Are you entangled in the web? Millions of us across the globe use the internet on a daily basis. It has revolutionised communication just as Gutenberg’s printing press did in the Middle Ages. At a flick of a button you can go practically anywhere, speak to anyone, start any business, open a bank account, buy anything, assume any identity, live an idealised life in a virtual world and gain access to a kaleidoscope of information. The web is wunderbar! Isn’t it?

But beneath its surface is a dusky mysterious world of intrigue, deceit, espionage, monsters and super creeps. With terrorist cells, doppelgangers, fraudsters, black hats, viruses, worms, phishes, Trojan horses, governmental and industrial spying all lurking in the shadows.

The cost of cyber crime, hacking and fraud in particular, is estimated at between five and ten billion dollars per year. High-profile hackers appeal to our anti-hero, anti-establishment sensibilities no doubt. Ironically, however, they often end up in top corporate and government jobs – once they have paid their penance of course. Who said crime doesn’t pay?

The collapse of the Berlin Wall symbolised the ending of The Cold War. Do we know have the Firewall – a symbol of the Cyber War? Here’s a selection of juicy titbits about the scammers, spooks and big players who inhabit The Net’s underworld:

Cyber Wars

Estonia Vs Russia
Combine a pint-sized Baltic state, the removal of a bronze statue of a Soviet WW2 soldier and the acrimonious reaction from Estonians of Russian descent and we have the first war in cyber space. The data-flooding of Estonia’s computer networks caused chaos and mayhem for over a month and the blame has been squarely laid at Russia’s door. The Russian government has denied any involvement in the incursions, which almost closed down the country’s digital infrastructure, clogged the presidential and parliament websites, almost crippling the biggest bank and overwhelming the sites of several daily newspapers. ‘It turned out to be a national security issue’ Estonia’s national defence minister, Jaak Aaviksoo, said in an interview. Computer security experts from NATO, Israel, the European Union and the USA have since converged on Estonia to help and to glean what they can about the threat of cyber war in the digital age.

China Vs Taiwan
Not only does China employ internet censorship in its country, but it has been reported that it has entered into a cyber war with Taiwan. A US government official warned that China is equipping itself to attack. Richard Lawless, deputy Defence under secretary said that if war broke out between China and Taiwan then it is probable that China’s first line of attack would not be humans, but is likely to be against things which keep Taiwan’s high tech society running. China would attack critical components of Taiwan’s infrastructure such as telecommunications, utilities, broadcast media, cellular, internet and computer networks; effectively isolating Taiwan from the rest of the world. Beijing insists that democratic, self-governing Taiwan is part of China and has threatened to attack if Taiwan seeks a permanent split or delay unification too long.

Al Qaeda Vs MI5
Authorities fear that terrorists are transmitting hidden messages on child porn sites as a way of secretly communicating with each other. This link came to light when UK, Italian and Spanish police made anti-terror swoops and found child pornography on suspect’s computers.

In a separate investigation authorities found 40,000 child porn images; MI5 are actively researching these links in an attempt to better understand how such sites are being used by terrorists. It is believed terrorists are exploiting techniques set up by paedophile rings to store, encrypt and transmit information securely on the internet. Villains will always strive to stay one step ahead of the law.

Famous Hackers

Jonathan James
This boy led the US authorities on a merry dance, cracking into the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) server. The DTRA is responsible for reducing the threat to the USA from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The backdoor he created enabled him to view sensitive e-mails and gain employees usernames and passwords. He also stole $1.7m worth of software from NASA, causing a computer system shutdown which cost $50,000. Diplomatic James said ‘the code itself was crappy….certainly not worth the $1.7m they claimed….’ Had he been an adult James would have likely been sentenced to 10 years in prison. But the kid was only sixteen. He ended up doing six months inside and is the first juvenile to be sent to prison for hacking. Jonathan James died in May of this year.

Adrian Lamo
Dubbed the ‘homeless hacker’, he used internet connections at coffee shops and libraries for his break-ins. Lamos’s intrusions consisted mainly of penetration testing, where he would find flaws in the system, exploit them and then inform the companies involved. His roll of honour includes The New York Times, Microsoft, Yahoo and the Bank of America amongst others. For cracking into The New York Times he was ordered to pay $65,000 compensation and sentenced to six months home confinement and two years on probation. Lamo is quoted as saying ‘I have a laptop in Pittsburgh, a change of clothes in DC. It kind of redefines the term multi-jurisdictional’. And guess what? Lamos is now an award winning journalist and public speaker.

Kevin Mitnick
The Department of Justice described Mitnick as the most wanted computer criminal history. This modern day Jesse James learned the ropes through exploiting the LA bus punch-card system to get free rides.

Mitnick then upped his game considerably and went on a two-and-a-half-year hacking spree in which he stole corporate secrets, scrambled phone systems and broke into the national defence warning system. He was ultimately convicted for breaking into the Digital Equipment Corporations network and stealing software. He was banged up for a mighty eight years. And guess what? Yep, he is now a successful computer security consultant, author and public speaker. Mitnick has also had two films made about him, Freedom Downtime (2001) and Takedown (2000).

Gary McKinnon
British born McKinnon, also known as SOLO, is facing extradition to the States to face charges which have been described as ‘the biggest military computer hack of all time’. He stands accused of hacking into 97 NASA and US military computers over a two week period. The US estimates that the cost of tracking down the problems and then resolving them will take a $700,000-size bite out of the country’s savings. McKinnon has always denied causing any damage and disputes the cost claim. He did, however, admit to leaving a note on one computer: ‘US foreign policy is akin to government sponsored terrorism these days…I am SOLO, I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels’. A group has been set up to campaign against McKinnon’s extradition – he could face up to 70 years in the can if convicted in the US.

Do you have a tale from The Dark Side?

Do you want your child to grow up to be a well-adjusted, emotionally-secure, happy, considerate, compassionate, principled, free-thinking, decent person? If the answer is an emphatic “NO”, then here are a few gift ideas for the coming holiday season…

Kid’s Pimp Costume
Does your son seem like a budding young entrepreneur? Is he a “people person”? Does he enjoy “smacking hoes”? Then why not inspire his inner-pimp with the beautifully-tailored Mac Daddy costume. Your boy will soon be commanding the respect of his peers with unabashed displays of misogyny and materialism. (Note: blinging jewellery, pimp-stick and dirty wad of money not included).

The glorification of pimp culture in our society is a noted problem; considered especially damaging to young children since it promotes distorted notions of sexuality and power and normalises the commodification of people and sex. According to psychologist Susan Linn, co-founder of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), this “normalization of men selling women is terribly destructive to boys and girls.”

