Everyone over a certain age knows "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" - either from the John le Carré novel or the tremendous television adaptation in which Alec Guiness played George Smiley, the central character in TTSS.
On the surface, it is, of course, a Cold War spy movie, but, with its web of secrets, lies, trust, betrayals, friendship, pacts and paranoia, it could be seen to be a mirror to the complexities in our modern society.
Tomas Alfredson's takes John le Carré's novel and presents it in a very clear shade of stone grey - it oozes tension from start to finish.
Gary Oldman takes the lead as George Smiley, a somewhat mild-mannered MI6 agent who comes out of retirement to try to uncover a mole in the secret British agency known as the "Circus". Vital information is being leaked to the Soviets and Smiley is the man chosen to track him down.
Oldman is outstanding in a measured and underplayed performance rather at tangent to his recent movies. Smiley is unassuming and watchful - the opposite of the Bourne/Bond template of spy to which movie audiences have become accustomed. Oldman will get plenty of nods come awards time, but the ensemble acting is tremendous, as is the atmospheric soundtrack.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
PHILIP GLASS - a celebration on his 75th birthday
Today, Philip Glass turns 75 - a modern minimalist composer who is known beyond the insular, somewhat suffocating confines of "contemporary music" - he is known for operas, symphonies, compositions for his own "house band", and his many, many collaborations with artists that have included Allen Ginsberg, Woody Allen and David Bowie. Philip Glass' impact upon the musical and intellectual life of modern culture is undeniable.
Philip Glass was born January 31st 1937 and grew up in Baltimore (well, someone had to). He studied at the University of Chicago, the Juilliard School and in Aspen with the French composer, Darius Milhaud. He moved to Europe, feeling disillusioned by the artistic life in the USA, where he studied with Nadia Boulanger and worked with the sitar virtuoso Ravi Shankar. Hereturned to New York in 1967 and formed the Philip Glass Ensemble which gave him a voice with which to experiment and present his musical ideas.
Glass, along with Terry Riley and Steve Reich, was evolving a new musical style which became known as “minimalism” - a phrase actually coined by Michael Nyman.
Many of Glass' early works were made up of densely interweaving textures of repeating ideas - a complex polyphony but for a new age.
Few contemprary composers get an opera into the repertoire but Glass has four – “Einstein on the Beach,” “Satyagraha,” “Akhnaten,” and “The Voyage,” which are regularly produced around the world, though, sadly, too infrequently in the UK.
Glass has written music for Oscar- winning movies such as “The Hours” and “Kundun,” and has also produced scores for experimental theatre. “Koyaanisqatsi" has been described as the "most radical and influential mating of sound and vision since Fantasia.”
In the past 25 years, Glass has composed more than 20 operas; 9 symphonies (the 9th receives its premiere this week); concertos for violin, piano, timpani, and saxophone quartet; soundtracks for Hollywood movies and documentaries; string quartets; and an array of works for solo piano and organ.
Some criticise Glass for being too samey; a one-trick pony. I think they are. Issuing the point. Glass has evolved a distinctive, personal style that's instantly recognisable and has been able to use this to touch the hearts and minds of music lovers in just about every field possible.
Happy Birthday, Mr.Glass!
Philip Glass was born January 31st 1937 and grew up in Baltimore (well, someone had to). He studied at the University of Chicago, the Juilliard School and in Aspen with the French composer, Darius Milhaud. He moved to Europe, feeling disillusioned by the artistic life in the USA, where he studied with Nadia Boulanger and worked with the sitar virtuoso Ravi Shankar. Hereturned to New York in 1967 and formed the Philip Glass Ensemble which gave him a voice with which to experiment and present his musical ideas.
Glass, along with Terry Riley and Steve Reich, was evolving a new musical style which became known as “minimalism” - a phrase actually coined by Michael Nyman.
Many of Glass' early works were made up of densely interweaving textures of repeating ideas - a complex polyphony but for a new age.
Few contemprary composers get an opera into the repertoire but Glass has four – “Einstein on the Beach,” “Satyagraha,” “Akhnaten,” and “The Voyage,” which are regularly produced around the world, though, sadly, too infrequently in the UK.
Glass has written music for Oscar- winning movies such as “The Hours” and “Kundun,” and has also produced scores for experimental theatre. “Koyaanisqatsi" has been described as the "most radical and influential mating of sound and vision since Fantasia.”
In the past 25 years, Glass has composed more than 20 operas; 9 symphonies (the 9th receives its premiere this week); concertos for violin, piano, timpani, and saxophone quartet; soundtracks for Hollywood movies and documentaries; string quartets; and an array of works for solo piano and organ.
Some criticise Glass for being too samey; a one-trick pony. I think they are. Issuing the point. Glass has evolved a distinctive, personal style that's instantly recognisable and has been able to use this to touch the hearts and minds of music lovers in just about every field possible.
Happy Birthday, Mr.Glass!
Labels:
chamber symphony,
composer,
composing,
minimalism,
minimalist,
Nyman,
opera,
Philip glass,
soundtrack,
Steve reich,
terry Riley
OPINION: BTECs and NVQs being downgraded
Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, today announced that lots of vocational qualifications would lose their "GCSE equivalent" status.
The main reason is because many schools, perhaps more concerned about league tables than the education of their students, have been pushing the BTECs and NVQs because they have helped them rapidly climb league tables. Some schools offered virtually no GCSEs any more.
I always thought it odd that these vocational qualifications weren't allowed to stand on their own merits rather than have to be "equivalent" to GCSEs. Why, when they became popular in schools, wasn't an extra column not simply added to the league tables? One column to show their GCSE success rate, another column for their vocational qualification success rate? isn't that simple?
The other problem is that some of the "equivalent" statuses were generous, to put it lightly.
Now, I accept my experience is in the field of music and the performing arts but some BTECs were given the equivalent of 4 GCSEs for work at a lesser level academically and practically. It was a total nonsense and a misguided and badly thought through piece of politics by Blair's government, and, of course, David Blunkett, who were keen to promote vocational qualifications, so they put them on offer. Take one qualification and get 2, 3, 4 for free.
Vocational qualifications have their place but are limiting as, while some are prepared for a career, others find they have paths cut off because, haven done a BTEC, they are unable to go on to A-level or university. So the school benefits by harming the future prospects of their more academic students. Genius!
I'm glad to see the end of GCSE equivalents for vocational qualifications. Let's hope that those same vocational qualifications are now made more worthwhile and demanding - that is the way to sell them and give them credibility, not cheapening them and making them a laughing stock.
The main reason is because many schools, perhaps more concerned about league tables than the education of their students, have been pushing the BTECs and NVQs because they have helped them rapidly climb league tables. Some schools offered virtually no GCSEs any more.
