At the end of the day, are all political speeches just a steaming pile of cliche?

At the end of the day, are all political speeches just a steaming pile of cliche?In politics, the PR machine is always spinning; whirring away in the background while the general public go about their business. Its pistons never stop: they twist and turn and mangle the news agenda using stories as their fuel.  But they emit only one thing: pure positivity. Communication - that’s  what they call it.

Of course some events can be difficult to spin in this way, namely war. This is why communication with the public is important. If a country  has to announce that it  intends to go to war, the public need to know why. At this point, the PR machine goes into overdrive, its cogs cease to function. It has to be oiled. But unfortunately for us it’s always the same oil : the banal, derivative,cliched oil that greets us when war is announced.

But war is the not the only circumstance in which this will occur. In fact, it appears that most public speeches feature these tired cliches.

It seems that  most of the events which go on to shape our social history have always come in conjunction with prominent speeches; Martin Luther King Jr’s I Have a Dream  speech was the soundtrack to the civil rights movement while President Obama’s Yes We Can provided Americans with the hollow promises they craved.  But the funny thing about both of these speeches is that they share fundamental similarities, not just because they were both delivered by African-Americans but because they were riddled with cliched language from start to finish. Something that, at the end of the day, we’ll just have to accept.

Repetition, repetition, repetition appears be the chosen MO for any public figure attempting to pander to an audience and Obama and King(or certainly their speech writers) knew this. Throughout King’s address in particular he used the titular phrase eleven times in total, suggesting that he either quickly ran out of things to say or he just felt very strongly about the nocturnal wanderings of his subconscious. Although it’s likely neither of them, mind. No doubt the speech writing bible would settle for a more rational explanation  - something like: “The use of repetition helps to emphasise the importance of the point and continually enforces the singular ideology throughout.”

Speaking of repetition, one man who used/abused this feature to great effect was the late Winston Churchill. “Never give in, never give in, never never never.” he said. One can only assume that he was talking about bowing to the atrocity of actually creating an original speech - neverless, he was one of the first ones to exploit the feature in this way - so I’ll let him off.

Speaking of exploiting features (a segue you always want to hear) Churchill often used repetition in a much more interesting way. In his famous  ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ he continually repeats “we shall fight on” followed by your ‘insert place here’ afterwards phrase. A much more original use of the feature with closer kin to parallelism, although I say original ,this use is largely derivative of Shakespeare’s and Dickens’ work.

Aside from repetition ,of course, there are features used in speeches which are also part of the cliched speech vernacular that we mustn’t forget. Antithesis or putting two directly opposite phrases together seems to be a favourite of American presidents in particular . Our friend, the aforementioned Barack Obama, used this feature heavily in his inaugural address. “We do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly” is just one instance out of the six times he used this feature. His personal  PR machine(speechwriters) probably said something along the lines of “use antithesis, it doesn’t bore the audience, it contrasts, excites and entices. Entices. Sorry I’m repeating myself so you remember. ” No wonder these speeches are so cliched. Another American President, George Bush Sr, liked this feature saying things like “ While the world waited, Saddam Hussein raped, pillaged and plundered” Talk about contrast...

Its in war speeches when speechwriters most obviously reach for the cliches - almost like it gives the public a greater sense of assurance in preparation for the mass amounts of death they are about to experience. Looking at Bush Sr’s 1991 Gulf War speech is like reading a parody. Particularly because of another cliched feature: hyperbole( gross exaggeration) something that if hear one more time I swear the universe is going to implode in on itself. He used this feature to chastise Saddam, as if the American public don’t know a villain when they see one - even if he does have chemical weapons sticking out his trouser pockets.

It looks like Obama and a war speech could form a lethal combination if they ever came into contact, as if potassium and water would react to explode into mushroom cloud of cliche. No doubt he would say something like ‘We do not fight, fight, fight to endanger civilians, we fight, fight, fight to uphold American values, the most important thing in the world”. Let’s hope that for all our sake’s that Mr. Assad doesn’t try anything.

