Tag: Stupid

7 Reasons They Were Very Wrong

It’s the 3^rd of December and, to save you wondering why that’s significant and making you worry that you’ve forgotten your birthday or Easter or something, we’ll tell you. On this day, in 1929, U.S. President, Herbert Hoover, delivered the first State of the Union Address since the Wall Street Crash to Congress. But this wasn’t your run of the mill State of the Union Address where nothing much of interest gets said. Well, it was, but in the middle of all of the traditional consciousness-bothering guff, Herbert Hoover said something so obviously, epically and unarguably wrong that he has inspired us to bring you seven of our favourite examples of wrongness.

President Hoover. Talking.

1. Herbert Hoover. “While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced that we have now passed the worst and with continuity of effort we shall rapidly recover.” And following those fine, rousing, confident words, America and the rest of the world plunged into The Great Depression, which saw American production fall by 46%, foreign trade fall by 70%, unemployment rocket by 607% and shanty-towns filled with the homeless spring up around every major U.S. city. They called them Hoovervilles.

2. Dr Dionysius Lardner. “Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” The professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College London was wrong on two levels here. One; trains don’t actually reach high-speed in this country because there is always a poxy cow on the line, and two; if passengers unable to breathe did get on a train, they would already be dead.

3. Glenn McGrath. The great Australian bowler predicted Ashes whitewashes in 2005, 2009 & 2010/11. With England on the receiving end. He was wrong. The fact that he got it right in 2006/7 is more a testament to infinite monkey theorem than to any logical analysis*. And to the fact that England were rubbish.**

4. Sir William Preece. The chief engineer of the British Post Office said in 1876, “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” So in Victorian Britain, not all boys were up chimneys or in the workhouse; they were carrying messages which, according to Sir William Preece, is the ideal way to have a chat with your mother who lives a hundred and fifty miles away. “Hello Mother, how are you?”, you would write, before summoning one of the multitudinous boys to bear your message to her. And when he returned, breathlessly, a mere fortnight later with the reply, “Fine, thank you,” you would send him straight back again with a note inscribed, “And how’s Father?”. In the Preecian vision of the future of communication, Americans could have a ten-minute-long conversation with their mothers while the British would have a forty-two-week-long one which would cost the lives of approximately nine urchins. Perhaps to make his idea more marketable to the communications industry he considered the slogan: The future’s bright, the future’s boys. Or perhaps not.

5. Newsweek, In an issue looking into the future of travel, Newsweek magazine carried this prediction of popular holiday destinations for the late 1960s. “And for the tourist who really wants to get away from it all, safaris in Vietnam.” Erm…yeah. Now Newsweek weren’t totally wrong here. Vietnam did receive a massive influx of American tourists with rifles in the late 1960s, it’s just that they weren’t there to safari. Or to sit by the pool.

6. Lord Kelvin. In 1883, the President of the Royal Society, said, “X-Rays will prove to be a hoax”. To this day, I bet he wishes he had said the ‘X-Files’. It’s a shame though really, because if X-Rays were a hoax then that cracked fibula I suffered could also have been a hoax. As would be the inevitable snapped fibula. And all the surgery. In fact, my whole life would have been a hoax. But it’s not. Because X-Rays are real. And so am I.***

7. Major General John Sedgewick. While directing artillery placements, Sedgewick and his corps came under fire from Confederate sharpshooters about a thousand yards away. As his officers and men ducked and scurried away, General Sedgewick loftily dismissed the notion of taking cover saying, “What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist…”. They were his last words.

*Glen McGrath is an infinite monkey. You heard it here first.

**Except Ian Bell.

***Jonathan Lee is real. You heard it here first.

December 3, 2010
7 Reasons That The Westbourne Bank Protest Was Stupid

In Britain, it’s often said that we’re not very good at protesting, and we’re always compared unfavourably with the French in that regard. But now, public protest in the UK has reached an all-time low because, last weekend, several men in Dorset bricked up the door of their local bank in what they claimed was a, “…protest against the reluctance of banks to lend money to small firms”. Here are seven reasons that their protest was stupid.