However, if you are determined to encourage your offspring’s sex-trafficking aspirations then you can start them off even earlier with a lovingly-crafted blinging pimp pacifier.

Ride-On Humvee
Give your child a head start on the road to environmental ignorance and climate-change denial by buying them a ride-on SUV. Swell with pride as your child confidently drives their militaristic Hummer around the playground while giggling at their wimpy toy-hybrid-driving friends.

Featuring a 2-speed gearbox, 12-inch all-terrain wheels and a fake GPS receiver it looks like the manufacturers have done a good job of replicating the toy’s monolithic, gas-guzzling, real-life counterpart. I’m not sure if this accuracy extends to fuel requirements, but if it does you can expect the 12V battery to burn up the equivalent of Belgium’s annual electricity consumption for every 30 minutes of driving fun.

Perhaps I am being unfair though – since they’ve become such a potent symbol of environmental irresponsibility it’s very easy (and enjoyable and justified) to knock Humvees these days. Therefore, in the spirit of journalistic balance, I should defend this product by pointing out that in an era of endemic child obesity the supersized ride-on Hummer may represent the only practical mobility option for children of ample girth that lack the desire or will to use their legs for peddle-powered alternatives.

McDonald’s Playsets
Can’t be bothered to waste time and money educating your child? Or perhaps you’ve achieved less than you hoped to in life and fear being outdone by Junior? Well, forget buying your child a toy stethoscope or some Meccano – hell, the jumped-up little git might want to become a doctor or an engineer. A wiser option is to start them off with a McDonald’s playset and watch those aspirations plummet in seconds. Just imagine how their face will light up as they make-believe a wonderful day of mind-numbing, low-paid, prospect-free employment.

As discussed in a previous blog, McDonald’s toy products (such as the Drive-Thru Food Cart pictured above) are clear examples of the fast-food corporation’s cynical, and vastly successful, efforts to market their brand to children at an early age. It is a sad fact that many parents and schools tolerate the corporatisation of children’s recreational activities by providing them with toys designed, ultimately, as exploitative marketing tools.

On the plus side, McDonald’s playsets do have the inherent benefit that any accidental ingestion of the toy food is not to be feared since they probably have more nutritional value than a real-life Happy Meal.

Bratz
Many elements of the Bratz phenomenon are open to criticism - from the brand’s shameless promulgation of vapid consumerism to the shocking working conditions previously exposed within their manufacturer’s Chinese factories. However, I’m going to focus on the dolls’ embodiment of our society’s increasingly pervasive and detrimental sexualisation of young girls.

A report published last year by the American Psychological Association detailed the wide-ranging consequences of this trend, arguing that “ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs”. In direct reference to the overtly-sexualised clothing sported by Bratz dolls the report went on to express concerns over the “worrisome” association of “an objectified adult sexuality” in a doll designed for preteen girls.

So if you want your daughter to have a low self-esteem and distorted conceptions of attractiveness and sexuality, then get your credit card out and order her a Bratz doll this Christmas - she’ll thank you for it now, but probably not later when she’s racked with insecurities and eating disorders.

The great (and by “great” I actually mean hilariously awful) thing about Bratz is that this twisted sexualisation doesn’t stop with the standard doll products. Hell no – the unsettling aesthetic continues on even more disturbing lines with Bratz secondary products such as the Andalusian Honey Fun Horse. Take a look at that coy pose, doe-like “come-to-bed” eyes, luxurious mane and playfully cocked leg and tell me that that is not a slutty horse.

Clearly dissatisfied with merely helping destroy the self-esteem of a generation of young girls they’re also promoting bestiality. Go Bratz.

Iraq War Military Heroes Playing Cards
A deck of collectible playing cards make an ideal present for a young teenager. Especially when they come fully loaded with right-wing propaganda. Whether it’s Poker or Snap, your son or daughter can celebrate the perpetrators of one of the most controversial wars in recent history as they play with their friends. No doubt they’ll soon dismiss the war’s hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, the needlessly wasted lives of thousands of military personnel and the subsequent geopolitical turmoil as the necessary, noble acts of a heroic and altruistic administration. They’ll soon be praising the Ace of Spades as a man of vision, compassion and strategic genius.

A “companion piece” to the US military’s Most-Wanted Iraqi playing cards, this product was just one of many attempting to cash-in on the invasion of Iraq. Interestingly, your child could build a house out of these that would probably prove more stable than Bush’s grounds for war.

No adverts, trailers, or fancy introductions for this article – that’s how things end up going over budget (and word count). I’ll just note that all figures are either officially reported costs or estimates collated from various web sources. Movies are listed in order of adjusted budget (all adjusted to 2008 costs using this US inflation calculator).

Ladies and gentlemen, for your reading pleasure, here are the most expensive Hollywood movies of all time…

10. Quantum of Solace (2008)
The sequel to the Best Bond Movie Ever™ (discuss) was released last week in the UK, and as yet I haven’t had a chance to see it. The film has been fairly well-received by critics though; and exceptionally well-received at the box-office.
Cost: $230m (£145m)
Why? The usual culprits are to blame for the 22nd Bond film’s budgetary explosion (estimated to have cost almost twice as much as Casino Royale); namely, huge action set-pieces and a variety of exotic shooting locations. It’s a good job that Bond sold out to product placement a long time ago – the innumerable big brands attached to the film will have helped foot the massive marketing bill.
Less expensive than: Bond’s annual Chlamydia prescription.

9. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Director Sam Raimi sufficiently upped the ante for his first sequel to the 2002 blockbuster, with fan-favourite Doctor Octopus proving an excellent nemesis for Spidey’s second cinematic outing.
Cost:$231.6m (£143.9m)
Why? According The Guardian’s estimated budget breakdown most of the cash went on special effects (which they put at $65m) – and they are certainly an improvement over the first film’s red and blue blur swinging about. Additionally, paying the large cast and renegotiating the licensing rights from Marvel (estimated at $30m and $20m respectively) also made a sizeable dent in Sony’s savings.
Less expensive than: Spider-Man 3…

8. King Kong (2005)
After the huge success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy Peter Jackson could have got a green-light for any project he wanted, even a remake of Showgirls starring Cher and Steven Seagal. However, in a marginally more shrewd choice, he opted to remake a classic movie which had already been remade into a flop 30 years earlier. Still, the film turned out OK. And audiences around the globe were thankfully saved from the disturbing sight of Cher and Seagal shagging in a swimming pool.
Cost: $231.9m (£144m)
Why? Jackson extended the budget by over $30m and the running time by over an hour in order to get his vision to the screen. In trying to live up to the pioneering special effects of the 1933 original Jackson squeezed in over 2,300 costly CGI shots. And though they don’t have the charm of Willis O’Brien’s much-loved stop-motion scenes, they still make for spectacular viewing.
Less expensive than: King Kong’s banana requirements.

7. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
It had a tough job living up to the first two classic instalments; but on the whole, it didn’t turn out too bad. The bad points – Arnie showing his age, the jarring casting of Nick “I resemble a robot-whooping saviour of humanity even less than I resemble Edward Furlong” Stahl, a rather cheap TV-movie feel that belies the huge budget, and an uninspiring baddie – can’t detract from the decent central plot that holds the movie together and makes for a worthy extension to the Terminator mythology. Let’s hope Terminator Salvation will capitalise on it next year.
Cost: $237.8m (£147.7m)
Why? Well, according to an alleged budget breakdown, the large proportion of the budget for what Wikipiedia describes as “the most expensive independently-produced movie in history”, predictably, went on the story and rights ($20m), visual effects ($20m) and “talent” ($34m) which presumably included Arnie’s fat paycheque – rumoured to be $30m.
Less expensive than: John Connor’s life insurance premium.

6. Waterworld (1995)
Kevin Costner as a taciturn manfish coerced into locating the planet’s last remaining dry land and evading Dennis Hopper’s pantomime-villain theatrics in a waterlogged future set after the melting of the polar icecaps. Dubbed “Fishtar” and “Kevin’s Gate” the film received a great deal of criticism over its bloated budget, but some decent, old-school action sequences and an intriguing vision of the future saved it from becoming dead in the water (see what I did there?).
Cost: $251.2m (£156m)
Why? An infamously troubled production, Waterworld’s 18-month shoot took place almost entirely on water (which is vastly more expensive than filming on dry land). The shoot was beset by a range of expensive setbacks and difficulties including cast and crew seasickness, violent storms, transportation problems and the accidental sinking, and subsequent salvaging, of a 180-ton floating set. Apparently, Costner’s £14m contract and rumoured $1,800-a-night seaside bungalow also added to the spiralling costs.
Less expensive than: Actually splicing Kevin Costner’s genes with that of a haddock (actually, someone should look into that).

5. Spider-Man 3 (2007)
A turgid piece of blockbuster entertainment, the second Spider-Man sequel fell foul of Hollywood’s Standard Superhero Sequel Success Strategy (SSSSS), which conjectures that the only way to outdo the previous movie is to add more baddies. Unfortunately, it’s a very difficult strategy to pull off because with all those larger-than-life evil characters fighting for screentime they tend to get sidelined, underwritten or lost amongst endless exposition. But whereas some of the Batman films have managed to get away with it (just), Spider-Man 3 didn’t.
Cost: $272.2m (£169.1m)
Why? More supervillains = more special effects = more money.
Less expensive than: Spider-Man 4?

4. Titanic (1997)
It may have an annoyingly trite love story plot, an annoyingly superfluous wraparound tale and an annoyingly annoying Celine Dion warbling over the end credits, but when the ship finally and inevitably hits the iceberg it’s hard not to get absorbed by the unadulterated spectacle of Hollywood’s portrayal of history’s most famous maritime disaster.
Cost: $272.6m (£169.3m)
Why? Fitting the same classic mega-budget Hollywood auteur model as Cleopatra and Heaven’s Gate, Titanic’s massive budget can be put down to Cameron’s maniacal and uncompromising adherence to a creative vision. What this meant in practicality was that the production spent huge amounts of money on an arduous 160-day shoot featuring meticulous recreations of the doomed ship, including some of the largest and most expensive moving sets ever built, a 17-million-gallon outdoor tank in which to film the exterior ship scenes and a 5-million-gallon indoor tank in which to film the interior sinking scenes.
Less expensive than: The real Titanic - adjusted for inflation, of course.

3) Superman Returns (2006)
Another sequel on this list that doesn’t live up to its predecessors. Here’s a blockbuster which, despite having all the whizzes and bangs in the right places, ended up being rather dull. Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth are no Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder either.
Cost: $294.6m (£183m)
Why? Because that’s what happens when a film gets stuck in that notorious Hollywood netherworld known as “pre-production hell”. With a series of abandoned productions and just about half of Hollywood attached to the project at some point it’s not surprising that pre-production development costs alone have been estimated somewhere between $40m and $65m.
Less expensive than: Kryptonite

2. Cleopatra (1963)
The second most expensive movie ever made is a scrappy, over-long and over-ambitious film, riven with historical inaccuracies and pantomime performances. A commercial and critical flop, the film only generated any interest from Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton’s tempestuous and highly-publicised off-screen love affair. A bit like the 1960s equivalent of J-Lo and Ben Affleck’s Gigli (2003) , but with swords and sandals. And not quite as shit.
Cost: $314.6m (£195.5m)
Why? A legendary catalogue of production problems resulted in a 22-fold increase of the original $2m budget. Beset by a series of costly delays and re-shoots that were the result many contributing factors including: lead actors leaving due to other commitments, the first director being sacked after spending $7m with no footage to show for it, the subsequent director being sacked then rehired, transferring the entire shoot from Rome to London and back to Rome again (which in turn resulted in remaking all the movie’s sets and props) as well as a life-threatening illness for the leading lady thrown in for good measure.
Less expensive than: Cleo’s daily milk delivery.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2006)
There you have it – the most expensive movie of all time. And also one of the worst on the list. A muddled, nonsensical, suspenseless, self-indulgent, overlong, and pointless film. It looks nice though.
Cost: $316.6m (£196.7m)
Why? The biggest movie budget ever (as estimated by both Wikipedia and Box Office Mojo among others) was needed for an ambitious production of an ambitious film. The production notes reflect the movie’s huge logistical and financial scale: filming on the open ocean and in several exotic locations including St. Vincent, Dominica, the Exumas, Grand Bahama Island as well as California and Hawaii; constructing giant water tanks; designing hugely complex action scenes; and, predictably, an extensive use of CGI effects. I’m guessing they also spent a good deal of money reanimating Keith Richards’s leathery corpse and keeping it pumped full of crack.
Less expensive than: Orlando Bloom’s (ineffectual) acting lessons.

