not seeing with euro-vision...

Yes, time for the yearly cringe fest that is the Eurovision. Of course never actually watch it myself, but like the recent royal wedding that doesn't mean one can escape it...or that one is above paying it just enough attention to ridicule it that bit more effectively.

And like the royal wedding, the gigantic viewing figures that were reported simply beggar belief, if not in the accuracy of the stats, then in there being any hope for the future of mankind whatsoever. Could 120 million sentient beings really want to spend 4 hours of their bitterly short lives watching what is in essence an international contest between groups not good enough to ever normally perform at the international level. Like it or not, music and 'pop stars' are a major element in our cultures, but the very fact that it is such a dynamic and competitive arena which demands a high level of relevant (relative) qualities to get anywhere at all, makes it all the more puzzling why a competition between also, or even never, rans, gets such attention.

Maybe it's just for historical reasons - it was a big thing once, and now is a yearly tradition which is a big event every year, because it was a big event every other year. But how did it ever get started? I was at first tempted by the 'attractive beacon for world peace in the bad old cold war days' thesis, but I'm not sure how trying to get the better of other countries by building up a back scratching alliance of voting favour swaps really would have done anything but remind people of the geopolitics of the day. Except maybe for the fact that the US wasn't involved, which might be it - maybe it was Europe harking back to the 19th century days when it's little regional groupings actually mattered...

Anyway, whatever the history, and whatever it was previously, for as long as I've been aware of it was at most something to take the piss out of. And I have to admit, it was sometimes so good at living up to this role that I often seriously wondered if maybe that was the actual point of it, like a gigantic game of cultural self-mockery. But alas I think it would be too much to hope that any country could lavish such resources on a practical joke of that scale, let alone a group of them take turns in paying for it. And coming from Ireland, it's definitely not a case of sour grapes, given that we won it so many times and, judging by some of our entries, had to go to extra effort to lose the damn thing and not have to fork out to hold it again.

Maybe it was just kept going by all the countries who didn't win thinking that if they did it would make a difference, and they weren't going to let it fizzle out until they had.

While every country produced some joke of an act at some stage, cultural ignorance meant the less well known places were the best bets for a laugh. The problem is most of them didn't grasp that what might have them jumping in the aisles back home, would have their neighbours rolling in them, especially if involved some traditional dress hyped up with the latest local fashion, or some bizarre and unplayable ritual instrument. Though I guess the funniest thing was the sight of them performing in this ridiculous contest with an air of complete sincerity - like someone who turns up to your door in a clown costume and then tries seriously to sell you life insurance.

Though from what I gather, it's all changed since my day (being the 24 hours sometime in the 80s when i went from not knowing what it was to wishing I still didn't). I know there was a step change when the Eastern European countries poured in, but at least they had a legitimate claim to be there (the clue's in the name), not like Israel whose presence I still to this day can't understand.

I think about this time the voting system also went from the straightforward one-country-one-jury system to a more byzantine cross collection of sms voting, which while laudably getting rid of the elitist element (again a joke given the farcical nature of the whole thing) brought in a host of new problems in the form of expat and border communities. These groups risked upsetting what I consider the 2nd point of the whole thing, for an international airing of gripes and grudges..."Ireland, can we have your votes...United Kingdom, nuls points"! In fact, it couldn't really be beaten as a primer on european international relations - watch one eurovision and you soon knew which countries hated which others on a nice handy 12 point scale!

I guess it did contribute the derisatory phrase 'nuls points' to the non-French speaking world, but that was another thing which confused me mightily : why did everything have to be said in 2 languages? Why pander to 2 of the 12 or so countries and not just 1? Logical would be rotating with which ever country was hosting it, but having French and English didn't make sense in any contest since people used line up politely in a field with their muskets before trying to slaughter each other.

I suppose the fact it still gets to me means it's something I love to hate. But from what I briefly saw (failed to not see) of it this year it seems to have even lost it's mirth inducing ridiculousness. Rather than having some entertainment factor through sheer preposterousness, now it seems to be just plain bad. The acts are all trying to emulate the latest chart phenomenon, and really seem to be taking it all quite seriously. Hmmm....or maybe the joke has just been made that bit more subtle...

it could be you, but not me

Despite agreeing with the notion that it's not much more than a tax on the stupid (or at least on those who don't understand probability) I have to admit there is something fascinating about the lottery. It's one of the few, if not the only , instantaneous life changing events that can be for the good rather than the bad. There are a million and one ways in which disaster or upset can strike us out of the blue - death, illness, unemployment, bank crashes - but only a one in a million (or rather one in about 70 million) way in which the same magnitude of sudden positive affect can occur. Of course there are many ways we can be lucky, and our lives improve, but most need some foundation or groundwork - even the hit novelist had to work on the book long before success came knocking. So while I refuse to play the lottery out of principle, it is perhaps nice that there is this phenomenon out there - even if not being in, I can't win.

