy is generated and stored.

'Yeah. Let's burn some stuff, let the resulting expansion turn a piston to turn a crank to power a dynamo (or whatever)'

Even in the most advanced power plants like Nuclear, energy is still generated in the most elementary of ways; i.e. turn a crank and store the energy in a technology that was created over 150 years ago; commonly known as the battery. It's good to see someone actually thinking about energy in a way that is forward-thinking, rather than just changing the context of how the type of energy is sourced.

The video is compelling and covers some amazing things in the process. It sits on the border of magic, in relation to what carbon can do:

• Form a transparent flexible film
• Alternate between transparent and opaque through a small voltage pulse
• Transform infra-red radiation into visible light
• ..and finally, convert light into energy

His proposal is to extract the untapped energy inherent in the electrons that are contained in every element around us and agitated through sunlight. Just as I have believed for a long time, he believes in a 'grid-less power grid'. i.e. every household is its own energy generator and thereby avoids the large amount of energy lost in the process of travelling to your household. This has always horrified me and it should for you, too. Of course, this technology will never be used, because there's no profit to be gained from a market where the coal miners don't get their cut, the government don't get their cut and the power plants don't get their cut. It looks to be a solution; just not a solution that will ever see the light of day (get it). Of course, the best way of saving energy is to follow the doctrine set out by Mr Doug Stanhope - the sooner people realise they're destroying themselves, the sooner we'll see a real solution.

Grades of humour

This is a minor diversion into diagnosing why I like Doug Stanhope.  I'd probably rate him as an unexpected/rant comedian, which is graded pretty high on my categorisation of humour.

I'm not sure about you, but I find it hard to find something amusing.  There only seem to be a few categories of humour that I'm aware of:

Unexpected humour (highest)

I think that the best kind of humour is almost always related to a punchline you don't expect (obviously).  If you know what the joke is as soon as the story starts, there is nothing to amuse you once the punchline finally comes.  It's only funny if the unexpected punchline actually fits, otherwise it devolves into wacky.  Mr Doug - that's all I need to say.

Rant humour (high)

Rant humour is always interesting, as it usually relates to observational but has that angry tang that your brain so craves.  Everyone loves nothing better than a good rant.  Chris Rock is a classic example.  Very funny and mixes in a bit of unexpected, too.

Observational humour (average)

I think humour can also come from being able to relate to the joke - 'hey, I do that thing'.  If you can empathise with the pain or embarrassment of the person that is describing the situation, then you're half-way there to finding something to be amused about.  If they're able to twist a mundane situation on its head such that you see something that was once utilitarian in a completely different light, then mission accomplished.  The king of observational: Jerry Seinfeld.

One-liners (low)

Not a fan of this, unless it has a tinge of unexpected to it.  Steven Wright is probably the only one that I like, as his delivery is so good.  How can you not like a manic-depressive zoloft-popping poor excuse for a human being delivering lines with a degree of enthusiasm that would make an emo ask if he could lighten up a touch.

Wacky/novelty humour (lowest)

The lowest of the forms, although if it is somehow integrated with observational such that it is more of a social commentary, then it can elevate beyond the meagre baseline.  For example, Monty Python manages to improve to the likes of observational at their best.  Carrot Top is probably the worst, as his is pure novelty with one show that he's recycled for the last 20 years.

My dysfunctional hero

Mr Doug Stanhope: In my most coherent, eloquent, salient, antagonist-minded moment, I'd hope to be a tenth as capable as you.

He's a stand-up comedian, chronic drinker, drug user and a staunch believer in excess.  Or, as he calls it, excess in moderation.  He's also hilarious.

I find his mind amazing to follow.  He takes Zoloft and sleeping pills so he can sleep without his thoughts keeping him awake.  Sure, he's sensational (if you watch some of his stuff), but he is somehow able to twist this sensationalism in such a way that you can't help understanding his point.  He's like a current-day bene gesserit, able to use 'the voice' to sway your mind.

Even though the two of us don't appear very similar on the outside, I think we're almost the same.  His views are mine, his perspective is mine, his brain is mine.  The way we choose to handle the infliction caused by our thoughts is different, but the symptoms are the same.

Off topic ever so slightly:

Speaking of symptoms, watching TV in America is a depressing activity. I've seen this ad for a drug for depression called 'abilify' which, apart from hurting my brain at the double-speak-esque name, hurts my head in other ways.  This is an anti-depressant supplement. So if you are still depressed with your current anti-depressants, here's something that'll take you 'to eleven'.  But it's a small price to pay, as long as the symptoms are treated. Does anyone else see a problem with that previous sentence?


"Yeah you're fine - you got no symptoms!  You're great!  Now just repeat this treatment till you got no symptoms of life."


I'd like to think we're beyond the point of treating symptoms and actually looking at the cause, or is that being far too presumptuous? It then goes onto say that in some cases it can increase the chances of suicide, stroke, coma or death... I'm sorry.  Is this meant to help or just get you further along the path to your final demise?

Anyway, rant over - back to Doug.

I have a feeling that, despite his apparent excesses, he'll be another Keith Richards.  Where he, despite all probability, remains alive far beyond what should be clinically possible.  I think, ironically, he lives to spite himself.  It's a wonderful contradiction.

Here's a list of his 'cleaner' material:

Doug Stanhope on Media-generated Celebrity
Doug Stanhope on Fear in the US News Media
Doug Stanhope on Late Night US TV
Doug Stanhope on Saving the Planet

Anyway, Doug's an amazing comedian and he deserves at least a few minutes of your time.