What a winker Sarah Palin is, eh? This gun-toting, moose-hunting, bible-believing, ‘super mum’ has been elevated from the geographical and political wilderness of Alaska to the top table of the Republican hierarchy. Her appointment by John McCain divided republican opinion, some seeing it as evidence of McCain being slightly unhinged to install an inexperienced, unknown entity as his running mate, whilst others saw it as a piece of inspired political maneuvering, which would bring the doubting Christian conservatives and women voters on side.

Sarah Palin certainly made a positive and colourful impact on the political arena, with her acceptance speech being watched by 40 million, resulting in percentage points gained in the polls. Everything looked rosy for the Republicans.

And then the reporters began, bloodhound like, digging around in Palin’s backyard and unearthing a number of embarrassing stories which whipped round the world quicker than Palin could wink. Her unmarried seventeen year old daughter, Bristol, was four months pregnant. The father was an ‘ill-educated red neck’, and rumours surfaced that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child. Information also arose that whilst Governor of Alaska she had allegedly abused her position in an attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, fired.

And I thought the TV series The Hillbillies was long gone!

Family history aside, Palin has also been a rich source of amusement and ridicule for her inability to grasp and respond intelligently to interviewers’ questions, her transparent lack of detailed knowledge on key issues such as Russia, climate change, and Bush’s political beliefs and her many straightforward gaffes! If Palin initially made the Republican’s future look rosy, is she now becoming one helluva thorn in their side? Does the pit-bull need muzzling? Here’s a selection of Palin’s faux pas, blunders and goofs. Sit back and enjoy.

1. Dress to Impress
With the economy shrinking faster than a wiener in ice-cold water McCain has adopted the story of Joe the Plumber, hammering home the message that his party is for the little guy. And then Palin the Proletarian blasts $150,000 on the party credit card on outfits, shoes and make up which would make Imelda Marcos think twice. It has been revealed that Palin’s spending over the past few weeks is nearly four times the average salary of an American plumber ($37,514). And that Palin spent more on clothes in one month than the average American household spends in 80 years!

2. The Freddie and Fannie Faux Pas
It didn’t take long for the new vice presidential candidate to astound citizens with her sophisticated and abundant knowledge of America’s economy and more specifically the ever increasing crisis in the housing market. Speaking in Colorado she said that key lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had ‘gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers’. Both companies, at the time, were privately owned and unsurprisingly Democrats and analysts jumped on this un-truth and said it demonstrated a lack of knowledge about one of the key issues facing the American economy. Clearly she grasps the clothing market better than the financial markets!

3. Geography 101
Is a lack of knowledge about foreign affairs an inherent quality of Republican leaders? Neither Bush (senior or junior) are known for their understanding of, or keen interest in, much outside the Land of Plenty. During a discussion on foreign affairs Palin was asked how Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy insight. ‘They’re our next door neighbours’, she replied, ‘and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska’. Seeing is believing, I guess.

4. There’s a Moose on the Loose!
Following Barack Obama’s statement that he would make military strikes inside Pakistani borders if he thought terrorist cells were holed up there, McCain immediately seized upon this as political ammunition to chide Obama for talking publicly about such matters, and that it was not McCain’s policy to do so. But within a week Palin was saying much the same thing whilst in conversation with a customer in a restaurant: ‘If that’s what we have to do to stop terrorists coming further in, absolutely we should’. McCain was forced to go on air to defend his running mate and to re-iterate what she said was not a definitive policy statement. Don’t judge too harshly though, she can’t see Pakistan from an Alaskan island.

5. Skating on a Thin Membrane
In an interview with CBS, Palin was asked about her stance on rape and abortion. Not answering directly, when asked if she agreed a daughter had the right to have an abortion if made pregnant through being raped by her father, or whether she believed it should be illegal, creationist Palin answered, ‘I am pro life…and I believe such a person should be counseled, despite the terrible circumstances they find themselves in…to look at the possibility of adoption..’ Believing that life begins at conception, Palin showed a more caring side by saying that women who ended up in such circumstances should not face a jail term ‘cos they got an abortion. I wonder if this is political expediency given that, as a creationist, the ‘offender’ will be aptly punished by God in due time?

McDonald’s, the world’s largest food chain, is a staggering company. The figures speak for themselves: over 26,500 outlets in 119 countries serving around 39 million people every day and annual revenues of over $23 billion. But this success has not come without its fair share of criticism and controversy.

Serious critisicm of the company has grown steadily over the last few decades as concerns over ethical and environmental issues have become more prevalent around the world. Public disapproval peaked a few years ago with McDonald’s regularly heading lists of the most unethical companies amidst a barrage of bad press and political pressure.

The resulting backlash drove customers away causing a significant slump in profits. The last couple of years, however, have seen the company’s fortunes recover with their massive PR machine chugging away, fruit and salad on the menus and sales back on track.

So what’s the beef? Well, let’s remind ourselves of some of the McControversies surrounding McDonald’s McBusiness McPractices. (I promise I’ll stop doing that now).

Unhealthy Products
Having sold an estimated 100 billion hamburgers, the most common and fundamental criticism levelled at McDonald’s over the years has concerned the nutritional value of its food products. Throughout the last few decades, as diet and obesity have come into the public spotlight, purveyors of “junk-food” have found themselves on the receiving end of increasing castigation.

Popular criticism of the poor (or detrimental) nutritional quality of McDonald’s products surely peaked with the hugely successful documentary Super Size Me (2004), in which film-maker Morgan Spurlock put himself through the brave/stupid experiment of living on McDonald’s food exclusively for an entire month (not sure if that one’s covered by your health insurance!). The consequences for Spurlock’s health were severe, the consequence for McDonald’s was a PR nightmare.

This barrage of bad press and public pressure resulted in a series of damage-limitation measures from Ronald and his PR pals – introducing “healthy” items to the menu, battling lawsuits filed by obese customers, listing nutritional information on food packaging and generally trying to assure consumers, governments and industry watchdogs that the company truly cares about health and nutrition, not just profits.

Aggressive Advertising
With an annual advertising budget topping $2bn, McDonald’s has built one of the most recognisable brands in the world – as Eric Schlosser puts it in his book Fast Food Nation (2001), the “Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross”. The disconcerting problem here is that the company’s marketing aggressively targets children, and fears have grown over their increasingly pervasive strategies.

Alongside the bombardment of TV adverts, kiddie-friendly food products, collectible toys, play areas and birthday parties in restaurants, McDonald’s also implements vast campaigns and promotions in schools, youth-oriented community schemes, hospitals and other places that many consider should be out-of-bounds to corporate marketing. A dispiriting recent study backed these fears by showing that the McDonald’s branding had a major influence on the eating preferences of children as young as 3 years old.