I always thought it odd that these vocational qualifications weren't allowed to stand on their own merits rather than have to be "equivalent" to GCSEs. Why, when they became popular in schools, wasn't an extra column not simply added to the league tables? One column to show their GCSE success rate, another column for their vocational qualification success rate? isn't that simple?
The other problem is that some of the "equivalent" statuses were generous, to put it lightly.
Now, I accept my experience is in the field of music and the performing arts but some BTECs were given the equivalent of 4 GCSEs for work at a lesser level academically and practically. It was a total nonsense and a misguided and badly thought through piece of politics by Blair's government, and, of course, David Blunkett, who were keen to promote vocational qualifications, so they put them on offer. Take one qualification and get 2, 3, 4 for free.
Vocational qualifications have their place but are limiting as, while some are prepared for a career, others find they have paths cut off because, haven done a BTEC, they are unable to go on to A-level or university. So the school benefits by harming the future prospects of their more academic students. Genius!
I'm glad to see the end of GCSE equivalents for vocational qualifications. Let's hope that those same vocational qualifications are now made more worthwhile and demanding - that is the way to sell them and give them credibility, not cheapening them and making them a laughing stock.
Labels:
Blair,
blunkett,
BTEC,
david blunkett,
equivalent,
GCSE,
GCSE equivalent,
gove,
Michael Gove,
NVQ,
tony Blair,
vocational qualification
COMMENT: Fred Goodwin loses knighthood and 2 RBS bosses turn down bonuses. So what?
Tabloid politics has its victory. In fact, it has had two in a matter of days.
Firstly, the boss of RBS, and one of his underlings, were forced to turn down bonuses and, second, Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood.
The tabloids can't claim sole responsibility for these great victories; they were aided and abetted by sound bite politicians who saw that the bankers were damaged antelope on the Serengeti plain, an easy target for the lions of Westminster.
It's all such a nonsense. It's tokenistic politics lead by tawdry journalists with little or no grasp of the bigger picture.
Why do I say that?
Because, while a bonus isnt paid out or a bauble is taken back, this does nothing to change the mechanisms, systems and culture of banking - institutions that, recent events have shown, control more governments than elected officials.
Two senior executives turn down bonuses totalling less than £2m. These bonuses were in the form of shares and required the bank's value to increase before they kicked in. Whoops! And saving £2m is less than a drop in the ocean when you remember the banks were bailed out to the tune of £70+ BILLION!
As for Fred Goodwin's knighthood... do what?! I'm sure he doesn't give a flying fig whether he has a silly title given to him by discredited politicians and a parasitical monarch who costs the nation more than £200m per year (on a normsl year, liads more on a jubilee year) with very little return (and yet gets her close family to say the nation should buy her a new £70m yacht as a pressie for having shaken hands so well).
Politicians need to do something to change the banking system and withholding bonuses and taking back baubles does nothing to achieve this.
Politicians need to take back control of economies and actually run their countries for the benefit of the people.
Cameron and Miliband (and probably Clegg, though nobody cares what he says any more) will celebrate and bask in the glory that the tabloids will bestow on them but anyone with a brain will see through the veil of spin and realise that they have achieved absolutely nothing.
Cameron, Miliband and the tabloids are like Oceania in 1984 - celebrating victories for which there is no evidence. They tilt at windmills but fail to address the real issues.
It's time for politicians to do something about the banking system - it needs a root and branch review and overhaul - and no amount of victories over pantomime villains will do anything to improve the world.
Sadly, too many see bankers as evil. They are not evil, but the system that they, and politicians, work in is corrupted beyond repair. A new system, with new purpose, a social awareness and conscience is needed.
Cameron may as well give the RBS execs their bonuses, and give Fred Goodwin his title back. These will make no difference to the all-pervading culture of greed and self in which the banks have been allowed to operate.
Any politician who suggests this week's events will make a difference are lying to the public and deserve to lose their seat.
People need to stop being fooled by superficial politicians, and manipulative newspapers trying to push the blame onto another sector of the establishment. Sadly, when the history of the last 20 years are written it may well be called the age of tokenism.
Firstly, the boss of RBS, and one of his underlings, were forced to turn down bonuses and, second, Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood.
The tabloids can't claim sole responsibility for these great victories; they were aided and abetted by sound bite politicians who saw that the bankers were damaged antelope on the Serengeti plain, an easy target for the lions of Westminster.
It's all such a nonsense. It's tokenistic politics lead by tawdry journalists with little or no grasp of the bigger picture.
Why do I say that?
Because, while a bonus isnt paid out or a bauble is taken back, this does nothing to change the mechanisms, systems and culture of banking - institutions that, recent events have shown, control more governments than elected officials.
Two senior executives turn down bonuses totalling less than £2m. These bonuses were in the form of shares and required the bank's value to increase before they kicked in. Whoops! And saving £2m is less than a drop in the ocean when you remember the banks were bailed out to the tune of £70+ BILLION!
As for Fred Goodwin's knighthood... do what?! I'm sure he doesn't give a flying fig whether he has a silly title given to him by discredited politicians and a parasitical monarch who costs the nation more than £200m per year (on a normsl year, liads more on a jubilee year) with very little return (and yet gets her close family to say the nation should buy her a new £70m yacht as a pressie for having shaken hands so well).
Politicians need to do something to change the banking system and withholding bonuses and taking back baubles does nothing to achieve this.
Politicians need to take back control of economies and actually run their countries for the benefit of the people.
Cameron and Miliband (and probably Clegg, though nobody cares what he says any more) will celebrate and bask in the glory that the tabloids will bestow on them but anyone with a brain will see through the veil of spin and realise that they have achieved absolutely nothing.
Cameron, Miliband and the tabloids are like Oceania in 1984 - celebrating victories for which there is no evidence. They tilt at windmills but fail to address the real issues.
It's time for politicians to do something about the banking system - it needs a root and branch review and overhaul - and no amount of victories over pantomime villains will do anything to improve the world.
Sadly, too many see bankers as evil. They are not evil, but the system that they, and politicians, work in is corrupted beyond repair. A new system, with new purpose, a social awareness and conscience is needed.
Cameron may as well give the RBS execs their bonuses, and give Fred Goodwin his title back. These will make no difference to the all-pervading culture of greed and self in which the banks have been allowed to operate.
Any politician who suggests this week's events will make a difference are lying to the public and deserve to lose their seat.
People need to stop being fooled by superficial politicians, and manipulative newspapers trying to push the blame onto another sector of the establishment. Sadly, when the history of the last 20 years are written it may well be called the age of tokenism.
