Angry Birds

If there is one constant across all political leaders, it is the way they all use ridiculously hyperbolic language and analogies to express their point. Gordon Brown's Freudian slip that he had "saved the world". Gaddafi blaming the Libyan uprising on hallucinogenic drugs. American 'Tea-Partyers' declaring that Obama's health care package was "forcible economic rape" (see Bob Marshall). This extreme tone of political discourse can often have unwanted consequences so it was, with some trepidation, that I decided to look at Benjamin Netanyahu's speech this week at the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Obviously with the situation in the Middle-East being tenser than Nick Griffin at a screening of The Help, I was deeply concerned that the language the leader of Israel used when talking about Iran might usher us into World War Three (the long-awaited but ultimately misjudged third film). So it was to my surprise that what he actually said was this:


"If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? That's right. It's a duck."


(You may be interested to know he is also releasing a DVD entitled 'Benjamin Netanyahu Describes the Bleeding Obvious', featuring the classics 'Oh that bear in the woods? He's probably going to do a shit' and 'I'm not sure that white powder from Whitney Houston's autopsy is dandruff'' - too soon?)


That's right, the leader of Israel decided to use ,as his terrifying analogy for threat of a nuclear Iran, an animal which is a blue waistcoat and hat away from an exuberant child asking for its autograph at Disneyland. I initially assumed he must have meant swan; because a duck makes exactly the same threatening noise as a swan but you can rest easier that if you take your dog for a walk and a duck appears, it'll probably be fine. If a swan gets hold of your canine though, it may well carry out the preparation stage of a controversial Chinese delicacy. However, the more I think about it, the more the duck analogy makes sense. Like a duck, Iran hasn't got a ferocious bite but it makes all the quacking like it might do. Of course, instead of 'bite' I mean 'has a nuclear weapon' and instead of 'quacking' I mean 'declare that it wants to wipe a whole religion off the face of the earth', but let's not worry too much about semantics. You could even argue that a country such as Israel that categorically has a nuclear weapon and is threatening war with a neighbouring country would be the swan, but then do swans eat ducks? And if so, how do they roll the pancake? And does Netanyahu enjoy soy sauce?


I should point out here that I am not some 'George Galloway' figure in this debate, feeding the duck and his Supreme duck from an countryside Press TV bridge with a bag of breadcrumbs whilst praising their "indefatigability". Iran clearly is a horrendous, authoritarian regime. It is only natural to abhor all regimes that support members of their own population being stoned, with the possible exception of the Netherlands. I also understand that historically Israel and its Jewish population have justified reason for feeling that they are victimised, sometimes to the extreme. However, there is a difference between being a 'victim' and 'developing paranoia'. And there is a difference between 'self-protection' and 'military aggression'.


My main concern, in all seriousness, is that soon the word 'duck' will no longer refer to a silly, misjudged metaphor from a conference in Washington but rather be an instruction from innocent civilian to innocent civilian as another batch of shells crash into hospitals and schools in both Tel-Aviv and Tehran. 

Naked Photos of Scarlett Johansson, anyone?

Poor Scarlett Johansson. I understand this is not a sentiment that most people are expressing at this time. If you search 'Scarlett Johansson' on Twitter or Google right now, you receive a flood of comments  ranging from the inciteful 'phwooooarrrrrrrr' to the philosophical 'mmmmmmmmmmmm' or even the thought-provoking 'grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr'. Basically, the humiliation of another human being is getting people so excited they can only communicate in grunts. Surely, if any extreme Christians need any further proof that we descend from primates, they should send a nude celebrity photo in an e-mail and watch the recipient descend into a baboon.

I'm just left wondering what it is that is so enjoyable about this. Surely, it can't just be the image of a naked woman. From what I can read, in between the unnecessary amount of perverted consonants, most people seem to be describing these photos as quite blurry images taken from a camera phone. Surely, given the vast quantities of pornography on the internet, this itself does not make it into a mass salivation festival.

This leads me to suspect one of two reasons for the excitement; that it's because she is a celebrity or because they were meant to be private. Or both.

Firstly, the 'celebrity factor'. This seems to be highly plausible. In the various articles I have read, there seems to be currently private images of Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake and Vanessa Hudgens circulating at the moment. Our obsession with celebrity has already got out of hand. Currently, and I urge you to go on YouTube and search for this, there is a man called Mr.Papparazi whose job it is to annoy celebrities and film them as they go about their daily life. His job is to follow Lily Allen to the supermarket so we know whether she eats wholemeal or white bread. Now, I know that certain people desire the 'lifestyle of the famous' and thrive that people notice them 24/7. But what has Lily Allen done to deserve this? Be a succesful music artist? I can't vouch for Scarlett Johansson or any celebrities because I know none, but I'm guessing many of them would quite like to be left alone some of the time.

Which brings me onto possible excitement point number two. Privacy. Celebrity website founder Jamie East claimed that "if celebrities don't want naked pictures of themselves plastered all over the internet then either don't take them at all or don't have them on your mobile phone." But whether she has private photos on her phone or e-mail or not is irrelevent, we have no right to see these photos because she has not given us consent. In the same way, that if a celebrity wears no underwear in a nightclub, a tabloid photographer has no right to shove a camera up her skirt. Or a pervert next door has no right to get a telescope out because someone next door has left a slight gap in the curtains.

Scarlett Johansson should have the freedom to do whatever she likes in her private life, in the same way that you and I should be able to, no matter how attractive or famous she is.  Gossip magazines and the tabloid press fuel a natural human desire for scandal and gossip, however, that makes this unrealistic. We could perhaps draw a line though at hacked intimate photos couldn't we? Maybe we could all pretend to be intelligent and sensitive humans for a second and not sex-craved primates. Even if it is Scarlett Johansson.