McDonald’s advertising model is neatly epitomised by their mascot, the all-round freaky-looking clown bastard and scourge of coulrophobic burger fans the world over, Ronald McDonald: designed solely to entice children, colourful, ethically questionable and slightly scary.

Hindering Free Speech
With frequent allegations of malpractice and a legion of vociferous critics, McDonald’s has had to devote a great deal of resources to tackling criticism in order to keep the Big Macs selling. However, by employing unethical methods in their attempts they have often provoked further condemnation. This was most obvious during one of the company’s most detrimental and embarrassing episodes (and the longest court case in British history): the “McLibel” trial (which is comprehensively documented here).

The trial was a classic “David Vs. Goliath” story with two London Greenpeace activists (not to be confused with the international Greenpeace), Helen Steel and David Morris (pictured above), in one corner and the colossal food corporation in the other. As demanded by the twisted UK libel laws, the pair were forced to represent themselves due to a lack of legal aid and tasked with proving every allegation made in the offending article: What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know, a 6-page pamphlet which they had published and distributed covering many of the issues included here (uh oh!)

Predictably, in 1997 the Judge delivered a verdict ruling in favour of McDonald’s and awarding them £60,000 in damages. However, he upheld many of the pamphlet’s allegations including cruelty to animals, exploitation of workers and children and misleading advertising. This was a victory for McDonald’s in a legal sense only – their use of underhand tactics and exploitation of their considerable financial/legal weight to stifle freedom of speech and silence criticism that was in the public’s interest had been documented and publicised around the world. Furthermore, Steel and Morris won a subsequent appeal in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which ruled that the original trial had been a breach of their human rights.

Deforestation
Our societies’ ravenous demand for cheap meat has been a major factor in the decimation of the planet’s rainforests. Huge areas of forest have been destroyed to make room for modern agricultural and large-scale cattle-raising operations, the products of which are aimed at the cheap export market, and usually end up in the US and European fast food industry.

Though not directly involved, McDonald’s has been linked to deforestation on many occasions. The McLibel trial, for example, involved allegations regarding the company’s sourcing of beef from farms situated on recently deforested land in Costa Rica, Guatemala and other countries. But most damagingly, the issue was raised in the 2006 Greenpeace report Eating Up The Amazon in which McDonald’s patronage of Brazil’s huge soya farming industry (using the products for chicken feed) was strongly condemned claiming the industry was responsible for mass deforestation as well as illegal land-grabs and slave labour.

Increasing pressure in the wake of the report lead to a moratorium on soya crops from Brazil’s deforested areas, and McDonald’s quickly distanced itself from the industry’s unethical practices by assuring environmentalists that they would do their utmost to protect the planet’s rainforests in a display of altruistic PR posturing. It would seem that no trees die in the making of McNuggets anymore.

Homogenisation/Globalisation
McDonald’s, along with that other ubiquitous US brand – Coca Cola, has long been a symbol of globalisation. The staggering success and worldwide proliferation of McDonald’s carbon-copy franchise organisation means that it has become indelibly linked to the homogenisation of global culture, a process which for many people is a deplorable process and a direct attack on the rich cultural variety of our planet.

McDonald’s has exported its brand of American fast food cuisine around the globe, and despite a nod to national culinary variations between countries (the Teriyaki McBurger in Japan and the McCurry Pan in India, for example) – in the pursuit of money rather than the preservation of cultural diversity – the food, and the whole dining experience in general, is essentially the same the world over.

As with the issue of dead-end employment and the “McJob”, McDonald’s affiliation with the processes of homogenisation and globalisation is so established that it has inspired popular neologisms. Sociologist George Ritzer turned the company into a verb in The McDonaldization of Society (1993) which argued that people have learned to sacrifice quality for certainty. Whilst Benjamin R. Barber extended this two years later by coining the term McWorld the (terribly titled) Jihad Vs. McWorld (1995), in which he criticised neoliberal economics and corporate globalisation as exemplified by company’s such as McDonald’s.

An economic tsunami is reverberating around the world. The foundations of financial institutions are shaking. Governments, in an unprecedented move, are pouring billions of tax payers’ dollars into financial markets, guaranteeing customers’ savings and taking full or part control of major banks in an attempt to re-build confidence in lending and stabilise the economy. In effect, governments are offering financial Prozac to offset a world wide depression.

Economic ruptures are not new of course. From The South Sea Bubble of the 1700s, the Great Depression in the 1930s, through to the UK housing crash of the 80s, western capitalism seems to follow the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang, always in a state of flux, always striving for balance.

So, the De-regulators have had their day, for the time at least, and the Regulators are intervening to save us from spiralling inflation, high unemployment, poverty and destitution. Using our dollars! Oh well.

What they should do of course, is legalise and tax our drug and prostitution industries. That money would surely fill a big hole. Of course, those responsible for such a radical change in policy would either be viewed as heroes or villains, visionaries or pariahs. Here’s a light hearted look at some movers and shakers, duckers and divers, heroes or villains who have influenced today’s standard of living.

Thatcher and Reagan
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, political soul mates, economic engineers of free markets, decentralisation, the individual riding off into the sunset to seek his fortune. ‘Lunch is for wimps’, money is the lynchpin of society, and every citizen has the right to make his own way, free from the shackles of the State. Whatever your political hue, these two reached back to the days of laissez faire capitalism and imbued their economic and political philosophy with a basic Christian morality. In the end you will meet your maker. Make peace with yourself and then with God.

Certainly people made loads of bucks. Some say the decade of the 80s was one of greed, envy and insensitivity, while others have a rose-tinted view of the era’s maxim that a free market will right itself. People will find their place. Some might say it’s a choice between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
There has to be a degree of sympathy for these two. That old eel-like customer Mr. Blair got his timing just right as he handed over the baton of power to Brown. No doubt he and Cherie are chuckling all the way to the bank.

You can think what you like about Gordon Brown, but he does have the sense about him that he wants to do what’s right for Queen and country. It may be wrong of course. But he and Darling, fresh from an audition for Thunderbirds, recently grabbed the international spotlight by responding decisively to the financial crisis. Announcing bold measures, such as capital injections into financial institutions through acquisition of their shares and government guarantees of inter bank loans, Gordon is no moron. Alistair on the other hand…..

Henry Paulson and George Bush
Well who would have thought it? Government intervention in the ‘free market’, government funding of financial institutions?!? Is George Bush going to give up on the great American hamburger too? Well, he’s quit the booze, anything’s possible.