1. They Went To The Wrong Bank. The protesters wanted to brick up the door of the Westbourne branch of Natwest Bank because it had refused the group’s ringleader, Cameron Hope, a business loan. But, when they arrived at the Natwest, the police were nearby, so the group decided to brick up the door of a different bank instead. Barclays. Now, if I do something that irritates my wife involving…ooh…I don’t know…umm…a bicycle, for example, and I’m not there when she finds out about it – or I’m standing near the police – I wouldn’t expect her to go and yell at a different man. Because that would be crazy. And irrational. And yes, it would be much better if she did that, but that’s not the point. Bricking up the door of a bank that they didn’t have a legitimate grievance with is just mad. And counter-productive.

2. Prudence. Okay, so the bank turned down Cameron Hope’s loan application. What should he do? Scrimp and save, perhaps. Look at alternate ways of raising capital, or go to a different bank. I’m not a businessman, but I wouldn’t choose to demonstrate my financial acumen and creditworthiness to another bank by frittering my money away on costly building materials and then use them to construct a monument to my own profligacy on their doorstep. Because that’s not going to help. And it’s a lot of effort. He could have achieved the same effect by setting fire to twenty pound notes in front of the bank manager instead. Far less trouble.

3. Put Simply. The more money the bank has, the more they’ll lend, making it more likely that you’ll get a loan. Conversely: The less money the bank has, the less they’ll lend, making it less likely that you’ll get a loan. So if you brick the door of the bank up, customers can’t take their money to the bank, and then the bank can’t lend it to you. I realise that this is a highly simplistic, microeconomic description of banking, but I’m addressing it thus, to the protesters because of…

4. The Quote. The quote tells us that the protesters don’t understand how banking works at all, because one of the group stated to journalists, “You go into a bank and there’s nothing there, the bank’s open but the safe is shut.” This is his summary of his grievance with the banking system; and it doesn’t really bear much scrutiny. Because of course there’s nothing there. What does this man expect to find in a bank? Displays of money? Shelf upon shelf of alluringly-arrayed notes and enticing floor-displays brimming over with a boundless abundance of shimmering coins? And of course the safe is shut. It’s a safe. That’s its job. If the bloody things weren’t meant to be shut they’d be called something different. They’d be called unsafes. Or vulnerables.

5. Helping The Bank. The protesters bricked up the door of the bank on a Sunday: A day when all banks are closed. So this had no effect on the bank’s ability to trade. In fact, one of the major obsessions and expenses of any bank is security, and by bricking up the door – and thereby making it more difficult for robbers to enter the premises – the protesters actually helped the bank. Not to mention that their protest also brought the police along to stand outside in hi-vis jackets, which probably made the bank as safe as it’s ever been. And all at no extra cost to the bank. What are the protesters going to do next, try to bring down the Conservative party by voting for them?

6. Consequences. Though the protest didn’t have any serious consequences, it could well have done. The protesters could have endangered the nation’s economy. By bricking up the door of the bank, they made it likely that employees would have to enter and exit the premises via the windows. And, as history teaches us, bankers jumping out of windows is one of the worst economic indicators that there is. Worse even than Alistair Darling’s eyebrows. It’s the sort of thing that, if the media get hold of the footage, can shatter fragile economic confidence.

7. Achievement. As a protest against banking it doesn’t appear to have accomplished anything. I was in the centre of a city yesterday, and banking appeared to be going on pretty much unhindered by the protest. People in polyester uniforms were sitting around near potted plants in waist-high partitioned areas looking depressed, as usual. The cash machine outside was covered in the remnants of a McDonald’s milkshake, as usual. I wanted to thump over 90% of the people in the queue, as usual; even myself. So the protest has had no discernible effect on banking. Obviously, the protest brought an awful lot of free publicity for the property developer behind it, but that wasn’t the point. Because this was a protest against banking, right? And not some sort of tawdry self-serving publicity stunt?