Labels:
1984,
bankers,
bonus,
bonuses,
Cameron,
clegg,
david cameron,
Ed miliband,
Fred Goodwin,
Goodwin,
Hester,
knighthood,
miliband,
Oceania,
RBS,
sir Fred Goodwin,
tokenism,
tokenistic
366/31 - River Derwent at Belper
Click here for today's Project 366:
River Derwent at Belper
Psycho by Bernard Hermann
Word of the Day: idoneous
River Derwent at Belper
Psycho by Bernard Hermann
Word of the Day: idoneous
Monday, 30 January 2012
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Fun things to do in Google!
1. Search "askew"
2. Search "do a barrel roll"
3. Search "Once in a Blue Moon"
4. Search "the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything"
5. Search for "the Number of Horns on a Unicorn"
6. Type “french military victories” into search then click “I’m feeling lucky“
I'm not sure this still works... in Google Maps ask for directions from the White House to 10 Downing Street..... it used to include the instruction "swim the Atlantic Ocean"
Any others?
2. Search "do a barrel roll"
3. Search "Once in a Blue Moon"
4. Search "the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything"
5. Search for "the Number of Horns on a Unicorn"
6. Type “french military victories” into search then click “I’m feeling lucky“
I'm not sure this still works... in Google Maps ask for directions from the White House to 10 Downing Street..... it used to include the instruction "swim the Atlantic Ocean"
Any others?
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Friday, 27 January 2012
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Ode to a Haggis - Robert Burns
Ode to a Haggis
by
Robert Burns
Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great Chieftan o’ the Puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy of a grace
As lang’s my arm
The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
You pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’need
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead
His knife see Rustic-labour dight,
An’ cut you up wi’ ready slight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright
Like onie ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reeking, rich!
Then, horn for horn they stretch an’ strive,
Deil tak the hindmost, on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive
Bethankit hums
Is there that owre his French ragout,
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?
Poor devil! see him owre his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash
His spindle-shank a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bluidy flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!
But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread,
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll mak it whissle;
An’ legs, an’ arms an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle
Ye pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
An’ dish them out their bill o’fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ pray’r,
Gie her a Haggis!
by
Robert Burns
Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great Chieftan o’ the Puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy of a grace
As lang’s my arm
The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
You pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’need
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead
His knife see Rustic-labour dight,
An’ cut you up wi’ ready slight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright
Like onie ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reeking, rich!
Then, horn for horn they stretch an’ strive,
Deil tak the hindmost, on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive
Bethankit hums
Is there that owre his French ragout,
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?
Poor devil! see him owre his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash
His spindle-shank a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bluidy flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!
But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread,
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll mak it whissle;
An’ legs, an’ arms an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle
Ye pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
An’ dish them out their bill o’fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ pray’r,
Gie her a Haggis!
Labels:
burns night,
haggis,
ode to a haggis,
rabbie burns,
Robbin burns,
Robert burns,
scotland
My favourite Robert Burns poem: Ae Fond Kiss
Ae Fond Kiss
by Robert Burns
Ae fond kiss, and then we sever
Ae farewell, and then forever
Deep in heart-wrung tears I'll pledge thee,
Warring sighs and goans I'll wage thee.
Who shall say that Fortune grieves him,
While the star of hope she leaves him
Me nae cheerful twinkle lights me,
Dark despair around benights me.
I'll ne'er blame my partial fancy:
Nothing could resist my Nancy
But to see her was to love her
Love but her, and love for ever.
Had we never loe'd sae kindly,
Had we never loe'd sae blindly,
Never met - nor never parted -
We had ne'er been broken-hearted.
Fare thee weel, thou first and fairest
Fare thee weel, thou best and dearest
Thine be ilka joy and treasure,
Peace, Enjoyment, Love and Pleasure
Ae fond kiss, and then we sever
Ae farewell, alas, for ever
Deep in heart-wrung tears I'll pledge thee,
Warring sighs and groans I'll wage thee.
by Robert Burns
Ae fond kiss, and then we sever
Ae farewell, and then forever
Deep in heart-wrung tears I'll pledge thee,
Warring sighs and goans I'll wage thee.
Who shall say that Fortune grieves him,
While the star of hope she leaves him
Me nae cheerful twinkle lights me,
Dark despair around benights me.
I'll ne'er blame my partial fancy:
Nothing could resist my Nancy
But to see her was to love her
Love but her, and love for ever.
Had we never loe'd sae kindly,
Had we never loe'd sae blindly,
Never met - nor never parted -
We had ne'er been broken-hearted.
Fare thee weel, thou first and fairest
Fare thee weel, thou best and dearest
Thine be ilka joy and treasure,
Peace, Enjoyment, Love and Pleasure
Ae fond kiss, and then we sever
Ae farewell, alas, for ever
Deep in heart-wrung tears I'll pledge thee,
Warring sighs and groans I'll wage thee.
Labels:
Ae fond kiss,
burns night,
rabble burns,
Robert burns,
scotland
366/25 - it may be Burns' Night but...
Click here for today's non-Scottish project 366 posting!
Romney's Kendal Mint Cake
Organ music by Buxtehude
Bleb
Romney's Kendal Mint Cake
Organ music by Buxtehude
Bleb
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
366/24 - shower head
Click here for today's Project 366 posting: a shower head, an old recording of Villa Lobos and the word/phrase "eye broccoli"!
Monday, 23 January 2012
Sunday, 22 January 2012
366/22
Click here for today's Project 366, which features a cork, some Shostakovich and the word lurcher!
Labels:
cork,
lurcher,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
Shostakovich,
tahiti trot,
tea for two,
word of the day
Saturday, 21 January 2012
366/21 - Devonshire Dome
Today 's Project 366 posting features the Devonshire Dome, Buxton, some orchestral music by Mike Oldfield and the word WELTSCHMERZ!
Friday, 20 January 2012
COMMENT: In exactly one year the U.S. President will be sworn in
Yes, exactly one year today, the President of the United States of America will be sworn in at his inauguration ceremony.
Americans have a choice between right wing, religious lunatics, though the Republicans are still sorting out which lunatic they want.
Increasingly it looks like Newt Gingrich will be the candidate of the GOP who will attempt to depose Barack Obama, who hasn't had the best first three years in power, and has certainly lived up (or down) to many people's fears that he was more about style than substance.
Increasingly, in the UK, we have a similarly narrow choice of party - right wing, capitalist and, sadly, of faith.
It is time both the US and UK looked beyond the gormless, extremist numpties and voted on principle rather than habit. It is time to accept that capitalism has failed too may times and needs to be replaced as the economic system that controls world finances. It is time to realise that those "of faith" cannot be trusted to behave sanely - after all, they believe there are invisible superbeings for which there is absolutely no evidence. And it is time we rejected politicians who have warmongering attitudes.