A $700 billion rescue package to save the American economy. Calling for an overhaul of US financial regulations to deal with ‘our 21st century global economy’ he cited Henry Paulson’s ‘detailed blueprint for modernising these regulations’.

Climate change – let’s takes the long way round; after all, the planet ain’t gonna collapse on Bush’s watch. But when it comes to the financial climate, it seems ol’ W. will do whatever it takes to avoid disaster and protect his legacy…

War
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could reach $2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade! That’s about $8000 per person in the United States! Some of this cost will be met by the interest on international loans the US Government has sold, but of course a significant part will be funded by the tax payer.

Expert opinions vary widely on the impact of these wars on the US economy. The first Gulf war typically meets criticism for having pushed the USA towards the 1991 recession. Others argue that the second Gulf war allows the US greater access to Iraq’s oil reserves, estimated to be the second largest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia, which will lead to a longer term positive impact on the economy.

Of course, if the US ever does legalise and tax illicit drugs, it would already control one of the world’s largest poppy producers in Afghanistan. Bring on the lateral thinkers!

Alan Greenspan and the Sub-Primers
Greenspan, regarded by many as the best chairman of the Federal Reserve, oversaw unprecedented economic growth, budget surpluses and booming stock markets.

He was also hailed universally as a hero for shepherding the economy in the aftermath of 9/11. Not afraid to cut rates, 13 were made under his tenure, and taxes, to stimulate growth whenever the economy was slowing, he was bathed in glory.

Up until that was, the sub prime mortgage lending crisis reared its ugly head and triggered off today’s worldwide financial crisis. Greenspan’s critics claim he was too keen to establish a pattern of bailing out Wall St. investors who were busy reaping short term rewards for long term, shaky investments.

Banks and mortgage companies were signing up millions of home buyers and speculators, often with poor credit, for sub prime mortgages, that have led to record number of defaults. Some were fraudulent.

Greenspan admitted he was aware that these practices were going on, but that he had no idea of their significance until it was too late!

History can be a harsh judge of character!

Ordinary Joe
Some people will argue self-responsibility, live within your means Joe, owning a house is not a divine right after all! But then again, The American Dream is one of the strongest and most powerful brands on the planet, isn’t it?

The phrase ‘the American dream’ was first used by John Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America published 1931. Adams interpreted the American dream to be one where equal opportunity to reach one’s potential existed for all citizens, irrespective of race, colour, creed, or social standing. A just and fair society.

Some argue this spiritual vision of the American Dream has become corrupted into meaning purely material wealth, bigger cars, larger houses, dog eat dog competitiveness, where the size of your bank balance reflects your value as a human being.

If this is so, is it any wonder that bankers and businessmen will seize on opportunities to increase the size of their greenbacks, even if, in their drive to get a larger slice of The American Dream, they sell sub prime mortgages to less financially astute and credit unworthy Ordinary Joes, who are also chasing the dream?

Those crafty marketing executives know exactly what makes us tick: they take a picture of whichever ‘celebrity’ tosspot they think is currently ‘hot’ and slap it onto the advert for whatever overpriced piece of crap they’re trying to sell and like lobotomised, star-struck automatons we scurry along to the nearest sterile, over-lit shopping centre to hand over our hard-earned cash. Well not quite. But with the tedious regularity of a vegan’s bowel movements those in charge of swollen corporate marketing budgets (cost passed on to the consumer) adhere to this tried and tested formula.

Occasionally, however, the resulting ad campaigns turn out to be forehead-slappingly ill-conceived, while others prove initially successful only to be scuppered by some external event. This often results in a ripple of consternation that threatens all parties involved. These PR faux pas don’t make our lives of endless consumption better in any way – but instead of those marketing/celebrity types all sitting around with their self-satisfied haircuts on and patting themselves on the back while they count their bonuses we get the chance to laugh at their stupidity and misfortune instead. It’s what Bill Hicks would have wanted.

Eric Clapton – Michelob
Find yourself a guitar legend, film them playing one of their hits in a moody and atmospheric setting and include plenty of classy shots of your product and, bingo: you’ve just made a stylish commercial that’s going to prove wildly successful, win awards, boost brand image and cause sales to go through the roof. Right? Well, that would be the case unless your guitar legend is battling alcoholism and your product is beer. In that case the ad would just give out all sorts of awkward messages and connotations, especially in the days before the sobering ‘drink responsibly’ caveats.

After the Michelob advert was aired in 1988 it was reported in Rolling Stone that Clapton was undergoing treatment for alcoholism during filming. The shrewd and fastidious marketing department at Anheuser-Busch, the beer’s manufacturer, consequently decided that their new spokesperson might not be the right man for the job and terminated the contract. Great job guys.

Michael Phelps – Frosted Flakes
The World’s Greatest Swimmer™ is no stranger to the world of advertising. His long-standing sponsor, Speedo, latched on to him early on in his career. But it wasn’t until his staggering performance at the 2004 Athens Olympics and his record-breaking medal tally at this year’s Games that his list of corporate sponsors and official endorsements grew exponentially to make him one of sport’s highest-earners from advertising promoting Visa, Omega, Matsunichi, PowerBar and MacDonalds among others.

Despite earning huge amounts of money and some negative press for his dubious endorsement choices, it was his decision to sign with Kellogg’s to promote their Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes (that’s Frosties for us in the UK) brands that created the biggest furore. Since American sportspersons’ traditional choice of cereal-based endorsement is the comparatively healthy Wheaties, nutritionists and pressure groups castigated Phelps for putting money before the health of a nation.

Pope Leo XIII - Mariani Wine
Sometimes celebrity endorsements only seem unsuitable in hindsight, as is most certainly the case here. Vin Mariani was a massively popular product during the mid-late nineteenth century, it could be thought of as the Coca Cola of its time. Although the drink’s success was due, in part, to the physical effects and addictive properties of one of its main ingredients - cocaine - the role of the wine’s eponymous creator, French chemist/manufacturer Angelo Mariani, must not be overlooked. For Mariani is not only accredited with introducing the West to the delights of cocaine-based tonic drinks, but also with pioneering the art of the celebrity endorsement. A big round of applause for Angelo please.

Pope Leo XIII was an avid fan of the wine – he was known to carry a Mariani-filled personal hipflask at all times, and, most significantly, he bestowed the product with a Vatican Gold Medal. Of course, he didn’t have the benefit of our knowledge of cocaine today; in his time it was a highly sought after and fashionable medicinal item rather than a controversial banned substance. And he wasn’t the only prominent figure utilised in the Mariani marketing machine – as Steven B. Karch’s A Brief History of Cocaine documents, other famous endorsers included H. G. Wells, Thomas Edison and Sandra Berhardt – but the Leo’s official Catholic Church seal of approval is considered by some to be a factor in the proliferation of the drug throughout the west during the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Whoops.