“We must not fear for our lives, we must fight for them” is at great line, or it would have been had I not just made it up.  You can judge all you want about my speech writing abilities but I don’t think that’s fair given that I just plucked that claptrap out of the air in the last few minutes. The fact of the matter is that the cliched line is the foundation of a any speech, good or bad and there’s no way of avoiding that because for all intents and purpose all great speeches are extremely derivative and they’re better for it too -  there I finally said it...

Germany 4-0 Portugal: my player ratings

Robben and Robin run La Roja ragged: Spain 1-5 Netherlands match report

Yesterday evening Louis van Gaal's rampant Oranje plundered five goals past a hapless Spain side in a game which nobody could have predicted. Least of all me -- in my preview I had a plumped for a close game; a cagey game; a game with a low number of goals. 2-0 Spain was my guess -- and  I couldn't have been more wrong.

Although, the fact remains that I did in fact pose some pertinent tactical question of the Spain side which looked to have been answered. So, let's take a look:

'Does Del Bosque stick with his solid double-pivot?'

Yes. Well at least up until the 63rd minute when Xabi Alonso was replaced by Pedro -- who filled in on the left wing, allowing Iniesta to move into the number 10 position. At this point La Roja were only 2-1 down to the Dutch side and this did not improve much from this point onwards -- in fact it was arguably worse. Although Spain's defenders (particularly Sergio Ramos) and goalkeeper Iker Casillas were largely to blame for the 3 goals conceded subsequently; Alonso’s presence could have helped Sergio Busquets to shield Spain’s back four against the dual-pronged Dutch attack. But prior to this point Alonso had little impact on the game aside from his 27th minute equaliser from the penalty spot.

‘Does Xavi have the legs to play number 10 at 35?’

Maybe not. Although this possibly looks like the best solution if he continues to start for the national side. Whilst he may have completed the most passes of any player on the pitch, he failed to pick up the ball in any meaningful space and look for an incisive pass. This role was predominantly played by his teammate, Andres Iniesta, who continually drifted inside from his left-wing station to become more involved in the play. If he had started in this position from the outset then we may have seen more sumptuous through-balls like the wonderful disguised pass he played to David Silva -- who promptly fluffed his lines in a chance which would have tipped the game in Spain’s favour. It will surely give Del Bosque a headache for Spain’s remaining games although choosing between Messrs Xavi and Iniesta is a decision every coach would love to be faced with.

‘Can Spain deal with counter-attacks?’

No. No they can’t.

Spain vs Netherlands: player ratings

But a big question posed after this match concerns the opposite side: Should the Netherlands be considered contenders? Louis van Gaal appears to have transformed this team into a ruthless counter-attacking machine with a solid defence. van Persie and Robben formed a perilous partnership against the Spanish. Daley Blind -- who provided the assists for van Persie’s and Robben’s respective first goals -- could prove to be one of the stars of the tournament if keeps supplying the Dutch frontline with spectacular long-balls like he did last night. But while the Dutch back-five and front-two are a cause to be reckoned with, the midfield three (de Jong, de Guzman and Sneijder just ahead) need to play better if they expect to challenge. Sneijder fired straight at Casillas when put through on goal, furthermore, he failed to deliver the defence-splitting through passes we have come to expect from him. The midfield pivot of de Jong and de Guzman are solid and workmanlike but need to be more creative.

Summary

Fair result? Yes,very.

Hero: van Persie.

Villain: Casillas.

Surprise star: Blind

Can van Gaal provide Spain’s undoing? Spain vs Netherlands preview

The teams

 Spain arrive at this World Cup harbouring concrete designs for overall victory - and why shouldn’t they? - they’ve been undeniably the greatest national team in the world since they first set it ablaze with comprehensive victory at Euro 2008. Since then they’ve continued their supremacy, adding another European crown in 2012, after sensationally becoming world champions last time out in South Africa. But Spain enter this particular tournament with a degree of trepidation: they were thoroughly outplayed by Brazil in last year’s Confederation Cup - while tactical questions continue to be asked, namely concerning their midfield three. Does Del Bosque stick with his solid double-pivot? Does Xavi have the legs to play number 10 at 35? And - Can Spain deal with counter attacks?

