Genetically Modified Food vs. Emotionally Modified Arguments

Mentioning the phrase "GM foods" in the public arena has the uncanny ability to split, divide and sometimes even offend people. It is the new religion, it comes attached with a label that says "tread carefully" and as with religion it is probably not discussed enough because of this. What is more is that those against genetically modified foodstuffs have come under criticism for using ideologies and rhetoric much of the time to argue their point rather than clear headed thought and logic. Are you seeing the link?

Anti-GM, forget Scientology, Christianity or Islam, this is it the new theory built on very little factual evidence. In The Daily Telegraph today it was suggested that those against GM food 'are more motivated by "emotion" than "reasoned" argument' and that many are sceptical of science in general and not just this specific area.'

To me, being sceptical of science makes no sense at all, it is like being sceptical about the existence of people. Moreover, those who claim to be science sceptics I don't think really are. It is all very well saying there so but these people believe whole heartedly in science when they are watching television, flying at sixteen thousand feet or even reading the paper. Science is inescapable so it is not only invalid to be a science sceptic but meaningless, it is gobbledygook in the purest sense.

So it is not surprising that the same people use emotional language over rationality when discussing GM foods.  For the very nature of arguing something with reason is by employing science. At the abstract level you are employing philosophy but that is know as the father of science.

Therefore blurting out such a loaded phrase as "Frankenstein food" is utter nonsense. It bears no significance on the subject matter but simply attempts to concoct a sense of disgust and fear in relation to the subject matter. It is pure rhetoric utilised to persuade on no solid ground.

So what are the rational arguments that the opposite side possess? Well for starters, consider that genetically modifying food has been happening for thousands years in an indirect process. Long before the discovery of genes, in fact nearly as soon as the farming profession began, people realised that breeding the big fat juicy tomatoes produced many more of a like generation than selecting the scrawny ones. OK, so now we delve into the fruits programming code, as it were, itself but it's simply a short cut.

A huge deal is made out of this because someone who doesn't really understand how these things work is worried that they are going to bite into a big juicy apple one day to find it has a face on it. A good example of such a person is the Prince of Wales, someone who I personally would not trust to persuade me on the lightest of matters. It is no surprise that a person who got some of the finest one-on-one tutoring at and still only managed to get two A levels does not trust science.

Finally, I would like to tackle the one "rational" argument, if you can call it that, that the anti-GM people possess. Yes, there may be an increase in fertilisers and pesticides used but that is only because the growth yield will increase. The same amount will be used per gram, but more in total is required because the fruit, vegetable, etc. are 50% bigger.

Let us face facts, genetically modified food is not a horrific thing like the scaremongers will have you believe. It has about as much in common with Mary Shelly's novel as a container of inert gas. The debate about whether GM would reduce starvation continues and is another matter, however one thing that is for sure is that it will increase productivity and reduce cost which is never a bad thing. So the next time someone tells you that GM food is "unnatural", "dangerous" or "Frankensteinian" ask them to prove that in reasonable, rational and clear terms.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Boredom

This Friday represents the release date of the Hollywood megablockbuster, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen on DVD. So I thought it would be high time to give it an honest review.

Michael Benjamin Bay was born on 17th February 1965 - wait! Stop right there! The director of this film is forty-four years old?

Well you could have had me fooled because Transformers 2 was like Dreamworks had chosen a pubescent, fourteen year old boy at random and told him he has a limitless budget to do whatever the goddamn hell he likes.

Said kid then decided, as any fourteen year old virgin would do, to open the movie with a "college sequence". Which college is not clear, but their specialist subject must be a degree in supermodelling because there is a 10:1 ratio of females to males and 100% of the former are unfathomably attractive and dolled up like porn stars.

Whilst we're on the subject of pornography where the hell did they drag Megan "Lip Gloss" Fox from? Judging by her acting skills and the way she's tarted up I would say it's obvious that she took a wrong turn onto Hollywood Boulevard when she was actually looking for Ron Jeremy's offices. But I won't treat the poor girl too badly because Michael Bay has abused her far worse.