Carol Vorderman - FirstPlus
Carol Vorderman certainly knows her mathematics. In fact her favourite pastime probably involves counting the piles of cash she earned as the face of the UK’s largest debt consolidation company, FirstPlus. In a long-lasting and downright shameless exploitation of her status as respected TV personality and, notably, someone who is good with figures, she headed the FirstPlus adverts for 10 years urging cash-strapped daytime television viewers to risk their homes for some extra cash.

Mounting concerns over the financial dangers of secured loans and other such products resulted in a public outcry against celebrity endorsements fearing people were being lead into debt problems. Vorderman herself came under fire in May 2006 when the BBC aired a programme highlighting the case of two FirstPlus customers who took out a loan after seeing a Vorderman-fronted advert. Two charities, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS) and Credit Action, subsequently teamed up with a financial website petitioning for her to terminate her contract with the company. Widespread press condemnation followed, but it didn’t stop there – the issue was even raised in parliament when an Early Day Motion concerning the “rising levels of secured debt, due in part to celebrity endorsement” cryptically referred to “individuals who are well known for their mathematical skills”.

Vorderman’s contract survived the public pressure however, and her regular paycheques only came to an end this August when FirstPlus closed to new customers. But don’t worry, Vorderman made plenty of money as an advocate of the culture of easy lending that lead to the credit crunch; I’m sure she won’t need a loan anytime soon.

Kate Moss – H&M, Chanel, Burberry
Kate Moss takes drugs. Shocked? Didn’t think so. What’s most surprising is that pictures of Ms Moss using her credit card for something other than an extravagant shopping spree were not published earlier.

The ‘shock revelation’ came about in 2005 when pictures from a secret video of Moss snorting cocaine were published in The Daily Mirror. The supercilious tabloid press were subsequently whipped into a rabid frenzy of finger-wagging causing concern for the many companies which used Moss as their poster girl. Some said they would stand by her despite the allegations (those of the “no such thing as bad publicity” school); but with other companies (H&M, Chanel and Burberry) Moss got dropped quicker than a diet pill at a fashion show. Despite not being officially charged for drug offences the condemnation reached dizzying levels - one subsequent report saw Moss being personally blamed by Columbia’s vice president for fuelling civil war in his country.

True to its nature, however, the inexorable marketing machine rumbled onward. Moss’s personal earnings were reported to have doubled since the coke debacle, and her new fashion collection has recently been launched in the UK high street store, Top Shop. You should probably get them while you can – next week’s revelatory pictures of Kate throwing a midget at a giant panda’s testicles whilst smoking in a designated No Smoking area may cause a rethink of their new autumn collection. Maybe.

Fraud is nothing new - the Old Bailey has records going back to the 1750s of cases where sailors were charged with sinking their own ships. But in recent years a number of high-level fraud cases have made the headlines and continue to do so. Here are five of the biggest fraud cases from the 20th and 21st centuries, both from the UK and overseas:

Catch him if you can - Frank Abagnale

Frank Abagnale remains one of America’s most successful fraudsters ever, cashing $2.5 million (£1.35 million at the current exchange rate) over a five-year period in the 1960s. Eventually, he was caught and imprisoned in France, only to be released again five years later as an unpaid adviser to the FBI.

The move has proved to be one of the longest lasting arrangements of its type, with Abagnale still lecturing to the bureau’s Academy students more than 30 years on. While he does not get paid for his work with the FBI, the fraudster’s short-lived but prolific criminal career has proved successful.

As well as a series of books about his own experiences of fraud, Abagnale was the subject of the Leonardo DiCaprio film Catch Me If You Can. He also designed the Integrated Payment System cheque now used in place of the old-style cashier cheques, which is issued more than 300 million times each year.

Based on his experiences, it may seem like fraud is a good career move - and Abagnale claims that convictions are rare. Other fraudsters have not been so lucky though, as more recent cases have shown.

Bobbing around - Robert Maxwell

Robert Maxwell was a familiar face in the British media - and there remains controversy as to whether he drowned after slipping overboard from his yacht, or whether he committed suicide.

What we do know is that, following his death on November 5th 1991, his media organisation, Mirror Group Newspapers, hit the financial rocks. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) promptly launched an investigation and found that Maxwell was heavily involved not just in the management of the group of companies, but in controlling the pension funds of his employees. He was also the only authorised signatory for transferring unlimited amounts of cash between the firms’ bank accounts - including that of the flagship Maxwell Communication Corporation.

According to the DTI report, Maxwell routinely used the pensions of his employees to provide cash for investments and then “window dressed” the company accounts to disguise the shortfall. In 1986 particularly, the pensions were used to purchase Maxwell House in Holborn, London, as well as to lend £34 million in cash to Mirror Group Newspapers. While this was exchanged for shares in news agency Reuters, the pensions fund did not receive the “significant profits” derived from an increase in share prices soon after.

Baring his soul - Nick Leeson

Nick Leeson’s official website now carries the full story of how he brought down Barings Bank in 1995 as part of one of the highest-profile fraud cases in British history. And it emerges that the cover-up began not with his mistake, but with somebody else’s. Hidden among the financial institution’s accounts - most of which it was not directly liable for - was error account 88888, set up to hide a £20,000 debt from an inexperienced employee’s poor investment decisions.

But when Leeson began to make losses of his own, he turned to account number 88888 to hide them too. As the end of 1994 approached, he had racked up more than half a billion dollars’ worth of debt - which was worsened in January 1995 after an earthquake knocked seven per cent off the value of the Japanese stock exchange.

In all, $1.3 billion was lost by Leeson’s dodgy dealing, driving the bank irreparably into the red. Still, the situation could have been avoided if Leeson had not been given sole responsibility for two different roles, he asserts. “In a fatal mistake, the bank allowed Leeson to remain chief trader while being responsible for settling his trades, a job that is usually split,” his website explains.

One for all and all for fraud - the NatWest Three

The NatWest Three are a trio of British businessmen implicated in the 2001 bankruptcy scandal of American energy firm Enron. In a court ruling from the US district court of southern Texas, the three are accused of conspiring to keep money for themselves that should rightfully have gone to the company.

