The Obscurer

Month: May, 2008

Herbert And The Watermelon Of Doom

“Watermelon” they shout, and the “they” in question are idiots. But there is perhaps just a nugget, nay a kernel, perhaps a smidgeon or even a grain of truth in that insult what “they” so easily hurl.

It’s a good term, is “Watermelon”. For those who aren’t in the know it is used by some to describe an old-style socialist who masquerades as an environmentalist in order to surreptitiously campaign for their sneaky statist goals; they are green on the outside, red on the inside, geddit? And they will exist, such folk; no doubt the term can be accurately applied to some knackered comrades who have surmised that the best route to achieving their dream of getting government to muck everything up is by going in via the green back door, just as during the ‘eighties the Labour party enjoyed a rapid conversion from being a broadly anti- into a broadly pro-EU party in order to palm continental-style social policies into Britain under the noses of the Thatcher government.

But I think such things can be overstated. I reckon most environmentalists are naturally of a more leftist bent in the first place, for whatever reason. It is just the way things are, and I don’t pretend to understand why, but some issues do seem to exhibit some strange, almost symbiotic relationship with a particular political wing for no obvious reason. While lefties tend to be more environmentally conscious, righties are seemingly more likely to be anti-abortion. This makes no sense as far as I am concerned, but as we have seen this week there is evidence all around.

But if we at least acknowledge that some people are genuine Watermelons, that they are not just greens who happen to be red but socialists who feel that the best way to advance their cause is by posing as environmentalists, then where is the balance, the yin to the yang, that equal but opposite reaction; or perhaps the even greater reaction? In other words, where is the term to describe what is for me a far more likely scenario; of someone who is a free-market anti-government type who opposes environmentalism instinctively, not because of the science (such people are rarely scientists) but simply because the response to climate change implies a reliance on government action that they simply cannot countenance? They are the mirror of Watermelons in that while they may pose as honest brokers simply putting an alternative view to all that shrieking global warming propaganda, in reality they will grab hold of any rogue paper going that shows that there isn’t a problem, so to loudly pronounce that all is well and government can stay in its box, as their dogma demands. Their creed of minimal state intervention has no answers to the problems raised by concerns such as climate change, and so it must be denied for its own sake.

In the interests of fairness then we need an antonym for Watermelon, but what should it be? Cantaloupe? Dry Lemon? I reckon a nice acronym would do; TWiTs, perhaps, although I can’t think what those initials would stand for. But this surely cannot be beyond us, and once we have solved this problem and identified the Watermelons’ natural enemy then perhaps we can think of a moniker for those (other?) people who, whilst complaining about the welfare and nanny states and the dependency culture they have spawned breeding feckless scroungers who expect the state to wait on them hand and foot, then object that they themselves are far too busy to even sort their own fucking rubbish into a few simple piles prior to collection for recycling and want the council to come along and do it all for them. Because they’re out there too; I just know it.

Were All Going To Hell

Apostrophes can be a problem; just ask those brain boxes on The Apprentice who on last week’s programme debated for around three hours whether it should be Single’s Day, Singles’ Day or Singles Day. (Singles’ Day, in my opinion, as it is both plural and possessive.) But who hasn’t made the odd mistake, writing “it’s” instead of “its”, or “your” instead of “you’re”, out of sloppiness, say, even when we do know the correct usage?

However, this, from the ever-entertaining GrammarBlog, really does take the prize.

The sheer weight of the apostrophe misuse here is astonishing; these are no mere typos, rather the work of someone whose grasp of the written word is so poor that “Punctuator’s” should surely join the rest on this list of the damned.

My favourite punctuation error has got to be “Thieve’s”, a word that is so commonplace and this attempt at writing it so wrong that a tiny child could spot the error at a glance; even “Thief’s” would be an improvement, although then I would be curious as to just what it is, belonging to the thief, that is in need of repenting. For different reasons I also love the inclusion of those pesky “Sport’s Nut’s” on the list; the realisation that they, along with “Loud Mouth Women”, “Effeminate Men” and some others will also get short shrift from St. Peter come the day is highly enlightening. I’m even more glad now that I abandoned my City season ticket a few years ago.

And what’s all that about “High Fallutent”? Do they mean “High Falutin’”? Or even, “High Fallutin’’s”? Perhaps even they don’t know.

PostScript: Please feel free to point out any of my grammatical errors in the comments box; it’s the only way I’ll learn.

Many A Slip

Has last night’s result finally put to bed the idea the Rafael Benitez is the master tactician with a near monopoly on the know-how required to win the European Cup? I very much doubt it, and I am ready for the same old clichés to be trotted out next season when Liverpool begin their next Champions League campaign.

Now I’m not really having a pop at Benitez here – although I confess that I’m not a fan of the man – rather having a dig at that brand of lazy journalism that has built up his reputation for the sake of having anything better to do. I didn’t watch the match last night but I did see the first leg on ITV when the increasingly dreadful Clive Tyldesley turned the hyperbole up to eleven. Up until the last minute of that match – as with the tie against Arsenal a few weeks before – it was all about how Rafa seemingly has this gift, this supernatural endowment that can’t help but keep dragging him towards his destiny, and yet another cup final. The newspapers diligently parrot the same line, comparing Liverpool’s oft-stuttering league form with their continued progress in Europe. Why the disparity between Liverpool’s performances in the two competitions? The real answer – a bit of luck here and there – doesn’t make good copy, nor does it fill airtime or column inches, and so this myth, this ill-thought out narrative without any real supporting evidence, of Rafa the genius and his unique understanding of how to win such vital matches, has taken hold.

The truth, I feel, is more mundane. It would be hard to dispute the fact that the Premier League is currently the best league in Europe; a quick glance at the teams involved in the Champions League semi-finals for the past couple of years seems good evidence of this. Liverpool, as one of said league’s representatives, seem to me more likely to do well just by dint of playing in that very league. They are a decent side no doubt, but it isn’t so much that they have failed to perform in the league whilst raising their game in Europe, rather that as they are the fourth best team in the Premier League, which is the top league competition in Europe, they are therefore one of the favourites to progress in the Champions League, which they have duly done.

Think about it; just how could Rafa be so supremely talented that he knows exactly how to get Liverpool to win away to Inter Milan yet he is somehow unable to figure out how to beat Wigan at home? It doesn’t make any sense; the rules of the game and the preparation required are the same. One attempt at an explanation is that Rafa and Liverpool are more motivated for cup matches, more prepared for the do-or-die nature of knockout competitions; but if Benitez does have the surgical skill to prepare for an individual cup game but lacks the broad brush ability required to play week-in-week-out in the league, how come Liverpool were bundled out of the FA Cup by a struggling Championship side? And just how can you identify one particular team as being especially suited to winning cups anyway? Were Manchester United considered good at knockout competitions when they won the treble? Were Liverpool thought of the same way during the ‘eighties when they pretty much owned the Milk Cup on a permanent basis? Or in both of these cases are we not simply dealing with two very good teams, and for very good teams don’t those cups just come with the territory?

The thing is we have been here before. Liverpool under Gerard Houllier were pretty much the same as Liverpool under Benitez; a good side for sure, good enough to do well in the premiership without really challenging for the title, and good enough, with the necessary dash of luck, to win a cup or three. And a decade or so earlier I remember Manchester United fans continually explaining away their latest league defeat and perennial ability to finish fourth in the Football League as being down to the fact that they were a “good cup side”. Well fine, it’s a good excuse, but let’s tell it like it really is; when we describe a team as being a “good cup side”, all we are really saying is that they are “not quite good enough to win the league”. And that epithet applies equally well to the current Liverpool team and their manager.