Be Excellent To Each Other

Most people are probably aware of Russel Brand's latest endeavour, as guest editor of The New Statesman, which also lead to him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about his political beliefs and desire for revolution.
There has been a fair bit of criticism directed at him, although not from everyone as this Guardian article shows.

I think I first became aware of Russel Brand when he presented something, maybe something to do with Big Brother? Whatever it was, it wasn't something I watched and I didn't think he was the type of presenter or comedian that I found entertaining.
Then, he wrote a couple of articles which I enjoyed reading, including this one on Margaret Thatcher and this one about Amy Winehouse. I find his writing interesting, he makes good points and challenges ideas and he seems like he is quite thoughtful.

Has anyone else read what he's written recently? What do you think?

I enjoy reading his stuff on the whole, he is quite articulate and usually quite funny.

In the new statesmen article I agree with this part:


The most, and it would be nice to see the system overhauled. I just can't see it happening.

It's got to happen in too many different places at the same time for it to be meaningful.

Malc

Both of those are good articles...

Interesting reply to Mister Brand from Robert Webb (of Peep Show fame)

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/rus ... tion-there

Yes, much more sensible. Apart from being a Labour member, of course.

I've really enjoyed hearing and reading some of what Russell Brand has had to say of late, but that response by Robert Webb there practically made me want to stand up and offer a round of applause. And I don't generally like Webb, he gets on my tits somewhat.

That Rob Webb riposte is superb.

It's well written and says a lot of good stuff, but it is predicated on the belief that there is a political party out there that is worth voting for.

Only the belief that some are worth voting for because they aren't quite as scummy and self-serving as others.

Plus, if enough people care, and put their energy into a political party rather than apathy, they can change it for the better.

Would you like to be kicked in the left nut or the right nut?

But if you're definitely going to be kicked in one nut, then expressing a preference is probably a good idea.

But if you do that, then the nut kicker will believe that you liked being kicked in that nut, and continue doing it.

And by not stating a preference it shows that you don't care about either of your nuts and they'll choose which one to kick themselves.

This analogy is getting a little tired.

So the end result is, that no matter what you do, you still get kicked in the nuts.

Unless you make the effort to become the one in charge of kicking nuts.

And then exercise restraint.

I skim read a few paragraphs of his piece about Thatcher, seemingly leaping on the whole "there's no society" soundbite and building his entire assessment of her around that one thing (hideously and deliberately out of context also), to the exclusion of all else. So, that'll be the usual, childish amateur-leftie nonsense, then, more befitting of a wide-eyed 16-year old idealist in his sixth form common room, than a middle aged comedian I guess.

For me though, there is gross hypocrisy in lecturing Thatcher - a woman who steadfastly loved both country and family more deeply than most, as written very movingly in her own words in her superb bio - about a supposed "lack of love" and gleefully seizing upon her lonely old age, from a self-confessed serial philanderer who doesn't seem to love anyone or anything for more than 5 minutes, and whose dick must surely resemble a radioactive shower head by now? (Besides all of which, there was precious little "love" on the streets in the pre-Thatcher 70s and British society in general, I can assure him of that)

Sure there were the nasty, bitter haters celebrating her death, but they were vastly, vastly outnumbered by the huge crowds of perfectly ordinary British people (and many others abroad) of all political colours who genuinely mourned her passing. So in the end, then, there was plenty of love for her, from British society, and a damn sight more than will EVER be afforded to Messrs Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Balls and Miliband combined, upon their passing. That should tell you plenty, Brand - stick to what you're good at eh.

Pfft, honestly. What is it with all these leftie comedians-cum-pseudo wannabe politicians all of a sudden?

It all boils down to whether you want the nut-kicking boot to be state- or privately-owned.

Unlikely. You know what they say, the absolute nutkicker, nutkicks absolutely.

Good points cavester.

Thanks, man. I make them occasionally.

You always come, unlooked for out of left field, with completely barmy tribalism.


As for Brand's New Statesman article: Can't he use simpler words? I know the meaning of all of them, but I couldn't really understand what he meant most of the time. I guess that's why Webb talked about ambiguity on ambiguity.

Care to actually take issue with anything I said? I thought it was all pretty basic stuff and fair comment. When will you play the ball, not the man, when people say stuff you don't agree with, hmm? (Besides, it's really a bit rich to start accusing people of "barmy tribalism" comments regarding an article that you then immediately go on to say you don't understand, n'est pas?)

It's known as a "debate".

I'd rather not imagine Thatcher's genitals, so you win :/

All politicians are pricks, but the Tory party are hateful pricks.

Iain Duncan-Smith is the epitomy of casual evil.

I'm not sure if it's meant to be an affectation, perhaps some sort of intentional style choice, but I find he uses big words unnecessarily and it's a little jarring.

See also: Stephen Fry.