Country music through the decades

Country music in the 1950s:
My baby gone done me wrong and ain’t nobody understands but this here whiskey.

Country music in the 1960s:
Sure, I pulled the trigger but society is to blame.

Country music in the 1970s:
I didn’t die before I got old. 

Country music in the early 80s:
I won’t live forever but my spirit will.

Country music in the late 80s/early 90s:
Hey! Gucci makes cowboy hats now!

Country music in the late 90s/early 00s:
Okay, I just smoked a bunch of weed and my car’s a real shitbox but whatever dude, wanna go for a drive?

Country music in the 2010s:
U!S!A! U!S!A!

Country music in the 2020s:
I was watching my 100-inch TV and saw a thing on cable news that made me so damn mad I bought another 6-pack of assault rifles to stop the dirty people from looking at my suburban mansion.

Thank you for your service, Kris Kristofferson.

“But I am living still…”

Presenting my credentials

It’s been less than a week and already the hype over the Oasis reunion has jumped the shark.

I know this because none other than the Manchester Evening News has hung an entire article on the bleeding obvious observation that with the gigs over a year away, Oasis could easily break up again before they happen.

Who did they consult for the most daring prediction this side of “it might rain before then”? Apparently, you need an “Oasis expert” for that. With a PhD.

Don’t get me wrong, my love for Oasis is matched only by my disgust at Gen-Xers becoming everything we rightly mocked boomers for in taking ourselves way too seriously.

So, if “Oasis expert” is now a thing, and not just a category on Mastermind or Hard Quiz, I present to you all my areas of expertise which in a just world would be mocked, but I won’t walk away from fools and their money.

 

Latest research from Birmingham City
University faculty of YA THINK??

Senior research fellow at the institute of beer and chips

Beatologist

Cola connoisseur

Windows specialist

Chord sommelier

Satire historian

Honorary fellow in pre-internet isolation

Self-love consultant

Oasis expert (oh yes! Come at me Dr Matt!)

Lennonist

Smithsonian, including solo careers, specialising in the Decline and Fall of Morrissey

 

But, I have an eye to the future as well, so here are some fields I am moving into:

 

Professor of Swiftonomics

The socio-economic effects of streaming

Post-social media landscape navigator

 

So, reporters, editors, producers… if you have some space or time to fill, hit me up! Oh, and if this all seems a bit too highbrow for ya, I can also talk shit. 

  

 

 

 

The role of White Woman Tears in the Olympic boxing controversy

I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think a significant factor in the Olympic boxing kerfuffle is White Woman Tears.

Imane Khelif was born with a vagina. According to TERFs and other basic dickheads, this is the one and only criterion by which someone can be considered a woman. So what’s the problem?

Of course she punched her opponent in the head. That’s LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the event. If this disturbs you, and fair enough, then your issue is with the entire sport of boxing and I would probably agree with you there.

And of course Angela Carini cried when she was defeated so comprehensively. Be honest, that’s all part of the reason you watch, isn’t it? The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, right?

But upon seeing the expression of emotion by someone who conforms more than her opponent to western and media stereotypes of how a woman should look, a lot of people are assuming she was treated unfairly.

Does Imane Khelif have an unfair advantage because of her relatively unusual genetic makeup? Of course she friggin’ does! Have you only just figured out how sport works? If every competitor were perfectly matched, every game would be a tie, every race would be a dead heat, every shot would hit the target perfectly. That is not how it works, and yet the people claiming unfairness in this event are the same people who deride “snowflakes” for wanting a “participation trophy.”

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. If Imane Khelif was born great, good for her. If the greatness she was born with outweights the greatness Angela Carini achieved, that’s just the way it goes in the pursuit of faster, higher, stronger.

 

Return to the Chocolate Factory

Now that we’ve had the Wonka back-story prequel, we need Return to the Chocolate Factory.

It’s twenty years later. Charlie is now in his 30s and convinced he’s a visionary genius for having inherited a successful business based on other people’s inventions and cheap labour.

He has shut down all the fun parts of the factory because there’s no profit margin, moved production offshore, and the Oompa-Loompas now live in a refugee camp. He also changed the name of the company to BucketCo.

Convinced of his own infallibility, Charlie makes a series of increasingly bizarre decisions, including a chocolate bar in the shape of a dong (coz LOL!), and the slogan “Suck a Bucket today!”

