I am, of course, talking about the 'sexy glee' fiasco, as it is sure to not become known as. I've been pointed in the direction of this, (fantastic piece from Primly Stable) that demonstrates the change in tack throughout the day, but, as I check it now this article has appeared (actually just more stuff tacked on to the original article with a new headline). Don't people know not to give these reactionary idiots an inch? In it Glee's Dianna Agron expresses remorse at her photo shoot. I'm not sure why the Mail gets so uppity about scantily clad women when it so clearly loves the objectification of anyone with tits and a breath in their body. Additionally I had the pleasure of this article which demonstrates, with the help of scienticians, that pregnancy makes women more intelligent. Take that you childless, barren lefties, and while you're at it note the CAPS LOCK in the URL.
So, to the main event. I've been through as much of today's Mail as I could manage with a highlighter. A little like a forensic psychologist going through the contradictory, rambling letters of a convicted murderer.
Today really has been MAILPOCALYPSE. An exceptional day of contradiction, misguided anger and the uncertainty inherent in not knowing if you should be angry that white middle class men are most impacted upon by the budget, or angry that it isn't hard enough on people on benefits, OR that those gosh-darn foreigners are going to get hold of OUR money (isn't this what we fought WWII for?). One question that I must ask at this point is what does the phrase "charity begins at home" really mean? It's being tossed around in the comments section like confetti at a wedding.
Labour's decades of relentless expansion (a bad thing?) is being cut back, and the welfare system is being 'dismembered' to save us from a 'decade of debt'. This will result in Women and middle class families being hardest hit (really? I assume that women will be hit hard, after all, Tories hate them, but the middle classes, really?).
It sounds like cutting benefits will save £270m, but I'm uncertain as to where this number has come from, I'll find out in November...
All these cuts are apparently going to 'restore 'sanity to our public finances'' and result in 'a more prosperous, fairer Britain', although how 'hitting women and middle classes' and wheelchair users is actually fair is beyond me. One thing that this has made me think about is the combined worth of the cabinet and coalition - could they do a whip-round and cover the deficit?
The Mail coverage demonstrates about a £80bn saving, as far as I can see from my ignorant vantage point (It's ok guys, £6m is coming from the queen!). However the higher cap on annual rail fare increases will save an 'unknown' amount. Is that because it is a massive ideological 'fuck you' to working Britain?
A comment piece from Max Hastings tells us that the pain will be worth it (bend over and take it women and young families), and Dominic Sandbrook presents a confused historical defence of old Gid, as 'history tells us unpopular chancellors are always the best'. I'm not sure if this is true. The article itself does not seem to actually back this up, merely that chancellors are often prone to messing with our economy, you know, like what there actual job is.
Additional stories of interest:
- Muslims protest against extractor fan. Although even within the story itself this doesn't seem to be entirely true - and the URL is misleading on top of all that...
- Cheryl Cole has a new tattoo
- Is this hormone the secret key to a longer life? - I don't know, is it, you're the paper, tell me.
- Squatters take over hotelier's home when he goes on week long holiday (the second such story this month)
- Maggie Thatcher is following the spending cuts in hospital. Probably loving it
- Police waste two hours removing road hazards (Shopping trolleys). I wish they'd just leave them to cause RTCs.
- And, my personal favourite: 'Zoo breeds rare pigs..then kills them to hit quotas set by Europe'. This is a pointless story (surprise) that demonstrates throughout that there are reasons behind the cull which the Mail chooses to paper over and merely focus on the outrage. It has since been re-headlined 'Silence of the Hams' - got to hand it to them, that's not that bad.
And it was there, on p41 that I gave up. Sorry for letting you down. I hate the days when I actually buy a hard copy.
New update at the weekend, and in other news you'll be pleased to know I finished my Spanish homework prior to my night class.
Matt
p.s. watching the taking of Prince Harry, there's apparently already been outrage about it, but I don't see why, it's quite dull.
and p.p.s.
Do you have a story about a celebrity? Call the Daily Mail showbusiness desk on 0207 938 6364 or 0207 938 6683 - probably would, if I were you.
You're commentary on the Mail is first rate and very observant. It's close-minded and contradictary nature is, I think, harmful to our society as it has a great influence on sections of our society who treat it as gospel.
ReplyDeleteIf the Mail folded tomorrow, the world would not miss it.