Expected line-ups

Conversely, the Netherlands have experienced mixed fortunes since they met Spain in that 2010 final. They endured an utterly turgid Euro 2012, going out in the group stage with not a point to their name - but having since changed managers, they have experienced a substantial upturn in form. While the Dutch’s former manager Bert van Marwijk employed a strong midfield two of Nigel de Jong and Mark van Bommel, his successor Louis van Gaal has a abandoned this approach in favour of a more attacking 4-3-3 formation, preserving only the former at its base. van Gaal’s change appeared to have worked throughout the qualifying stage with his side delivering 34 goals in 10 games. Although, curiously, van Gaal has initiated another tactical tweak borne out of the absence of midfielder Kevin Strootman, abandoning his 4-3-3 for a 5-3-2 system.

The game

While van Gaal’s team of players are more than capable of causing problems upfront its their defending that will which surely decide the outcome of this game. It is likely that the Netherlands’ back five will be camped on the edge of their area for long points of this game and look to counterattack through the pace of Robben when they can. Expect left-wingback Daley Blind to attack high up the pitch on occasions too, more so than his compatriot on the opposite flank. The Dutch side is adept at attacking but concentration will be the key for them.

Spain will stick to their Plan A tiki taka approach throughout this game but the question is whether they have an adequate Plan B. The Netherlands’ defensive setup will mean that they will have to remain patient for long periods and feed the pace of Diego Costa in behind the Dutch defence when possible. The absence of  injured Jesus Navas - Spain’s go-to player when chasing a game - suggests that Pedro will be the man tasked with causing problems from a wide position, although he may have to do that from the bench if Silva starts ahead of him.

Prediction

I expect this will be a very cagey game with both teams out to not lose rather than win in their first game. Nevertheless, Spain have the better first XI and the better options on the bench also. This could certainly tip the balance if Spain are looking for a goal.

My prediction: Netherlands 0-2 Spain

I realise this is awful.

Goat Simulator review

Ready...steady...GOAT (I won't apologise for that one)

In the years gone by, game developers and publishers would look to mainstream magazines to emblazon their shiny new game across their front pages. But times have changed, and now it appears  the only effort needed to market your game to a mass audience involves the process of copy and pasting a Steam code into the body an email, shooting it off to a famous YouTuber a la PewDiePie or Tobuscus, and watching the views (and lolz) roll in. In recent years it seems that more and more developers,especially in the indie scene,have begun to tailor their games specifically for this purpose; games like Amnesia and Slender-- designed to provoke hyperbolic and amplified reactions with their ludicrous jump-scares-- have been followed by games such as Sanctum developer Coffee Stain Studios’ new creation : Goat Simulator.

Those who have watched PewDiePie’s bombardment of ‘Let’s Plays’ will know Goat Simulator well, but for  intelligent human beings who haven’t (only joking PewDiePie fans) Goat Simulator is exactly what it sounds like: a parody of the multitude of mixed quality simulator games that have been popping up on Steam over the past few years. But the game itself is really a small physics sandbox  in which you play as (you guessed it) a goat. If you’ve ever wanted to jump, headbutt and lick your way to the top -- now is your chance.

It’s these three mechanics which the gameplay centres around. The aim of the game is  to complete around 25 ‘goals’ which include things simple things like letting out the signature “baaa” sound, to more complex tasks which involve racking up a combo across obstacles such as the trampolines which are dotted all around the game. But obviously in a game of this type the fun is to be had from straying away from these optional  goals to blaze your own path. Fun activities include, but are not limited to: headbutting almost everything in sight; attaching your tongue to a human and pulling him/her across the map to create yet more destruction; pretending your a Goat-Olympic trampolinist; getting abducted by aliens; playing Flappy Goat (yes,really); attempting to traverse a crane and jump off onto a glider below (very hard); and blowing up the gas station to be met by an achievement entitled ‘Michael Bay’ (naturally). When you’re bored of these things there’s always the subtle easter eggs in the game such as the pentagram circle in the ground which--when used to sacrifice 5 people will unlock a new ‘Blood Goat’. The game also has Steam Workshop support which will surely provide some interesting gameplay additions from a talented community of modders. Overall, the main gameplay mechanics are reasonably enjoyable although we all know you don’t buy a game called Goat Simulator for the investing gameplay.