However, it’s when he decides to turn the Everlasting Gobstopper into a monthly subscription model that the market really turns against him. Children who don’t pay the $12 per month Gobstopper subscription are expected to return their candy or have it forcibly repossessed. The movie opens with a scene of a poor child having the candy pulled from her mouth.

The backlash earns him the derisive nickname of Chuck Bucket. Incensed at the disrespect, Charlie uses his massive wealth (which exists mostly in chocolate supplies and a currency of his own invention, BucketCoin) to sue anyone who uses the name and buy out any media that transmits it.

This leaves Charlie low on liquid assets and he considers a merger with Slugworth who has come to realise that flattery is the best way to finally get his hands on the Wonka trade secrets.

Meanwhile, Willy Wonka, now dying and seeking to atone for exploiting minorities, decides it’s up to him to save the factory and Charlie from himself.

Warner Bros, call me!

 

 

A modest proposal for reforming the US Supreme Court

Judges on the United States Supreme Court have lifetime appointments. The reason for this is logical. It is intended to make them absolutely fearless in their judgements and beholden to no-one, not even those who put them there.

It makes perfect sense in principle that this should make the court incorruptible. However, since the US constitution was written on the ‘reasonable person’ principle, and many of those making the appointments and judgements can no longer objectively be considered reasonable people, things have gone awry. Allegations of conflicts of interests and “gifts” are eroding confidence in the court

If the framers of the US constitution had their time over, they would possibly realise they created a nine-headed king. You might remember they had a bit of a thing against kings.

To restore public faith in the court, I humbly suggest some possible reforms: 

A 9-headed king, yesterday

1: Term limits

The term should be generous – at least 12 years so as to be longer than a 2-term presidency. 25 years would not be out of the question. However, this would create the problem of Justices having an eye on their next gig or retirement plan. This problem could be offset by some of the suggestions below.

 

2: Pay them so much nobody could possibly bribe them

The current salary of a Supreme Court Justice is $298,500. No small amount for sure, but quite modest for the amount of work and responsibility they are expected to take on. It’s certainly not enough to fund they lifestyles we know some of the Justices enjoy. This naturally leads people to wonder how they make up the balance, regardless of whether they do it through wise investments or iffy favours.

In fact, adjusted for 2023 values, Supreme Court salaries have trended downwards over the last 30 years, having peaked in 1969 at an equivalent rate of just under $500,000. It’s entirely likely the judges are making less than the attorneys presenting arguments to them.

I know it’s not a popular view that public servants should be paid more. In 2024, even a million dollars a year might not be enough to prevent them lending an ear to potential benefactors. However, this expense would be offset by savings in the implementation and consequences of judgements which benefit only a monied few.

 

3: Ban all receipt of any benefits from anyone including to family

There are far too many loopholes in gifts to judges. As such, this rule must also apply to a judge’s family and close friends, who will have to be named and declared upon appointment and every year during their appointment.

Any product or service of any kind which is not directly paid for by a judge must be declared and audited annually. This also applies to spouses, children, parents, siblings and close friends. If a judge’s spouse gives them a Christmas present worth over $100, it must be declared. Get an upgrade on a flight? It must be declared. Spend the weekend at a rich friend’s house? Declare the relative value of that stay.

Judges will be audited annually and any breach will result in a mandatory 5-years’ imprisonment and being barred from employment for life. The Supreme Court itself will be barred from hearing appeals on any such breaches and will be judged by Congress.

Yes, it’s harsh. But service comes with sacrifice. At least they’re not being shot at.

 

4: Overturning a previous Supreme Court judgement would require a majority of at least seven

This will avoid perpetual relitigation of cases every time the court changes.

 

5: Mandatory retirement at 75

As a rule, I am not keen on mandatory retirement but a line had to be drawn somewhere. We have decided that 18 is a reasonable age for someone to be able to make adult decisions. Some people are more than capable of making adult decisions at 16. Others are totally incapable even at 30.

Likewise, some people remain fighting fit and sharp at 85, and some are completely gaga by 65. 75 is a reasonable age to maintain experience on the bench with appropriate turnover. Current rules state that a retired judge’s pension can be no less than what they were earning at the time of retirement. They would be barred from taking any other form of employment.

 

These are five reasonable suggestions. Or perhaps you have a better idea. 