Phwoar! Look at that!

Like every other female in this film she is treated quite literally as a piece of tit 'n' ass, nothing more. Fox has absolutely no plot function in the film at all, instead she is yanked about different setpieces as they explode by Shia LaBouef like a piece of meat on a string. What more could a fourteen year old male want than shit exploding and Megan Fox's tits juggling about in slow motion.

However, some would argue that that is not what Transformers 2 is about; it is about the robots, the Transformers themselves and the amazing CGI action sequences. Well, those people would be wrong because the action scenes are anything but amazing. Gasp! Yes I said it. Some people like to see very very shiny things (no not Megan's lip gloss) smacking the living daylights out of each other whilst sounding like broken keyboard amps for 200 odd minutes. I don't! I had a toy of Optimus Prime when I was four years old and even then "transforming" it for twenty minutes would leave me wondering what else I could do. Apparently Michael Bay did not share such a short attention span but has grown up with a different kind, that of an intriguing plot.

Moreover, when there is action on screen I prefer to be able to see what the green and blue fuck is going on. The CGI may be fancy but Bay might as well have had a cartoon cloud with fists and stars popping out of it roll across the screen.

However this goes further than just an awful movie-going experience. You may think I'm overreacting but I think it is actually quite sick when you have Disney style characters juxtaposed with scantly clad females, drug references and quite severe swearing. Has everyone forgotten that this is a childrens' toy franchise? If Barbie had a movie where tiny men humped her leg, called her a "crazy bitch" and said "bullshit" every now and then, there would be uproar! But greater target audience range means more box office earnings and that's what these guys are in it for, purely and simply.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is as glossy as Fox's lips. It's about cheap thrills and mega bucks. It's degrading, idiotic, misogynistic and demeaning but above all it's dull. Bay cannot comprehend subtlety; it's more explosions, more robots, more CGI and more make up on the girls. Cut, edit, package it with a Whopper meal and you've got one hell of a putrid cash cow.

Which Brown?

Michael Caine's new film Harry Brown is set for general release this Wednesday. It is a revenge movie however, according to Caine himself, it is a revenge tale with the shiny edge of the silver screen removed. It demonstrates how violence does not always satisfy misery and torment. This is Get Carter realised.

Caine for PM?

A very true and noble message, if it is in fact that, and one rarely delivered on the medium of cinema. Although, with that in hand, purely for entertainment's sake I do love a good old revenge flick, it makes you feel just grand! Revenge movies are uplifting because for one moment it makes you believe that there is such a thing as karma and that once you've slaughtered your oppressor or abuser and left them as a bloody corpse on the ceramic tiled floor, that you will truly feel free.

In Harry Brown the titular character played by Caine avenges his friend's death by killing the yobs in the local estate who are responsible. It is nice, it simplifies the world to a place where there are good and bad people and those who are bad are wholly evil to the bottom of their rotting, putrid hearts. For evidence of this see Inglourious Basterds, a film which gleefully tars every Nazi (and German) with the same brush.

But sometimes in real life we hear about or see such rancid behaviour that the "Basterd" comes out in us. For example, on The Andrew Marr Show this morning there was a brave young soldier, Mr. Weston, who had lost three limbs whilst trying to defuse a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. He told Marr that since he had been back he had been heckled in the high street by some youths for only having one arm. Now what is your gut reaction? Gordon Brown or Harry Brown?

I know what I think would be a suitable solution: take said people and send them a nice friendly letter informing them that they have been conscripted to compulsory service for the British army. Three and half thousand miles later we can drop them in the middle of the worst minefields in the Kandahar province, 'This minefield stretches twenty miles in every direction from your current position. You have some cooling spray and a pair of pliers, get to it!' The stiflingly hot sun of the Afghan desert would be ablast on their backs, who said revenge was a dish best served cold?

Yet this is all fantasy isn't it? We can't do that to fellow British citizens - can we? A slight slip of the tongue would mean near certain death. I am sure the young ruffians would be sorry and take back their horrific comments but they would be dead ten minutes later so it would not be of much good to them.

