Offended By Song Lyrics?

This Christmas has seen two seasonal classics threatened with being taken off the radio. In the wake of the "Me Too" movement, political correctness has taken a somewhat extreme turn and a bizarre form of fascism appears to be policing the music and film industries, restraining the zeitgeist.

The first to fall victim was The Pogues and Kirsty Macoll's Fairytale of New York, widely regarded as the best Christmas song in existence. The word 'faggot' is not a term of which I condone the use, nor the connotations, don't misunderstand, but it has to be looked at in the correct context. The song features a couple having a vicious domestic dispute, exchanging assorted colourful insults in a bright and happy major key to underpin the lack of seriousness in the situation.  Obviously the use of the word (and other rather potent words used in the song) is to illustrate the nature of the characters in the story. These characters are bad people; generally unethical, offensive and ignorant. Hearing an offensive word in a context such as this doesn't necessarily make the song offensive in of itself.

The second song being attacked by political correctness fanatics is Frank Loesser's 1944 classic Baby It's Cold Outside. Again, the original intended context is vital to the process of deciding whether or not this song could be deemed offensive. It can appear that the male character in the story is being particularly pushy and possibly predatory. He is giving his female guest excuses to stay the night. The strings that attach this piece of music to any kind of offence appear extremely tenuous once one understands the context of the story.

Firstly, consider that the female character does not want to leave, she wants to stay the night, but because of the societal pressure she faces with regards to potential promiscuity, the year being 1944, she doesn't feel that she can. The male character doesn't face the same societal pressure and therefore, is free to ask his lady visitor to stay. Although he appears to be pushy, the intention of the song was not to give the impression that there is any lack of consent. Secondly, the line concerning people the most is "say, what's in this drink", a joke commonly used in films at the time when a character blames an indiscretion on the effects of alcohol. It has nothing to do with her drink being spiked.

The mistake most often seen in the wake of the "Me Too" movement is that people tend to jump to pre-emptive conclusions assuming something is offensive without making the effort to think about the context, particularly in a day and age where somehow songs with severely offensive messages are slipping through the net and making millions. Remember that this same generation praised Fifty Shades of Gray claiming it "empowers" women to see a fairly pathetic girl involved in a dangerously controlling relationship with a sociopathic sexual predator. When it comes to taking offence, maybe we as a generation should reorder our priorities. 

Nuclear Deterrent - Why?

Let’s talk about the nuclear deterrent. Now, nobody ever seems to argue with me when I point out that the use of a nuclear weapon by any nation will cause a chain reaction of numerous nations retaliating, almost certainly leading to a global cataclysmic event that will take the life of just about every living organism on this planet. With me so far? Good. Here’s where it gets easy. We’re going to use a simple parable to explain exactly why the very idea of a nuclear deterrent is the most pointless notion in the history of the human race.

There are three of us locked in a room together, unable to get out. You (the reader), me and third person; let’s call him Kevin. Kevin has a gun with an empty clip but a single round in the chamber, you have an improvised explosive device that will kill us all and I’m just a bystander who can’t do anything about it because as much as I could protest, neither of you are going to listen to me.

Kevin has his gun pointed at your head. You have your finger on the button. To avoid getting shot, you threaten to detonate the IED and kill all three of us. To avoid getting blown up, Kevin threatens to shoot you in the head, thereby saving his life and mine. To avoid getting blown up or having to see someone’s brains get blown out all over the wall, what can I do? Nobody will hear my protest because the two of you keep trying to convince me that you have the situation under control, which you clearly don't. You both stand there staring at each other while poor old me standing in the corner is trying desperately to make either of you see some kind of sense. Surely the best way to handle the situation is for everyone in the room to lower their weapons and together, we can all figure out how to break the locks and explore the world outside.

Now imagine you are a fascist dictator, Kevin is the President of the United States and I am the entire human race, standing in the corner watching this situation get worse, petrified that I’m going to die, meanwhile feeling intensely guilty in the knowledge that I would rather see one person get shot in the head than the much more likely scenario leading to three people getting senselessly blown up. If we lower the weapons and put our differences aside, we can break the locks that keep us here. We can improve the room, plant some trees, strip back the plain wallpaper and reveal the beautiful natural colours beneath, and most importantly, we can explore space together, united under a singular respect and admiration for the universe that gave us life instead of wasting our time staring at each other until one of us pulls the trigger.