It makes no difference whether, in twelve months time, it's Obama or Gingrich being sworn in. Or, for that matter, any other moron the Republican Party puts up. All if them are equally ridiculous, all of them are equally stupid and all of them will be dangerous with their finger on the nuclear button.
,
Americans have a choice between right wing, religious lunatics, though the Republicans are still sorting out which lunatic they want.
Increasingly it looks like Newt Gingrich will be the candidate of the GOP who will attempt to depose Barack Obama, who hasn't had the best first three years in power, and has certainly lived up (or down) to many people's fears that he was more about style than substance.
Increasingly, in the UK, we have a similarly narrow choice of party - right wing, capitalist and, sadly, of faith.
It is time both the US and UK looked beyond the gormless, extremist numpties and voted on principle rather than habit. It is time to accept that capitalism has failed too may times and needs to be replaced as the economic system that controls world finances. It is time to realise that those "of faith" cannot be trusted to behave sanely - after all, they believe there are invisible superbeings for which there is absolutely no evidence. And it is time we rejected politicians who have warmongering attitudes.
It makes no difference whether, in twelve months time, it's Obama or Gingrich being sworn in. Or, for that matter, any other moron the Republican Party puts up. All if them are equally ridiculous, all of them are equally stupid and all of them will be dangerous with their finger on the nuclear button.
,
Labels:
America,
Barrack Obama,
Democrat,
ELection,
Gingrich,
GOP,
inauguration,
Newt Gingrich,
Obama,
president,
Republican,
USA,
white house
Thursday, 19 January 2012
REVIEW: Midnight in Paris (12A)
The past few months have seen some tremendous performances by actors being other, historical figures - Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher, and Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe being, perhaps, the most noteworthy. In Midnight in Paris, Owen Wilson plays Woody Allen. He's not billed as that, nor is he actually impersonating Woody Allen, who wrote and directed this movie, but every line that Wilson says you can imagine coming from Woody Allen's mouth. If he'd worn a pair of thick rimmed specs you'd think it was a good impersonation.
I really enjoyed Midnight in Paris, but then I do like Woody Allen movies. If you don't like Woody Allen you're probably best avoiding this. It has all the hallmarks you expect: a jazzy soundtrack; an awkward leading male; several attractive females; a witty script; and some beautifully shots of one of the world's greatest cities (this time Paris and not New York).
Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a Hollywood scriptwriter who is in Paris for a holiday with his fiancée and her parents. He is writing a novel and finds inspiration from walking the streets of Paris late at night or in the rain. His fiancée doesn't understand and lets him go off on his own. Gil gets lost and, as a church clock strikes midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up. The car is a portal back to the 1920s, where Pender meets many of his literary heroes.
It may not be Annie Hall or Manhattan but it is great fun, with many big laughs. The period detail is well observed and, although the movie is a lead role for Wilson, the ensemble acting is tremendous, as you'd expect in a Woody Allen movie.
There are tremendous performances from Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and, even, Carla Bruni, the wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Definitely worth going to see if you like Woody Allen or if you love Paris. I look forward to seeing it again, which has to be a good sign.
I really enjoyed Midnight in Paris, but then I do like Woody Allen movies. If you don't like Woody Allen you're probably best avoiding this. It has all the hallmarks you expect: a jazzy soundtrack; an awkward leading male; several attractive females; a witty script; and some beautifully shots of one of the world's greatest cities (this time Paris and not New York).
Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a Hollywood scriptwriter who is in Paris for a holiday with his fiancée and her parents. He is writing a novel and finds inspiration from walking the streets of Paris late at night or in the rain. His fiancée doesn't understand and lets him go off on his own. Gil gets lost and, as a church clock strikes midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up. The car is a portal back to the 1920s, where Pender meets many of his literary heroes.
It may not be Annie Hall or Manhattan but it is great fun, with many big laughs. The period detail is well observed and, although the movie is a lead role for Wilson, the ensemble acting is tremendous, as you'd expect in a Woody Allen movie.
There are tremendous performances from Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and, even, Carla Bruni, the wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Definitely worth going to see if you like Woody Allen or if you love Paris. I look forward to seeing it again, which has to be a good sign.
Labels:
Midnight in Paris,
movie,
Owen Wilson,
review,
woody Allen
OPINION: MPs and "being seen" to do the right thing
Yesterday, Rachel Reeves, a Labour MP, tweeted that she had signed the Holocaust Educational Trust's Book of Commitment. I tweeted back that I thought this was tokenism and achieved nothing. She replied this morning that I should be careful about what I tweet and that it was important to remember the lessons of the holocaust.
Now I wholeheartedly agree that it is important that we remember the holocaust and learn lessons from it, as long as we put those lessons into action. Simply getting a warm glow, and using it to get some positive publicity is insufficient - that is why her tweeting about signing the book is tokenism.
Rachel Reeves, as I said, is a Labour MP. In the past decade, Labpur has taken us into two major wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of civilians: lives lost, families destroyed, women and children injured and maimed. Has she, or the Labour Party, learnt any lessons from the past, from the holocaust, from history?
As well as being a party of civilian bloodshed, she has shown herself to be signing the book to help her own publicity. Why else would she tweet about it? As Immanuel Kant said, good deeds should be done just because they ate good deeds and not because of any other reason. This would include using a good deed for publicity and even if you just got a warm glow out of it. Sure, if it makes you feel good that's fine, but that shouldn't be the reason to do good. Do good because that's the right thing to do, and encourage others to do likewise.
What Rachel Reeves, and various other MPs, should have done, if they genuinely think signing a book is a good thing and makes a difference, is to sign the book and encourage others to do so. What they did was sign it, then shout to the world, via Twitter, "Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I wonderful? I signed a book of commitment!"
I hope you get the difference. I guess it's the problem with our increasing personality/celeb-inclined politicians who aren't unit to do good but to promote themselves and help themselves up the greasy pole.
By all means do good and by all means encourage others to do good but please don't use it for personal gain. And, ultimately, actions speak louder than words. Do any of the "Me! Me! Me!" politicians act in a way to prevent further genocides and oppression, or will they just cash their pay cheques and not give a toss?
Now I wholeheartedly agree that it is important that we remember the holocaust and learn lessons from it, as long as we put those lessons into action. Simply getting a warm glow, and using it to get some positive publicity is insufficient - that is why her tweeting about signing the book is tokenism.
Rachel Reeves, as I said, is a Labour MP. In the past decade, Labpur has taken us into two major wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of civilians: lives lost, families destroyed, women and children injured and maimed. Has she, or the Labour Party, learnt any lessons from the past, from the holocaust, from history?