Well actually, I put my chance of winning without playing only fractionally less than winning through playing! If the odds of winning are 77,000,000 to 1, then surely that's a similar level of improbability to suddenly finding the cash accidentally transferred to my account, or buying a painting at a flea market and it turning out to be a Van Gogh?!

But I do have to admit the attraction, and it shows again how terrible we humans are when it comes to probability. Indeed, given how so much of our lives are based on reaction to risk, then it's surprising there isn't more focus on educating us, or at least the young, more on the topic. A fundamental goal for society is proper use of its resources, but it always amazes me how we can pour resources into combating the miniscule risk of terrorist blowing up our plane, when we're far more likely to kill ourselves or each other in the drive to the airport.

I guess such nightmares are the corollary of keeping the dream of instant luck alive. But it's a question whether it's a dream worth keeping, given evidence such as the fact that people are likely to spend more on a lottery, the poorer they feel themselves to be (and hence the less they can afford the gamble).

Personally I think given that I know the odds, and how irrational it is to play, it's an act of principle to abstain. But that's not to say i'm tempted, though being honest i have no problem with never winning the lottery - as long as none of the people I criticize for playing it do - they'd never let me live it down!

Anyway, as I said, I still find it an interesting topic, which is why I watched the Cutting Edge program on Lottery winners. I really like Cutting Edge, since I think it's reality TV as it should be - interesting insights into the lives of others in our society. But such television needs to be actually instructive, not just voyeurism or freak show. I guess one useful rule should be that reality TV should only be about people who don't particularly want to be in it! That's why the endless torrent of talent or big brother type shows get to me - these aren't telling us a real narrative, they are providing an outlet for someone to project an image, and normally a pretty obnoxious one at that (the sort of person arrogant or vain enough to want to be on TV is not the sort of person I want on it!).

As a second rule, the filming itself should try to be as unbiased and unmanipulative as possible. If there's one thing that gets my blood boiling it's emotive sound tracks to 'real life' stories, or even, most vexing and disgusting of all - slow motion shots. The sad thing is, in some cases there might actually be a nugget of worth in the tale being told, but given such shameless and obvious attempt to whip it into something more, then whatever good is long buried in nauseating fakery. And it's not just annoying, I think it's downright destructive to our society. Despite the regular cries that hollywood fools us into thinking life is something it isn't , at least in movies and tv series it's pretty obviously a work of fiction. But real life TV tries to have its cake and eat it - portaying itself as 'real' and hence valuable, but relying on the tricks of the makebelieve trade. Given how successful the manufactured 'pop star'morons (alas the moron bit is the only genuine part) can be (at least for their creators) then there is a frighteningly large amount of people who buy into it...and what that means for their general world view I shudder to think. One only has to look at how real tragedies, which need no slow mo or heart wrenching music to convince us of their importance, have started to also need a similar treatment on the news, or in charity appeals, to see how corrosive this can be. For some, it ain't real, unless it's at half speed.

BUT - cutting edge I'm glad to say isn't like that. It's interesting, informative, and I have to say genuinely heartwarming in how it sometimes portrays the best in 'ordinary' people. Nothing special, nothing 'superstar'- just examples of decency and solid character in everyday humans. Though admittedly this episode wasn't really about everyday humans - given they'd all had windfalls of several million pounds. But even still, they were still plainly very ordinary, despite their extraordinary circumstances. There was of course some examples of stereotypical lottery winner brashness, the guy with the multiple Aston Martins or the ridiculously large houses, but they weren't dwelled upon and the tone of the program definitely wasn't a 'wow look at them living it up' type thing. But in fact, it seemed the win had changed the people they new, more than it had changed them. The tales of envy and jealousy one could expect, but more relevant to the human condition was how when generosity was shown to friends and relations, it was sometimes never enough. And this I think was the most interesting point - that the perception what it's like to win the lottery, is sometimes worlds apart from the reality. I think the common notion is if you win you're setup for life, with no cares in the world. And of course most don't have real financial woes after - but only those who win mega amounts. A million pounds might be a lot, but it's a couple of houses, or a decent salary every year for the rest of your life - but you're not exactly Bill Gates. Of course it's much better than not, but the small shared wins don't necessarily mean you won't ever have to work again. For many, it's not infinite cash, but the problem is everyone thinks of it as such.

Of course some do win ridiculous amounts, 10, 20, 30 million...and they really are 'millionaires' (by which I mean can spend a million, not are worth one). But not all winners are - and the dream they get isn't what everyone dreams it is.

And of course with any thing dealing with such astronomical odds, there's going to be the freakishly unlucky as well. The poor guy who did win, and was officially recognized as having done so, but lost the ticket and hence couldn't collect. How much worse that is in bad luck, than actually winning is in good. The dream that slipped away is so much more appealing than the one which is forever ahead of you....

Which is another reason why I can't ever play the lottery, because if I did, I'd have to always play, with the same numbers, since I while I can discard the chance of winning, I couldn't bear the risk of almost winning.

If you're not in you can't win, but you also never lose.