Warning: Some readers may find the following ideas disturbing.

I have to confess that I am completely unsurprised by the death of the two journalists in America. I believe the saying goes: “Give enough monkeys enough guns and enough cameras and you’re bound to get a live televised atrocity eventually” or something similar so, no, I’m not shocked in the slightest. It’s just another gun horror in America and yet another reason for the idiots on the right to stand up and deny the correlation between gun ownership, gun access and gun deaths. As Donald Trump said “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental problem” and, for once, I agree with him; there is clearly something wrong within a society when people feel the need to kill and maim each other on a regular basis. We only differ in this instance because I believe arming the homicidal, disgruntled, disaffected and downright stupid will lead to death and Donald et al don’t see it that way.
It’s a topic I’ve covered a multitude of time and I won’t belabour the point because no matter how much one tries to reason with these idiots you simply can’t argue with someone who thinks he needs to be armed to repel the invaders.
I’m not sure if it’s Cuba, Canada or Mexico planning this armed invasion, but, apparently you can never be too safe in the US of A.
There are 3 deaths an hour from firearms in the US, so I’m not surprised and I’ve come to the conclusion that they, Americans, clearly want to kill each other and I’m tired of trying to convince them to stop. Let’s just skip it and move on to “The Sun” and other Murdoch group newspapers.
I genuinely thought the Murdoch group had sunk as low as it could with the phonehacking scandal, but, no, I was wrong.
I once wrote a piece about the sensationalist and gory turn the news had taken. How once, horrors were described and the public protected from the “trauma” of witnessing the carnage, but, now our base instinct to “see for ourselves” is exploited to sell newspapers with little regard to morals or ethics. Last week it was the graphic images of the Shoreham aircrash and another new nadir had been reached, but, displaying unrivalled dedication to setting new benchmarks it hasn’t taken long for them to plumb yet deeper depths as today the Murdoch group published pictures of the moment the young journalist in Virginia was shot.
To add to the sensationalist nature of the front page and maximise the opportunity presented to them they published an image from the camera being held by the killer; a “point of view” image with the gunman’s hand visible in the shot. It looks just like a video game… Most of the papers who chose to publish this image chose the moment when a fine mist of blood is visible erupting from the fatally wounded young woman, but, The Sun, to be unique, chose the moment when there was muzzle flash in shot.
Lined up at the newsagents the assembled front pages made a wonderfully graphic greeting, a series of stills that together made a stop motion film of another human’s moment of death.
I’d like to say “Well done!” to them all; they’ve set a new standard for being amoral and unethical whores whose favourite practice is pimping the dead to sell a few more papers, to receive a few more hits and, of course, make a bit more money.
I believe I shouldn’t have to protect my young children from seeing the front page of the newspapers and yet they, the Murdoch Group and their ilk, display an overwhelming need to publish disaster porn to entice and titillate those customers whose curiosity outweighs their resilience and morality. I suggest that if they really feel the need to publish such images then they should be forced put the rag out wrapped in a black plastic bag with only the brand-name visible, like they do with all the other pornography. Actually, if I’m honest, I’d far rather my child saw a vagina than a murder, but, maybe it’s just me… Maybe I’m the one who’s out of touch; Maybe, I am out of step with modern times; Maybe, I’m simply mad? I still think grief is private, not an opportunity, but, I fear the majority wouldn’t agree with me.
They, the people who make up the market, seem to have an endless and voracious appetite for tragedy and are supported by many who believe censorship of any sort to be the first sign of totalitarianism and to be fought against with all the fervour they can muster and to hell with the collateral damage.
If the populace didn’t want to lap it up then they wouldn’t and the papers wouldn’t sell, the images and videos wouldn’t attract so many hits and the paper would be out of business pretty quick as people wouldn’t buy something that repulsed them with the content and/or the editorial policy. I must conclude, based on the evidence, that it is absolutely what the market wants.