As well as being a party of civilian bloodshed, she has shown herself to be signing the book to help her own publicity. Why else would she tweet about it? As Immanuel Kant said, good deeds should be done just because they ate good deeds and not because of any other reason. This would include using a good deed for publicity and even if you just got a warm glow out of it. Sure, if it makes you feel good that's fine, but that shouldn't be the reason to do good. Do good because that's the right thing to do, and encourage others to do likewise.
What Rachel Reeves, and various other MPs, should have done, if they genuinely think signing a book is a good thing and makes a difference, is to sign the book and encourage others to do so. What they did was sign it, then shout to the world, via Twitter, "Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I wonderful? I signed a book of commitment!"
I hope you get the difference. I guess it's the problem with our increasing personality/celeb-inclined politicians who aren't unit to do good but to promote themselves and help themselves up the greasy pole.
By all means do good and by all means encourage others to do good but please don't use it for personal gain. And, ultimately, actions speak louder than words. Do any of the "Me! Me! Me!" politicians act in a way to prevent further genocides and oppression, or will they just cash their pay cheques and not give a toss?
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
NEWS: Met Police spent £216k phoning directory enquiries & £35k on speaking clock
It's absolutely shocking but, following a Freedom of Information request, it has been revealed that the Met Police spent £35,000 telephoning the speaking clock in the past two years. Do they not have watches? Or clocks? Or mobile phones? Or computers?
Additionally, in the same time, the Met Police spent £216,000 phoning directory enquiries!
At £216k it would have been cheaper to employ a team of people to internally look up numbers for them - or get them to use online directory services like most sane people do!
I wonder if all police forces around the country have similar extravagant telephone use and what other premium services they have been using.
With this information in mind, there can be no excuses for some drastic cuts being made to police budgets.... and some senior heads must roll.
Additionally, in the same time, the Met Police spent £216,000 phoning directory enquiries!
At £216k it would have been cheaper to employ a team of people to internally look up numbers for them - or get them to use online directory services like most sane people do!
I wonder if all police forces around the country have similar extravagant telephone use and what other premium services they have been using.
With this information in mind, there can be no excuses for some drastic cuts being made to police budgets.... and some senior heads must roll.
Labels:
cuts,
directory enquiries,
FOI,
freedom of information,
met police,
police,
speaking clock,
waste
COMMENT: Cameron's dinosaur jibe
I find it bizarre that so many have been outraged that David Cameron called Denis Skinner, often affectionately called the "Beast of Bolsover", a dinosaur during PMQs today.
Cameron said he saw no need for his children to go to the Natural History Museum when they could see a real dinosaur at 12.30 on Wednesdays during PMQs.
Those who are outraged at the slightest thing have leapt to Skinner's defence and have claimed that Cameron was ageist.
What nonsense!
It's fair to say that the absolutely gratuitous insult was ill-judged and peurile, but Cameron has a track record of silly, pathetic, childish and bullying insults in the house.
A dinosaur, as well as having been a giant lizard that became extinct millions of years ago, is a term also used to describe somebody who's views and opinions are out of date and out of touch with the modern world.
Yes, Cameron had another rush of blood to the head for which the Speaker should make him apologise, but there is no justification for claiming he was ageist.
Cameron said he saw no need for his children to go to the Natural History Museum when they could see a real dinosaur at 12.30 on Wednesdays during PMQs.
Those who are outraged at the slightest thing have leapt to Skinner's defence and have claimed that Cameron was ageist.
What nonsense!
It's fair to say that the absolutely gratuitous insult was ill-judged and peurile, but Cameron has a track record of silly, pathetic, childish and bullying insults in the house.
A dinosaur, as well as having been a giant lizard that became extinct millions of years ago, is a term also used to describe somebody who's views and opinions are out of date and out of touch with the modern world.
Yes, Cameron had another rush of blood to the head for which the Speaker should make him apologise, but there is no justification for claiming he was ageist.
Labels:
beast of bolsover,
Cameron,
david cameron,
Denis skinner,
dinosaur,
insult,
skinner
OPINION: The Wikipedia Blackout
Today, for 24 hours, the English-speaking version of Wikipedia has been blacked out by its founder, Jimmy Wales, in protest against SOPA, a bill to stop online piracy.
For me one day isn't enough - I'd like to see Wikipedia blacked out forever. It was an interesting social experiment but the information it publishes (they'd call it "facts" but, too often, that is stretching the definition of "fact") is unreliable, poorly written and subject to special interest groups and cabals who push their spin on a subject rather than deal with truth and evidence.
Alongside the many unreliable articles, Wikipedia us full of nonsense, fan cruft, entries which amount to little more than advertising and blatant lies. There's more detailed entries on minor fictional characters from Star Wars than of some truly notable and worthy real people. Wikipedia is a nonsense.
Sadly, Wikipedia has become the main reference source for many student essays, with chunks copied straight into their own work and rarely any cross-checking.
The main problem, once you get through the cabal controlled articles and the other nonsense, is that at any given moment all the facts on a subject can be changed by anyone to total nonsense or, worse still, to believable nonsense. Yes, such extreme editing and page vandalism would be corrected quickly but if you look something up on Wikipedia and happen to access a page in the minutes between vandalism and correction Wikipedia is publishing the vandalism as fact. Totally untrustworthy, totally unreliable.
A couple of years ago, as an experiment to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is, my wife and U changed a well known musician's entry to say he was a trained painter and decorator. This lie remained on his page for 6 weeks with the only check being someone asking for evidence. That, for an encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia classes itself as, is simply not good enough. I'm sure there are many other examples (I seem to recall that Wikipedia claimed that George Washington was gay at one point).
After the minefield that is the religious articles (unbelievably non-factual ut always pushing that particular religion's view) it is current news stories that are the worst. Editors are so overly keen to be the one that makes the edit, it's as if it scores them points, that facts appear on Wikipedua seconds after they have happened with limited context, no checking and , very often, pushing one particular opinion. When pages get too chaotic with changes editing is blocked. That, in itself, shows that the social experiment isn't working.
There are many questions which should be answered about the Wikimedia Foundation and its financing - supposedly a charity; Jimmy Wales; Jimmy Wales account if how Wikipedia was set up and why his own page is often blocked from editing and he has edited it himself (a serious no no); and why better checks of new facts and a greater quality control aren't in place.
Now Wikipedia is showing support for online piracy - the scourge of the music and movie industries. They are siding with the pirates, and showing their support by blacking out Wikipedia for 24 hours - but only the English-speaking version, which is an odd decision in itself.
I'd love to see Wikipedia remain blacked out and for them to be properly investigated by the IRS. I'd like to see Wikipedia die.