Enron had a Cayman Islands partnership, LJM Cayman, overseen by the energy operator’s chief financial officer - which in turn created a subsidiary known as Swap Sub in June 1999. David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew were three London-based bankers responsible for representing NatWest in dealings with Swap Sub. But in the summer of 2000, they recommended that NatWest sold its stake in Swap Sub for $1 million - which the US court noted is far less than it was worth - and keep the surplus for themselves.

The whole deal hinged on the fact that the stake would be sold to a company owned by Enron’s managing director for global finance Michael Kopper. By skimming off a portion of the profits for themselves, the trio were deemed to have broken their promise to act honestly and in the best interests of NatWest.

Taking Aleef from the fraudsters’ books - Aleef Garages

Proving that fraud is as popular today as ever, November 2007 saw seven employees of newsagent chain Aleef Garages convicted of tax fraud. A total of £5.3 million was skimmed from the north-west company’s balance sheets by fraudulently declaring takings, with the deception taking place at director level. Three company directors and six other people, including both senior managers and lower-level employees, pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud.

Steve Armitt, group leader of criminal investigations for HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), stressed the scale of the dishonesty. “Criminality crept into every aspect of this business and the investigation was made all the more difficult because of the closed ranks of the employees,” he said. “Those involved tried to make it as difficult as possible for the cheating to be discovered.”

Following the Liverpool-based trial of the nine, confiscation orders were put in place for the full £5.3 million owed by the company. Robert Alder, head of the restraint and confiscation at HMRC, warns fraudsters that such action is necessary in order to recover funds obtained by deception. “HMRC and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office will vigorously pursue confiscation orders to the full extent of the law to ensure that criminals do not benefit from their crime,” he states.

What can we say about the Nintendo Wii? Innovative? Absolutely. Revolutionary? Probably. Commercially successful? Definitely. Record-breaking? Certainly. Home to some of the most pointless videogames ever? Yup.

It seems every games developer wants a piece of the Wii pie; and why not? You don’t need imagination, vision, intelligence, a huge development budget or even respect for your audience. All you need to do is think of the first leisure activity that comes to mind, design some bright, cheesy graphics and some poorly implemented motion controls and then spend about two weeks in development. And there you have it. You never know - it might just be this Christmas’s big hit.

With that in mind here’s a rundown of the 5 most pointless games on the Wii:

5) Hell’s Kitchen
As if Gordon Ramsay’s corrugated forehead isn’t quite ubiquitous enough, the reprieved puffin-slayer will be breaking into the videogames market just in time for Christmas (how very shrewd). Though I am merely extrapolating from what I have seen of the game’s trailer, his low budget Wii game looks like a cynical attempt to cash in on the success of the Cooking Mama titles and Ramsay’s own transatlantic cross-media brand image.

Now, I’m going take a stab in the dark here and speculate that, bearing the Wii’s cuddly, family-friendliness in mind, this will be an expletive-free Ramsay experience. Therein lays the heart of the game’s pointlessness, since I had always assumed that Ramsay’s trademark profanities were the whole point of his popularity. Cutting this out is like having a Mario game with no mushrooms or a Halo game with a comprehensible storyline. It’s just not right.

Personally I think it’s a missed opportunity: having a game that swears at you for messing up might actually have been amusing and original. A Gordon Ramsay cooking game where bad players aren’t subjected to four-lettered tirades just seems, well, f**king pointless. (If this game does include swearing on release, please disregard this rant).

4) Carnival: Fun Fair Games
One category of game above all characterises the Wii. It is the reason the platform has become the natural choice of the so-called “casual gamer” and why it has consequently become anathema to the so-called “hardcore gamer”. It is, of course, the mini-games collection.

Now, I’m not against mini-game collections per se; there have been some that I have enjoyed – Rayman Raving Rabbids and WarioWare: Smooth Moves, for example. Those games, however, had some degree of charm or humour or eccentricity or innovation. Carnival…, on the other hand, exhibits the polar opposites of these attributes, yet it is, bafflingly, one of the Wii’s highest-selling titles.

Despite the substandard graphics and sound, unresponsive controls, lack of gameplay progression and depth, the real problem here is something that we all learn as we grow older: fairground games are essentially crap. Carnival… even lacks the promise of a cheapo cuddly toy or goldfish to sweeten the deal, thus removing any sense of accomplishment or desire to succeed.

There is one element of this game that simulates reality quite well though: whether you’re duped into playing crooked games by small-handed carny types or pointless games by lazy, unimaginative videogame publishers it stings just the same.

3) Table Football
For the uninitiated table football can seem like a rather simplistic and shallow game. Those who have invested some time in the game, however, will have learned that it is a deep, skilful and visceral experience.

What all table football fans will agree on, I’m sure, is that the feel of the ball, the weight of the ball, the physical presence of the ball against the players is essential. By removing this aspect, as the Wii must due to its limitation (i.e. having no force acting upon the remote) means that the idea of table football on the Wii is utter tosh. Especially when there is likely to be a table at a bar or youth centre down the road from where you live.

2) PDC World Championship Darts 2008
The poor quality of many Wii games is commonly dismissed with a single, standard argument: “It’s for kids; it doesn’t need to be sophisticated/polished/interesting/inventive/any good [delete as appropriate]”.

Whether or not you subscribe to this opinion in regards to other games, that argument has no validity when it comes to PDC World Championship Darts. That is, unless you have a rather strange child who is impressed by Phil ‘The Power’ Taylor’s personal endorsement, the official Professional Darts Corporation license, and/or who aspires to a life of obesity, inebriation and repetitive strain injury (actually, that could apply to quite a few children).

OK, so this one is definitely aimed at adults then. But if you’re an avid darts fan, or a fair-weather enthusiast, or have only the merest hint of interest, then why on earth would you choose the Wii version over the real thing? Dartboards aren’t expensive (as stated in the excellent Eurogamer review), you can buy Phil Taylor’s official dartboard setup for about the same price as the Wii game), they can be found in thousands of pubs in the UK and both are just as likely to damage your home (make sure your home insurance covers darts in walls and Wii remotes in TVs!). But what’s more, real darts doesn’t have ridiculously unrealistic controls and demented physics. Unless you play while drunk.

1) Jenga
Oh dear. Let’s start with the maths (that’s math, if you’re in the US):

Standard wooden Jenga set = £6-£7

Wii Jenga = around £20

Before you start fumbling for your credit card, let’s just have a look at what you get for this inflated price: poor production values; unrealistic physics; bewilderingly stupid gameplay features (doesn’t colour-coding blocks so that you can immediately tell which are weight-bearing make the whole game thing redundant?); no sensation of physical contact or weight; and half-a