Does one fight this apparent truth or choose to profit from it?
If we are giving the market what it wants and living in times where everything must be seen, everyone wants to be famous and death sells then why should I fight it?
Shorn of my burdensome morals what could I do?
Well, without the inconvenient voices of the dual angels, conscience and ethics, I have had me an idea, an idea loudly championed by the demons of greed and avarice:
Let’s give more Americans more guns!
Let’s also give out cameras to anyone who doesn’t already have one, free ammunition and then ramp up their paranoia levels and financially “incentivize” these fucking idiots to just kill each other and make sure they do it on camera.
No death should be a wasted death, an unprofitable death, so we scoop up all the footage and broadcast it on a dedicated channel, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!
We can have nightly round ups, hourly bulletins, twitter accounts telling people where the latest tragedy is happening so they can get down to film it… We can drag Jon Stewart out of retirement to present a humourous roundup of the funniest deaths complete with “looney-tunes” style sound effects!
I’m seeing holiday specials, theme shows and more: Imagine if next time the stock market crashes instead of investors and traders killing themselves in a cowardly and selfish manner, there was a way for them to raise some final revenue, some security for their loved ones and to go out in blaze of glory and who can think of a better way than by killing your co-workers in a psychotic rage, filming it and leaving the rights to your footage with your family as a nest egg. Bankers, traders and a hail of bullets… That would make a truly popular special.
Think about the integrated marketing opportunities and multiple revenue streams; think how much profit could be generated through a betting application allowing the public to get involved when some lost soul goes on a rampage!
People could bet on any and all outcomes; spread betting on the number killed or duration of rampage would be just the start! Bets could be taken on every conceivable scenario: if the shooter lives or dies, will they be shot or tasered, will they be taken down by authorities or a “have a go hero” looking for their own five minutes of fame?! I think I’m just scratching the surface of this modern media, multi-platform goldmine… Stream the whole lot to televisions via digital receiver, cable or Xbox, have apps for all tablets and smartphones so nobody need miss a minute of action and access to all content on all platforms for a simple monthly subscription fee.
Factor in the interactive betting app and I swear it’s got all the hallmarks of a real money spinner, all this incredible opportunity needs now is the backing and support from a practically soulless and ethically challenged billionaire whose greed and disregard for the rest of humanities’ value outweighs any hint of ethicality…
Come on Messrs Murdoch, this is clearly the wet fucking dream of opportunities, let’s talk share dividends and an executive producer’s salary.

I do wish someone had interviewed Ole Gee Dubya.

From the first moment I heard a plot synopsis for the movie “The Interview” I was concerned. I was a little unsure that I had heard correctly and that this was to be a film in which a sitting world leader was to be assassinated for the greater good of comedy.
Now, I want to make it clear form the start that I’m no fan of Kim Jong Un in the same way I wasn’t exactly a fan of Kim Jong Il.
In my mental filing and categorisation system the Kim Jong dynasty is filed away into the draw marked “Best eradicated” along with Ebola, Aids, the Bush family, Republicans and sprouts!
(you really don’t want to get me started on my hatred for those evil, mutant cabbages or about sprouts)

So, as I said, not a fan. I think the whole family needs toppling and hope that one day Korea will be reunited and the South can shine some light on the darkest corners of the North. Or, just supply the poor North Koreans with some food so they’re not starving.

I’m also, on the whole, not a fan of either Seth Rogen or James Franco, but, they’re not in quite the same category… They’re in with things like herpes. Something that won’t go away but you can live with it and whilst it causes some irritation it’s probably not going to kill you.

With the pair’s latest offering, however, I feel they have truly crossed a line of taste and basic human decency. I cannot quite explain why the cinematic portrayal of the fantasy assassination of a sitting leader of a foreign power, even one whom I despise and would not object to being actually assassinated, drums up such outrage, yet, it does.

There was recently a film in which the Americans had a bit of a war with some Chinese. It was called red war or dawn or line or something equally generic. They, the makers, producers, etc. then thought about the consequences of potentially offending the government and people of the worlds largest growing economy, an economy that holds 1 in 5 of the worlds population and they sensibly swapped everything over to portray the villains as North Korean.
Now, from the depths of imagination, comes this piece in which Kim Jong Un must be killed.
I have tried very hard to find another figure to substitute for the unfortunate Un which Sony pictures would find also acceptable as pariah and deserved victim of a death on the big screen without success.
Try it for yourself, is there another living figure who it would be acceptable to assassinate on celluloid? Even Osama was shot before they shot his shooting.

Americans are lining up outside cinemas to see this film and I’m certain this pattern will be followed across Europe, though to a lesser extent, but, what if it were Obama or Cameron? Well, they inherited wars so, what if it were Tony Blair or George Bush as the victim? Despite the many deaths their actions have caused we’d still be lining up outside the cinema that’s for certain, but, forming lines of protest against such a grotesque plot not lines for tickets.