September 30, 2010
7 Reasons The Voice Of The Tube Is Annoying

1. Fake Apologies. We Are Being Held At A Red Signal. We Apologise For The Delay. We? There is no we. You are a recorded voice. A recorded voice belonging to a woman who got paid to say it. No one who gets paid to apologise really means it.

2. Use Of Language. Alight Here. Who alights in this day any age? In fact who alighted in that day and age? No one alights. They hop off. Or jump off. Or barge past. Or miss their stop.

3. Vagueness. Alight Here For Museums. Any museum is that? I can alight at South Kensington for the Vatican City Tractor Museum can I? No, I can’t. I’ll tell you what I can alight at South Kensington for. That’s the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum and the V&A Museum. Tourists love me.

4. Stating The Bloody Obvious. Mind The Gap. A complete waste of oxygen this. We see gap, we avoid gap. We are not stupid. We do not have signs near rivers saying, ‘Use The Bridge’ do we? And doesn’t mind mean look after anyway? Why is it our job to look after the gap? If you ask me the gap seems perfectly capable of looking after itself.

5. Lack Of Consistency. So when we pull into South Kensington, we are told we could alight for museums. Although the Japanese don’t know what the museums are, it is quite useful information. When we pull into Embankment, we are told we can alight for ferries. Again useful. So why is it that when we pull up to Parsons Green, all we hear is, ‘The next station is Parsons Green’? Where is the additional information? Why shouldn’t people be told to ‘Alight here for Peter’s Fish Bar and the rather plush co-op’?

6. Out Of Touch. The voice of the tube is monotone. How the hell is it possible to sound just as cheery on a hot summers day pulling into Wimbledon as it is in the depths of winter in West Ham? I don’t want an impossibly happy voice telling me to alight at West Ham when it’s -5 and there is four foot of snow on the ground. In fact I don’t want a voice telling me to alight at West Ham full stop. It’s miles away from home and means I have got on the wrong tube. Again.

7. Lies. Change For The Circle Line? On a Sunday? I don’t think so.

March 1, 2010
7 Reasons It Is Stupid To Compare Asterix and Tintin

1. It’s A Moot Point. Comparing Asterix and Tintin is like comparing Superman and Spiderman. Or Batwoman and Catwoman. Each has their own talents and each has their own flaws. And to be honest, no one cares. Not even me. And I’ve spent the last week indulging in the subject.

2. Two Brains, One Brain. Asterix was invented by two people – illustrator, Albert Uderzo, and writer, Réne Goscinny – while Tintin was created by just one, Hergé, or to give him his proper name Georges Rémi. To say which is better is a bit like saying who is better when you have the Williams sisters on one side of the net and Andy Murray on the other.

3. Different Worlds. Asterix was set in the time of Julius Ceasar. 50BC. That’s quite a long time before Tintin hit the scene in the 20th Century. Think Cleopatra and Louis Theroux.

4. Different Styles. As Uderzo, Goscinny and Hergé all agreed in one of their very rare interviews together, the Adventures of Asterix were very much humorous adventures. Tintin’s adventures were the opposite. No, not unfunny jaunts. Just adventures with occasional humour slotted in. So basically it’s like comparing Paul Merton in China with Michael Palin’s Pole to Pole.

5. You’ll Be Wrong. Suggesting that Dogmatix is better than Snowy is asking for trouble. Suggesting Captain Haddock is a better name than Anticlimax is also inadvisable. The fact is that people are passionate about the things they love. Which means there is a never a right answer. But there is always a wrong answer.

6. Devaluing Greatness. By comparing the two works, you are automatically looking for ways in which you can devalue one or the other. That has to be wrong. They are two of the greatest comic book inventions ever. They deserve nothing but the utmost praise. So well done lads.

7. Default. It just is. The only reason I did it was because I needed something to write about. I don’t have a preference one way or the other. Though, if pushed, I would say Asterix. I like funny. Which is something we’ll get back to on Wednesday by the way.

February 1, 2010