The reason of course, is the comedy. The game’s opening gambit is to parody simulator games but that joke gets old quickly. Instead the developers have--rightly or wrongly--chosen to include all but the game-breaking bugs, ostensibly to provide funny glitches and satire the big-budget launch-gaffes from the likes of Skyrim and most EA games (I’m looking at you Battlefield 4) . But to the uninitiated, some of the bugs just look like poor-programming and lazy workmanship. The game rose to prominence in its early access beta period but doesn’t look to have left it and unfortunately (at the time of writing) is yet to dispel its horrible optimisation issues. This means that more casual PC gamers with underpowered setups, will struggle to run this game at a steady frame rate at anything but the least intensive settings. Coffee Stain must surely fix this in order to tap into the more casual audience that the gameplay is suited for. Until that time comes, this problem represents the game’s biggest downside.

Verdict: Overall, it is clear that this game is clearly designed with eccentric YouTubers in mind. But, for the rest of us, this game will provide at the very least some cheap laughs and whimsical gameplay, although the debilitating bugs really limit the game’s functionality. And while Goat Simulator is firmly embedded in the cultural zeitgeist, it won’t be soon before the YouTube digerati get bored and swiftly move on -- an action which will surely be quickened up by the irritating bugs.

2/5

Writing about writing about not much

As you'll be able to tell from the time-stamps, I haven't posted on this blog for a while. Although, I say 'you', the pronoun I should really be reaching for is 'me'; because let's be honest: who actually reads this? I know I don't.

So just in case, someone stumbles upon this blog while scouting new blogs to fish referral link -bait with and happens to have a passing glance at this post -- hello! -- and go away. Retreat to the murky depths of your phishing sites.

Right ,now I've completely alienated 100% of my 'audience',  it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty; the real reason I'm writing this is because I can or moreover, because I should. You see, I could lie and label myself as a lot of things with perfectly valid reason: a runner who doesn't run, a blogger who doesn't blog, a footballer who doesn't football(technical term), a builder who doesn't build, a producer who doesn't produce, a maker who doesn't make, a developer who doesn't develop. But as much as I am not and don't want or need to be any of these things, I am also a writer who doesn't write -- and that's the most important one.

You can be anything you want to be without practising it, its a matter of self-labeling, for example how many singers don't sing or how many actors don't act (a fair few if the film 'The Room' is anything to go by) so this is my chance to be a writer -- by writing.

You( I did it again) may have noticed that up to this point I have managed to write close to 300 words with little or no substance behind them and that's not likely to change, so maybe I should stop now. But then again, I did write this post for the sake of writing so I'm going to illogically keep going BECAUSE I SHOULD.    

At this point I should probably get back on topic, what's the title of this post? Ah, yes the writing about not much thing -- that's helpful, let's write about that. OK. Seeing as I'm a writer who doesn't write I'm just going to write about not much(see, I'm on topic), writing, good, yes, words, things... AARGHH I'M TOO LAZY

Acknowledging The Frivolity Of Smart Watches And Wearable Tech

Upon the forthcoming releases of wearable tech solutions such as the soon-to-be- ubiquitous Google Glass as well the impending invasions of smartwatches from the likes of Samsung, Qualcomm and Pebble, I assumed it would be a good time to unload my general thoughts and opinions regarding these encumbrances of the tech world. 

 Smartwatch is a word that has become so ingrained in the vocabularies of PR men and bloggers a-like that it has earned the prestigious mantra of being not just two words ,but one, and yes that's definitely a victory in the world of tech - honest.

     

But at this point it's probably worth looking at other products that share the 'smart' prefix. There's smartphone,smartTV, smarthouse and Microsoft's SmartGlass but then there's also smartfridge, smart car,   smartarse and why not smartbin, smartTable and well.. smarties. The point is you can call something smart all you like but that doesn't make it so. Thomas Edison once said 'The value of an idea lies in the using of it'. And that's where the problem lies. Aside from having a crazy cool,high resolution clock face at the end of your arm, there's little use for a product with limited capibilities such as this. The fact of the matter is that the use of a smartwatch is about as futile and pointless as the length of time it took me to look for a suitably intelligent quote and that was way too long, trust me.

p.s Frivolity is a nice word isn't it..