For me one day isn't enough - I'd like to see Wikipedia blacked out forever. It was an interesting social experiment but the information it publishes (they'd call it "facts" but, too often, that is stretching the definition of "fact") is unreliable, poorly written and subject to special interest groups and cabals who push their spin on a subject rather than deal with truth and evidence.
Alongside the many unreliable articles, Wikipedia us full of nonsense, fan cruft, entries which amount to little more than advertising and blatant lies. There's more detailed entries on minor fictional characters from Star Wars than of some truly notable and worthy real people. Wikipedia is a nonsense.
Sadly, Wikipedia has become the main reference source for many student essays, with chunks copied straight into their own work and rarely any cross-checking.
The main problem, once you get through the cabal controlled articles and the other nonsense, is that at any given moment all the facts on a subject can be changed by anyone to total nonsense or, worse still, to believable nonsense. Yes, such extreme editing and page vandalism would be corrected quickly but if you look something up on Wikipedia and happen to access a page in the minutes between vandalism and correction Wikipedia is publishing the vandalism as fact. Totally untrustworthy, totally unreliable.
A couple of years ago, as an experiment to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is, my wife and U changed a well known musician's entry to say he was a trained painter and decorator. This lie remained on his page for 6 weeks with the only check being someone asking for evidence. That, for an encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia classes itself as, is simply not good enough. I'm sure there are many other examples (I seem to recall that Wikipedia claimed that George Washington was gay at one point).
After the minefield that is the religious articles (unbelievably non-factual ut always pushing that particular religion's view) it is current news stories that are the worst. Editors are so overly keen to be the one that makes the edit, it's as if it scores them points, that facts appear on Wikipedua seconds after they have happened with limited context, no checking and , very often, pushing one particular opinion. When pages get too chaotic with changes editing is blocked. That, in itself, shows that the social experiment isn't working.
There are many questions which should be answered about the Wikimedia Foundation and its financing - supposedly a charity; Jimmy Wales; Jimmy Wales account if how Wikipedia was set up and why his own page is often blocked from editing and he has edited it himself (a serious no no); and why better checks of new facts and a greater quality control aren't in place.
Now Wikipedia is showing support for online piracy - the scourge of the music and movie industries. They are siding with the pirates, and showing their support by blacking out Wikipedia for 24 hours - but only the English-speaking version, which is an odd decision in itself.
I'd love to see Wikipedia remain blacked out and for them to be properly investigated by the IRS. I'd like to see Wikipedia die.
Labels:
blackout,
jimmy Wales,
SOPA,
Wikipedia,
Wikipedia blackout
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
OPINION: Time to merge Best actor/Best actress
I really like the whole award ceremony season that runs from mid-January to the end of February: the Golden Globes; BAFTAs; Brit Awards; etc. and, of course, the OSCARS. I know some see it all as meaningless baubles but I enjoy it and enjoy comparing my opinions with those of the judges.
What I find odd, anachronistic, is the fact that all the ceremonies have awards that divide the shortlisted by their gender.
Increasingly actresses call themselves actors, and this is right. Actors and actresses are all people who act. In the modern world there is no justification to give a separate award to men and women, unless you're saying there's no way that one group could win over the other - it's a consolation prize. That is a sexism which has no place in the 21st century.
No one would dare suggest having separate awards based on skin colour or sexuality would they? It's nearly 50 years since Sidney Poitier became the first black actor to win the OSCAR for best actor. At the time it was revolutionary, but today, particularly in the music world, awards are won by people of all skin colours.
Why aren't women offended that they are being patronised by all these awards ceremonies? Or don't they realise the negativity in having separate awards based, for no good reason, on the genitalia of the recipient?
Surely Jodie Foster or Olivia Coleman or Hlenn Close or whoever would like to be the best actor, judged against all her peers? It's not as if there are separate awards for male and female director, or male and female record producer. It is only when it comes to the frontline talent.
I'd love a female who wins best actress to reject it publicly, highlight the nonsense. Maybe it will happen at this year's OSCARS?
I can dream.
It's time to stop this nonsense and eliminate the blatant sexism that is inherent in the current system.
What I find odd, anachronistic, is the fact that all the ceremonies have awards that divide the shortlisted by their gender.
Increasingly actresses call themselves actors, and this is right. Actors and actresses are all people who act. In the modern world there is no justification to give a separate award to men and women, unless you're saying there's no way that one group could win over the other - it's a consolation prize. That is a sexism which has no place in the 21st century.
No one would dare suggest having separate awards based on skin colour or sexuality would they? It's nearly 50 years since Sidney Poitier became the first black actor to win the OSCAR for best actor. At the time it was revolutionary, but today, particularly in the music world, awards are won by people of all skin colours.
Why aren't women offended that they are being patronised by all these awards ceremonies? Or don't they realise the negativity in having separate awards based, for no good reason, on the genitalia of the recipient?
Surely Jodie Foster or Olivia Coleman or Hlenn Close or whoever would like to be the best actor, judged against all her peers? It's not as if there are separate awards for male and female director, or male and female record producer. It is only when it comes to the frontline talent.
I'd love a female who wins best actress to reject it publicly, highlight the nonsense. Maybe it will happen at this year's OSCARS?
I can dream.
It's time to stop this nonsense and eliminate the blatant sexism that is inherent in the current system.
Labels:
actor,
actress,
awards,
baftas,
Brit awards,
Discrimination,
oscars,
sexism
Monday, 16 January 2012
OPINION: Michael Gove and a new royal yacht
Michael Gove gets a very bad press in education circles. This is, of course, nothing new. Teachers tend to mistrust and dislike most Secretaries of State for Education whether they are Labour, Tory or, potentially, while we have a coalition, Lib Dem.
Mchael Gove, however, doesn't help his case. He often takes things a step too far, or comes up with ideas which, quite frankly, are just plain dumb.
Yesterday evening a letter that he wrote was leaked to The Guardian. In it he argues the case for the nation giving a new royal yacht to the Queen to mark her diamond jubilee this year.
Gove is an enthusiastic monarchist. Like those who have religion, he has the same emptiness behind his eyes that all morons who support monarchy have.
Gove argues that a new royal yacht would be an appropriate gift to the monarch and would not only create much-needed work in our shipbuilding industry, but would give every man, woman and child a feel good feeling.
Really? Yep, he's that much of a moron.
Firstly, why should Liz Windsor get any "gift" from the nation. She's been taking millions and millions of pounds annually for oing little of merit or worth. Her year is pretty much non-stop holiday and yet this year she and hubby couldn't be arsed to attend the Royal Variety Performance, which is put on for her benefit, because it was in Salford. I don't see many fom the North West feeling they've had value ir money from the £200+ million spent on the monarchy every year.