If a film came from Iran in which the next Republican leader of the United States became the target of an Arabian peninsula plot that forced two journalists of historical Persian descent to assassinate the US President, the self-termed “leader of the free world”, to prevent any more unsanctioned invasions of Muslim lands there’d be riots in the streets and perhaps congress would even authorise a light spot of retaliatory bombing.

What if Palestinian film-makers produced a movie in which Netanyahu must be murdered?
Do you think that’s going to go on general release, be reviewed in the Guardian and on BBC world or would Palestinians again find themselves cowering under tables and doorways as the heavens opened and explosives rained down?

There is always an accepted line drawn between fact and fiction and rules on their mixing.
Using real people, in fake scenarios without their express permission has always been a no-no. This is no cameo or walk on; this is a central role for a living figure in a work of fantasy in which they are “justifiably” murdered.
Really, can it be anything other than unethical, immoral, misguided and antagonistic?
Is the release of this film an indication of where American standards have slipped to and indicative of the complete lack of conscience now being shown in the business practices of giant corporations.
Or am I just living in the wrong century?

Maybe I should make a film in which a crazy foreign dictator decides to sue one of the worlds largest entertainment corporations in US court for the hurtful and malicious portrayal of him in a film. He will give statement as to how much emotional pain he has suffered and how the worldwide attention has scarred him on a deep emotional level.
A movie where, thanks to the oddities of US law, the dictator wins with such a huge award that he finds himself in control of said entertainment powerhouse and sets about making a series of cheerful musicals deifying himself and his family.

He goes on to appoint himself ‘Great and Eternal President for life’ of the company, that being a position for the life of the company, one he’ll hold even after his own death and he sires many strong handsome male children.
The film ends when he fulfils a lifetimes ambition by becoming the third judge on X-factor renowned for his benevolent childish face and his humourous method of feeding the worst contestant each week to a pack of dogs.

Brad, Damon, Chun-Yow, you guys call me, ok? Let’s make it happen.

I’m sure we all saw Jurassic Park, didn’t we?

Michael Crichton is one of my favourite authors and I feel my life and society as a whole became a little poorer when he passed.
One recurring theme in his work is the constant question of moral and ethical responsibility versus scientific advance and often the question was phrased thus:
“just because we can do something, does that mean we should?”

Today I made a comment on facebook, as I often do, but, I thought I’d present these thoughts here and with Michael Crichton forefront in my mind…

The topic for discussion was, with regard to drones: “What technological advances will bring in the next 15 years, and how drone strikes in Iraq might be harder than in Pakistan or Afghanistan.”

It led me to these thoughts:
Before we discuss the possible technical advantages and technological advances that could stem from using drones again in Iraq and the question as to whether or not there would be greater difficulties in using drones in Iraq as opposed the mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, perhaps there should be a place for discussing the morality of drone strikes.
Is it better that taking another human life now comes with no cost to the human soul?
Is it right that the destruction of a human life has been reduced to the point where it’s almost as guilt free as destroying a pixelated console character?

When soldiers return from war, soul stained with the cost of taking human life, they become the leaders of tomorrow with first hand knowledge of and understanding of the immeasurable cost of war. I believe they go on to use this hard won wisdom to ensure diplomacy is sought and war is a very last resort.

I don’t believe this holds as true with pilots, but, I’m certain it’s the case with infantry. The closer you are to the frontline the greater the psychological impact.

I suspect that was why we enjoyed such a sustained period of peace after world war two. Two generations had experienced war on an unheard of scale, every family suffered loss and those who survived were determined not to see it happen again. The generation in power now never went to war, just heard tale of “the glory of war” and want some of that for themselves. They measure the cost of war in dollars or pounds not in lives lost or ruined.
They don’t know of the horror as they never experienced it.
None of this can happen when war is conducted by drone, as is illustrated by pilots, when one is removed from the consequence it has a diminished psychological effect.

Where’s is the disincentive to warmonger when you only need, through propaganda, to convince your electorate that a danger is presented by a second party and that they are the enemy, heathens, barbarians who act like savages, hate YOU.
When war can be launched with such ease and the surefire knowledge there will be no human casualties on your side of the line, is that a good thing?
Is that actually for the greater good?
Would some sacrifice not be better?

The moral and ethical risks are more important than the technology benefits and just because we can wage war by drone, does that necessarily mean we should?