Some would disagree, some would think Harry Brown would do a better job as PM than Gordon. Whilst I think many people could do a better job than Gordon (including Sir Michael Caine himself) I think we need to keep our hands on our heads and really think. Vengeance feels great in books and on screen but we must remember that in real life revenge is like Super Noodles; when you are hungry it looks like the best option because it is quick and easy, but really it is a dish best left on the side to cool down for a few minutes before realising it does not taste that good at all.

Comedy-22

Britain has always been a great comedy factory. Place it upon our cynicism as a nation or our ability to notice the absurdity of life, both provide a fertile breeding ground for producing some of the world's best stand up comedians and sit-coms.

The naughties has been especially good, with the likes of Ricky Gervais producing the excellent sit-coms The Office and Extras, and Channel 4's The Peep Show providing a very realistic and absurdly funny view of 30-something British life from the first person perspective.

Meanwhile stand up comedy has become incredibly popular all of a sudden, the BBC's Live at the Apollo shows sell out in seconds nowadays and it has almost already become a national treasure, introducing those fresh comedians who are semi-famous and usually deserving of the greater exposure. It is through these events that we now have the likes of Michael McIntyre and Sean Locke. The comedy quiz panel shows have also shifted the career boosting spotlight onto Frankie Boyle, Russel Howard and Alan Davies. For such a small country we have a lot of funny talent!

So the question then arises, if we produce such talent and it is within our zeitgeist as a nation, why then do we try and silence these people on the odd occasions. I am talking about making professional comedians publicly apologise.

This week, two issues have come to light concerning Jimmy Carr's joke about British soldiers in Afghanistan and Frankie Boyle's about Olympic gold medallist Rebecca Adlington. Both comedians were asked to apologise for their respective jokes - Jimmy Carr offered a semi-apology stating that he had told the joke to soldiers in Afghanistan and they loved it but he "did not mean to cause offence" and Frankie Boyle flat out refused to apologise and subsequently quit Mock the Week.

If I was to back one of them, it would definitely be Boyle. He is the only comedian that I can think of who recently has stood their ground against the torrent of hurt-feelings-cards being thrown at the comedy industry. Four words everyone: it-is-their-job! Not their job to offend, of course not, but to make people laugh and that entails that a small minority may be offended - and to this I ask "so what?"

If you are offended what good does that do? That doesn't give you an extra rights, that doesn't give you permission to ring up the BBC and demand an apology. Yet in the modern British world apparently it does. The BBC, a supposedly politically neutral organisation pushes a comedian - and a comedian that made one of their biggest shows so popular - to make an apology so rigorously that he decides to quit.

Meanwhile, Carr can proclaim that he did not mean to offend anyone but really he knew some people would be, that shouldn't stop him performing the joke, however, because it was funny. Some may say that they did not find it funny, which is precisely the point; both what is offensive and what is funny is subjective and rules cannot be enforced on subjective grounds, because the bar would be shifting across the spectrum so quickly that firstly we wouldn't be able to keep up, and secondly that is not equality.

My granny does not like Michael McIntyre, probably the most inoffensive comedian there is. Her reason? She thinks "he is too loud, is always shouting and dancing about the stage". Furthermore, his behaviour does not just produce just an unlikable disposition from her towards him, she is "offended by it".

Now see why rules cannot be enforced? We would be stifling these people whose livelihood depends on making us laugh and a side effect is that it is always aimed at someone or a group of people and may offend them. By silencing comedians we are putting one foot down the slippery slope and at the bottom of this slope is a damp, boring world that is painted in different shades of grey because ignorant, pretentious people thought that they could laugh at everyone else but when the joke was turned on them they had a right to kick up a fuss. No you do not! Sit down! Shut up! And be offended if you like because you will get over it like everyone else does throughout life. It is not an eternal scar that will disable you for the rest of your days. It was a joke made at your expense and, what is more, it was really, really funny!