Secondly, Gove argues that a new royal yacht would create jobs - well, it might have one had it been commissioned a couple of years ago. As it is, even the best, most efficient shipyards wouldn't be able to build a new royal yacht in the time between now and the Jubilee celebrations in the early summer. Additionally, by EU rules I suspect that such a process would have to be put out to render across Europe and, with the UK's run down, overpriced and increasingly inexperienced shipbuilding industry, the chances are that a non-UK shipyard would win the contract to build the new royal yacht.
Thirdly, Gove claims a new royal yacht would only cost about £60 million. Well, when the Royal Yacht Britannia was decommissioned in 1997, a decision made in equal parts by the dregs of John Major's government and the incoming, reforming government of Tony Blair, it was estimated a replacement would have cost between £60 - 70 million. The likelihood is that a new royal yacht, if the luxury ships owned by the likes of various wealthy Russian oligarchs is anything to go by, would be much nearer to £200 million.
Fourthly, Gove believes that, having had cutbacks, job losses, fuel price rises, inflation, wage freezes, pension turmoil, etc. we'll all feel a warm glow if happiness because our overpaid, underworked, privileged monarch had a new luxury toy for her holidays. Really? Is he really THAT demented? Apparently so.
Even Cameron, very often the Moron-in-Chief, thinks it's a bad idea - though he, it seems does think putting the idea out o public subscription might work and be a good idea. By the time the ship was ready, and all paid for, chances are we might have a new monarch who, I. It ice, has today said he supports the idea of a new royal yacht. Quelle Surprise! Charlie Windsor wants more from the public to support his worthless lifestyle.
The suggestion that the nation buys anything for Liz Windsor is, at best insulting to the public and, at worst, is an evil and deluded suggestion from someone who urgently needs to spend some time with his family - though I pity them if he does.
No to a royal yacht - and, while we're at it, time for a republic!
Mchael Gove, however, doesn't help his case. He often takes things a step too far, or comes up with ideas which, quite frankly, are just plain dumb.
Yesterday evening a letter that he wrote was leaked to The Guardian. In it he argues the case for the nation giving a new royal yacht to the Queen to mark her diamond jubilee this year.
Gove is an enthusiastic monarchist. Like those who have religion, he has the same emptiness behind his eyes that all morons who support monarchy have.
Gove argues that a new royal yacht would be an appropriate gift to the monarch and would not only create much-needed work in our shipbuilding industry, but would give every man, woman and child a feel good feeling.
Really? Yep, he's that much of a moron.
Firstly, why should Liz Windsor get any "gift" from the nation. She's been taking millions and millions of pounds annually for oing little of merit or worth. Her year is pretty much non-stop holiday and yet this year she and hubby couldn't be arsed to attend the Royal Variety Performance, which is put on for her benefit, because it was in Salford. I don't see many fom the North West feeling they've had value ir money from the £200+ million spent on the monarchy every year.
Secondly, Gove argues that a new royal yacht would create jobs - well, it might have one had it been commissioned a couple of years ago. As it is, even the best, most efficient shipyards wouldn't be able to build a new royal yacht in the time between now and the Jubilee celebrations in the early summer. Additionally, by EU rules I suspect that such a process would have to be put out to render across Europe and, with the UK's run down, overpriced and increasingly inexperienced shipbuilding industry, the chances are that a non-UK shipyard would win the contract to build the new royal yacht.
Thirdly, Gove claims a new royal yacht would only cost about £60 million. Well, when the Royal Yacht Britannia was decommissioned in 1997, a decision made in equal parts by the dregs of John Major's government and the incoming, reforming government of Tony Blair, it was estimated a replacement would have cost between £60 - 70 million. The likelihood is that a new royal yacht, if the luxury ships owned by the likes of various wealthy Russian oligarchs is anything to go by, would be much nearer to £200 million.
Fourthly, Gove believes that, having had cutbacks, job losses, fuel price rises, inflation, wage freezes, pension turmoil, etc. we'll all feel a warm glow if happiness because our overpaid, underworked, privileged monarch had a new luxury toy for her holidays. Really? Is he really THAT demented? Apparently so.
Even Cameron, very often the Moron-in-Chief, thinks it's a bad idea - though he, it seems does think putting the idea out o public subscription might work and be a good idea. By the time the ship was ready, and all paid for, chances are we might have a new monarch who, I. It ice, has today said he supports the idea of a new royal yacht. Quelle Surprise! Charlie Windsor wants more from the public to support his worthless lifestyle.
The suggestion that the nation buys anything for Liz Windsor is, at best insulting to the public and, at worst, is an evil and deluded suggestion from someone who urgently needs to spend some time with his family - though I pity them if he does.
No to a royal yacht - and, while we're at it, time for a republic!
Labels:
Cameron,
Charles Windsor,
diamond jubilee,
gove,
jubilee,
Liz Windsor,
Michael Gove,
Monarchy,
republic,
royal yacht,
ship,
Windsor,
yacht
10 PREDICTIONS FOR 2112
The other day the BBC website magazine carried an interesting article about John Elfreth Watkins, an American civil engineer, who made predictions in the year 1900 about what the world would be like in the year 2000, and how those predictions had turned out.
You can read the article here.
This is a gift to bloggers and columnists. What predictions can I see see coming true by the year 2112? Below are 10 things I genuinely think will have happened and/or be in place in 100 years time.
Chances are I won't be around to celebrate my success or commiserate with my failure to foresee the future. maybe someone, somewhere will find this and see how I did.
Here goes:
1. A single world currency
Yes, yes, a shared currency across Europe has proved to be very problematic over recent years and that has only been in existence for just over a decade, but, I foresee an increasingly global approach to fiscal policy and, consequently, a shared currency.
2. Colonisation of Mars
In 100 years I don't see this being a major colonisation, but I predict a colony to be established in an Eden Project-type bubble on the surface of Mars. It will be the start of the colonisation of other planets and moons in the solar system that will stretch on over coming centuries.
3. Farming of the world's oceans
As the world's population continues to grow, governments will need to find ways of producing more and more food. I suspect that red meat will become gradually less popular, probably due to health reasons, and the world will turn to the oceans and seas to produce a far greater quantity of food than ever before through large scale management and farming of the oceans. I wouldn't be surprised to see vegetarianism and pescetarianism becoming the norm.
4. Socialism
I'm not sure how many more times capitalism can continue to Be allowed to fail without a different system being adopted. As nations gradually work closer and closer and continental and world governments become more and more important, I suspect that the people will want a better system of government - socialism, at the very least, and, possibly, a Marxist communism.
