This is it. I’ve had it. I’m finally fed up with B*t Broadcasting Company. First I’ve had to endure their drivel about intervention in Libya being just. I’m certain that Gaddafi is a nasty piece of work and that there are atrocities being committed in that country. Yet we’re clearly not there to defend the people of Libya from persecution and rape. If that were our catalyst for action, we’d be active in Tibet, Timor, the Congo and many other regions of the world where violation of human rights is an everyday occurrence.
This is Going to Cost a Bomb
Libya, Iraq, Kuwait and even Afghanistan can all be linked to directly to the West’s addiction to fossil fuels. Civil war in Libya spikes prices at a time when the Western economy can least afford it and rather than seek to end our dependency it’s simply quicker to bomb. We’re impressed by the accuracy of our aircraft’s missiles these days, yet would we be impressed by the maths:
Tomahawk cruise missile – cost per missile = circia £300,000
Number launched on day one: circia 110
Total cost of one element of operation on the first day alone: £3,300,000
That’s right guys. The US and UK blew over £3million on Tomahawk missiles on day one alone. That excludes the costs of the fighter jet’s fuel, bombs, jamming equipment, sailing ships and subs in and all the associated logistics. We’re easily looking at a conservative cost to the coalition of £10million a day. More likely it’s several times that.

What if we loose a jet? A Typhoon is known to cost upwards of £30million each, excluding pilot and munitions. A US F-15E Strike Eagle crashed near Benghazi – that’s over $31million at 1999 prices.
This gives you an indication of how bad our fuel dependency is, that governments can find it easier to justify war – with it’s huge cost when conducted in the modern high tech precision way – over diplomacy, sanctions and green alternatives. After all, let’s not forget – there is no guarantee that removing Gaddafi will make anything better for the average Libyan. I’m in now way defending him, yet this notion that democracy will naturally fill the void isn’t true. Iraq and Afghanistan are clear cases to the point. Even where an occupying force puts in a democratic framework, there’s no reason to suggest the locals want to accept it.
If we can help some people avoid torture and other human rights violations, that is a useful side effect. But let’s not kid ourselves. We’re not footing a bill of millions that may become billions because that.
Radiation - A Glowing Friend
The next absurdity to spew from the BBC was that radiation isn’t something we need to worry about. The author argues that much higher exposure to radiation is unlikely to cause harm based upon evidence from the UN retrospectively looking at Chernobyl and Long Island’s nuclear disasters.
I have some relatives who had lived through World War Two and become spread around the world. The brothers in the UK are still alive and kicking despite their ripe old age. Those in Eastern Europe under the fallout area died of Leukaemia. There’s no history of this disease in our family. I cannot scientifically prove that Chernobyl was the cause yet equally neither can the author or the UN scientifically prove that it was not. The world and particularly the Japanese have every right to err on the side of caution. Our understanding of the human body is laughably shallow despite the medical establishment’s best attempts to make itself appear all-knowing and one of the few things that is recorded with 100% accuracy throughout human history is that scientists continuously get things wrong. I accept that it’s no ill intention on their part; they’re simply doing the best they can with what they know at the time.
It’s fact that humans get it wrong more often than not. All the advances in science and medicine haven’t stopped cancer rates soaring to their highest ever levels in recorded history. Now the odds are at 1 in 2 – that’s 50-50 – either I’ll die from it or you will. Don’t panic that a nuclear reactor is leaking into the sea? Dear Professor Allison, you’re one chain reaction short of an implosion. We barely understand natural ecosystems, let alone the impact of man’s meddling on the environment. I’m thankful for the staff at Fukushima for working so hard to contain the problem. We’ll see how many are around in 40 years from now to share their memoirs.
The Stiff Upper Lip of the Beeb
Anti cuts march: Tens of thousands at London Protest. That’s the title of the BBC’s write up of the events in London on March 26th 2011. The next line reads “More than 250,000 people have attended a march“. Elsewhere is could be seen that 250,000 to 500,000 attended. So at what point does quart of a million to half a million become just tens of thousands? At very least it is hundreds of thousands. And given that the British are by culture the most likely to apologise when someone else makes a mistake, this downplaying of popular support and constant emphasis on what a costly nuisance these people are, is a grave disservice to the TV license paying public that fund the BBC. Unlike the French, the British are characteristically downtrodden. They rarely complain. They have to be massively annoyed to speak up. When half a million turn up to something as unenjoyable as an anti-cuts protest it’s a very serious indication that something needs to be done.

