"Paul Kedrosky: "I'm particularly fond of SmashingTelly given how it, in effect, Tivo-ifies the web"... Guy Dickinson: "David Galbraith has turned Smashing Telly into well, the new TV."... Fimoculous: "Best Blogs of 2007"... The Guardian: Video sharing on the net has uncovered a hoard of TV gems...and a number of sites have been established to lead us to them. Take smashingtelly.com."
about
"Smashing Telly is a hand edited collection of the best free, instantly available TV on the web. Not 30 second clips (now with added clips, good ones) of a dog on a skateboard, or the millionth person to mime the Numa song, but classic clips and full length programs, with a focus on documentaries and non fiction. Smashing Television, not Gimmick Television.
Each entry is like a postcard, a short piece of text which describes a moving picture."
Off the back of the success of the series of bestselling books lampooning religion, it will shortly be getting the ‘light satire documentary’ treatment. Perhaps the good natured jokeyness of the format is the best way to irritate people who take religion seriously.
The four mainstream champions of anti-theism around one table. Hitchens is clearly the odd one out here, and is possibly out of his depth. Its as interesting to watch that, in itself.
One inch Punch is a very popular movie on YouTube with roughly the same viewership as an episode of CBS’ 60 Minutes. Its a full movie that is short enough for people with ADD and gives hope to those who have been bullied by colossal, barbeque munching, Nascar fanatics for having the withered limbs and pallid skin of a computer addict. It suggests that no matter how physically challenged you are, if you join a pseudo religion that looks like it has been created by Dungeons & Dragons characters, for Dungeons & Dragons fans – and work hard, you will be able to kick anyone’s ass.
I have chosen ‘One Inch Punch’ as representative of all martial arts movies which are supposed to be taken seriously and which seem to be another example of FEBL (Fucking Entertaining Big Lie) media. Its a succinct 7 minute piece that highlights perfectly what I have against spiritual fighting and in particular the bollocks that is called Kung Fu.
Yes, these guys are extremely fit, just as pro wrestlers look like Popeye, but that does not make Kung Fu any more real. What it does mean is that the One Inch Punch with a two foot follow through trick, can be performed by a suitably adept stuntman to make it look convincing. Add some commentary using hackneyed metaphors about ‘channeling energy’, by people who look like they can’t take a joke, to the de facto credibility of a tradition started by ancient monks and you have the makings of a proper little religion.
When it comes to religion I take the Hitchens amendment – i.e. what can be claimed without argument can be dismissed without argument. The reason martial arts can be dismissed is that they exhibit all the traits of a religion. They are a crypto-religious cultural artifact, the Eastern equivalent of fair maidens and broad-swords and traditional Western medicine such as blood sucking leeches, only interesting as fantasy or high camp slapstick.
Charlton Heston was simultaneously a Civil Rights activist and the head of the NRA. Confused? Well this will either help or perplex you beyond caring. Not something to sit through the whole of, but it does give some insight as to how odd Charlton Heston was.
Some fundamentalists believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old and that rocks and dinosaurs are too. This piece suggests that Charlton (what a great first name) believed that modern humans were millions of years old instead.
When young children do very adult things like dress up in sexually suggestive clothing, for a beauty pageant, say, it brings on a particular sense of revulsion at the negation of childhood innocence because of the selfish desires of adults.
This film about child preachers has the same effect. It demonstrates by direct example what Richard Dawkins explains in prose. The fly on the wall style possibly has greater effect, since it appeals to our senses rather than just our intellect. Both methods show that to call your child an ‘Evangelical Christian’, or whatever, is no less ridiculous that calling a child a neo-Trotskyist, and therefore possibly abusive.