 

 

Pink Floyd announce 51st Anniversary Edition of The Dark Side of the Moon

Pink Floyd have announced the 51^st Anniversary Meta-Edition of their classic album The Dark Side of the Moon. (Apparently, they have made other albums.)

The album has been given yet another remix with representatives of the band stating this is the first to combine modern digital techniques and vintage analogue technology contemporary to the making of the album.

“Some found the recent Dolby Atmos mix to be very ‘modern’ sounding” said mix engineer James Guthrie. “We found that taking the newly re-digitised multitracks and routing them back through the original mixing desk gave as close as we could get to the sound Pink Floyd would have made if they had today’s technology in 1973.”

As close as they can get until next year, anyway.

The original quadraphonic mix was used as the basis for the new mix, enlisting a new hack of Pink Floyd’s legendary azimuth coordinator with additional channels added for modern sound reproduction.

The complete Meta-Edition will be released in an 8-disc box containing 5 CDs, each featuring 20% of the full mix and intended to be played simultaneously for full effect, the new Meta-mix on a single CD, The Dark Side of the Moon Live at Wembley again because up yours, and a Blu-ray disc containing the new Meta-mix in 5.1 and Dolby Atmos, the original unreleased Alan Parsons quad mix, a stereo fold down of the Meta-mix in 192kHz, 32-bit, and as yet unannounced video content, but probably the same concert films as the last three versions.

The Blu-ray also contains the individual multitracks in WAV format, which will allow fans to mix the 52^nd anniversary edition.

The full-on Meta-Edition comes housed in a 1/2048 sized pyramid which, as of the time of writing, also includes a hardcover book of photographs, a crystal prism, a silk handkerchief, a velvet pouch containing 3 grams of tobacco salvaged from Abbey Road ashtrays at the time of recording, a replica of Richard Wright’s shopping list from November 13^th 1972, and a 7-inch vinyl disc of the unremastered mono radio edit of Money because you’re made of it aren’t you.

This release will be followed in six months’ time by an individual release of the Blu-ray disc negating the need to buy all the other trash to get the good stuff, and the in early 2025 by a quarter-speed mastered, 220 gram, 45rpm double LP on holographic mirrored vinyl.

In a press release, David Gilmour described the 51^st Anniversary Edition as, “Probably the only version of The Dark Side of the Moon you need to own. This year.”

When contacted for comment, Roger Waters said, “Get the fuck off my lawn!”

 

The 51^st Anniversary Meta Edition of The Dark Side of the Moon is released on April 1^st, 2024.

Thoughts I’d rather not have about things I’d rather not know...

Despite being the prettiest public face of a living anachronism, and taking far more than she gives back, I do not believe Kate Middleton owes the British public a lap dance (or the aristocracy’s equivalent) once a week.

I’m as anti-royalist as they come. I believe they should be treated like anyone else, and that includes leaving them the fuck alone when they need time to themselves. First and foremost, she’s a human being, and THAT should have been the angle the Firm took from the beginning.

The monarch may run the country but in modern times, another runs the family. That used to be Prince Phillip. When Phil the Greek died, that job went to Anne, who seems pretty level-headed for a princess and I thought she would have run things better.

As a PR firm – which is what they are – the British royal family’s principle of ‘never complain, never explain,’ is a smart one which other celebrities and their handlers could learn from. Imagine the power Trump and his puppet masters could wield if he didn’t screw it up on an hourly basis by being such an inveterate, narcissistic whineypants.

The Firm screwed this up royally by issuing a happy snap in response to the gossip. I DGAF that it was touched up. Of course it was! They all are. So is my profile picture. Send me to the tower! And as a happily childless person, even I know kids do weird shit with their fingers, especially when they’re nervous, like when someone is pointing a camera at them and telling them to look naturally happy. I still do and you probably do too.

But to then throw Kate under the double-decker by claiming she was the one who edited it? Prince, please! They literally have people to pick things up off the floor for them and we’re expected to believe the presumptive next queen consort does her own photoshopping?

Anyone who claims to support royalty should leave her alone. Anyone like me, who doesn’t support royalty, should also leave her alone, tempting though it is to use this as an example of how pointless and irrelevant royalty is. I’m aware of the irony of what I’ve just said. I would rather not know any of this but there are things you just can’t help learning and thinking people just can’t help forming an opinion on them.

If this were the biggest scandal in the world, they’d be doing a fine job!