Last year I wrote a piece called “A Youth Well Wasted” for online thought leadership magazine, Imperica. My intention was to expose that disaffected youth will, by the very instinct to survive and thrive that runs in all living beings, try to find ways of creating a world they want to live in. When that is combined with technology the likelihood of setting off a spark in the powder keg grows. In the 1990s, kids used mobile phones to run raves. Nowadays we’re seeing angry young men use social media to launch revolutions across the Middle East.
I reject that the March was about a rich vs poor divide. Many of the marchers weren’t poor, they simply aren’t money mongering, cash hoarding capitalists. They prefer to spend the days of their life engaged in other matters, like people or family. They are the everyday people whose interest in everyday pursuits makes society possible. What is happening is that as more and more people see their future being eclipsed by the destruction brought upon society by the very rich, they quite rightly feel angry. All most people quite rightly want is the opportunity to live their life without too much State interference, whether directly in the form of legislation or indirectly in the form of taxation. The constant use of society as a cash machine by the rich is one thing; when the rich make the middle and working classes pay for their unpaid overdraft is another. Society needs rebalancing. The disaffected need some love to be shown to them and cutting away the services that will care for them if the radiation comes this way or bombing weaker nations is not solving the social problem, although it may try to tackle some of it’s economic symptoms.
As one tweeter said last night:

Truly impartial reporting would provide a balanced perspective from both sides. Yes we need to take action on the state of the economy and yes we need to work to protect the world from dictatorships, yet the truth is far greyer than is made out. The BBC consistently covers and frames stories from one perspective, and that’s why I’ve decided – I’m switching off.
Live Outside The Box
In the 1990s I had a television. I grew so bored of the endless stream of self serving broadcast media that I switched off. It wasn’t until sometime in 2001 I got TV again, this time with Sky and really it wasn’t mine – it was my other half’s. I realised that I’d missed nothing in all those years. From 2005 to 2010 I only had brief moments of TV ownership. Every time I have one, I’m reinforced in my belief that:
- Television destroys relationships – the more you get involved in the lives of others inside the box, the less you’ll be engaged with those outside the box
- Television destroys influence – most of the people I know who watch a lot of television have very little influence in their world beyond which channel to view. TV creates a passivity in people which in turn wastes their ability to influence since influence depends fundamentally upon getting up and taking direct action
- Television destroys truth – there is little in the world that is universally true save that love is important and death inevitable, yet most people who watch a lot of television become very opinionated. Simply put, much of what we accept because of social proof just isn’t true
- Television destroys happiness – programming needs viewers therefore high emotional content aids rating. The human condition isn’t meant to be masturbated in this way. It desensitizes us to real happiness and conditions us to live in short term emotional roller coasters
I’ve decided that for at least this year I’m going to plug into alternatives. There will still be televised media I’ll be watching, but not the BBC News. I’m not that interested in the BBC’s version of what happened yesterday. What I really want to know is what is going to happen tomorrow. Therefore the BBC serve me little purpose other than to infuriate myself.
I haven’t fully decided all of the channels I will be tuning into. I’m grateful for all the information that comes to me via my networks on Social Media and I also know that there are some great places to go where people are really engaged in thinking about how we can create tomorrow:
There are also some great contributors on Vimeo although it does take a little more hunting to find them. Lastly, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, The WWF and Friends of the Earth also have some insightful content that cuts the propaganda.
If you wanted to get the clearest perspective of the world you could, who would you tune into and why?