5. Nuclear Power to expand
Yes, we have nuclear power now. It produces a sizeable chunk of our power but, following the Fukishima reactor problems in Japan, many countries are turning their back on nuclear power. At some point during the next century, the oil (and gas, and coal) will start to run out and alternatives will need to be found to replace the energy sources we've relied on for many a year. A newer, safer and greener nuclear power is, many argue, the only way ahead that will produce the quantity of energy that we demand. Nuclear powered cars, nuclear powered trains, etc. I've always been anti-nuclear but I can see this happening nonetheless.
6. Average life expectancy to rise to 150
Average life xoectancy varies even within the UK and, of course, in the Third World is much lower than in the developed world. I think my children can expect to live to about 85/90 but, with advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles, I see this rising dramatically. This, of course, will cause major problems for all governments.
7. Information technologies to be implanted into humans
Ways for bionicly accessing the Internet, or its eventual replacement, or using Augmented Reality-type technologies to be implanted in our brains so that information could be screened on the inside of our corneas. We would also be able to record video through our own eyes that we could instantly broadcast to other people.
8. Cars to run on grids with no driver control
The reason we have speed limits and accidents, etc. is because of human error and inadequancies to make judgements under pressure and at speed. Cars will be connected by a grid that will not onky control them, but enable them to drive much faster and never collide.
9. A cure for cancer
Many, many illnesses that we have today, fom cancer to the common cold will be cured. The end of cancer will make a significant difference to life expectancy, quality of life and mean that governments won't have to spend so much on health budgets.
10. Undersea cities
I think the seas and oceans have a lot of changes (see the point 3 above) and to help with overcrowding issues I can foresee major undersea cities in which people will live, work and shop!
So, what do you think? What do you predict? Do you agree with my predictions, or do they not go far enough?
You can read the article here.
This is a gift to bloggers and columnists. What predictions can I see see coming true by the year 2112? Below are 10 things I genuinely think will have happened and/or be in place in 100 years time.
Chances are I won't be around to celebrate my success or commiserate with my failure to foresee the future. maybe someone, somewhere will find this and see how I did.
Here goes:
1. A single world currency
Yes, yes, a shared currency across Europe has proved to be very problematic over recent years and that has only been in existence for just over a decade, but, I foresee an increasingly global approach to fiscal policy and, consequently, a shared currency.
2. Colonisation of Mars
In 100 years I don't see this being a major colonisation, but I predict a colony to be established in an Eden Project-type bubble on the surface of Mars. It will be the start of the colonisation of other planets and moons in the solar system that will stretch on over coming centuries.
3. Farming of the world's oceans
As the world's population continues to grow, governments will need to find ways of producing more and more food. I suspect that red meat will become gradually less popular, probably due to health reasons, and the world will turn to the oceans and seas to produce a far greater quantity of food than ever before through large scale management and farming of the oceans. I wouldn't be surprised to see vegetarianism and pescetarianism becoming the norm.
4. Socialism
I'm not sure how many more times capitalism can continue to Be allowed to fail without a different system being adopted. As nations gradually work closer and closer and continental and world governments become more and more important, I suspect that the people will want a better system of government - socialism, at the very least, and, possibly, a Marxist communism.
5. Nuclear Power to expand
Yes, we have nuclear power now. It produces a sizeable chunk of our power but, following the Fukishima reactor problems in Japan, many countries are turning their back on nuclear power. At some point during the next century, the oil (and gas, and coal) will start to run out and alternatives will need to be found to replace the energy sources we've relied on for many a year. A newer, safer and greener nuclear power is, many argue, the only way ahead that will produce the quantity of energy that we demand. Nuclear powered cars, nuclear powered trains, etc. I've always been anti-nuclear but I can see this happening nonetheless.
6. Average life expectancy to rise to 150
Average life xoectancy varies even within the UK and, of course, in the Third World is much lower than in the developed world. I think my children can expect to live to about 85/90 but, with advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles, I see this rising dramatically. This, of course, will cause major problems for all governments.
7. Information technologies to be implanted into humans
Ways for bionicly accessing the Internet, or its eventual replacement, or using Augmented Reality-type technologies to be implanted in our brains so that information could be screened on the inside of our corneas. We would also be able to record video through our own eyes that we could instantly broadcast to other people.
8. Cars to run on grids with no driver control
The reason we have speed limits and accidents, etc. is because of human error and inadequancies to make judgements under pressure and at speed. Cars will be connected by a grid that will not onky control them, but enable them to drive much faster and never collide.
9. A cure for cancer
Many, many illnesses that we have today, fom cancer to the common cold will be cured. The end of cancer will make a significant difference to life expectancy, quality of life and mean that governments won't have to spend so much on health budgets.
10. Undersea cities
I think the seas and oceans have a lot of changes (see the point 3 above) and to help with overcrowding issues I can foresee major undersea cities in which people will live, work and shop!
So, what do you think? What do you predict? Do you agree with my predictions, or do they not go far enough?
Labels:
1900,
2000,
2112,
currency,
John Elfreth Watkins,
predictions,
single world currency
OPINION: Waterstone's and their apostrophe
Waterstone's, the UK chain of bookshops, has announced that it will be ditching its apostrophe and, in future, will be known as Waterstones.
Apparently, in the age of the internet, texting and mobile technologies the use of an apostrophe can't be justified.
What absolute rot!
Apostrophes, like all aspects of grammar, are there to assist comprehension and the loss of apostrophes, while it may save the odd half second of time, will lead to confusion and a lack of understanding in the written word.
I realise that, shockingly, lots of people misuse the apostrophe but should we really be lowering our language to the lowest common denominator? Should we try to educate these dullards who find it impossible to obey very simple rules?
Yes, dullards, or fucktards, or idiots, or remedials - there is no justification for the "greengrocer's apostrophe" - if you can't use it correctly, quite frankly, you shouldn't have been allowed to leave school - you are a retard.
Waterstone's is a book shop. They trade, and profit, through the written word. It is treachery of a very serious level for them to turn on the language that has made them money over the years. It is treasonous.
Waterstone's COULD have become Waterstone and nullified the need for any apostrophe. That would have made sense. That wouldn't have betrayed the hundreds of years of evolution through which the English language has developed but, oh no, they've dropped the apostrophe, abandoned the possessive and made themselves into a meaningless plural.
Waterstone's should hang their corporate head in shame and, if they fail to reverse this nonsensical decision, the public should continue to include an apostrophe within their name.
Even better, when they get round to changing their shop signage around the country, I hope the public go armed with bottles of Tippex to reinstate the lost and abandoned apostrophe.
Apparently, in the age of the internet, texting and mobile technologies the use of an apostrophe can't be justified.
What absolute rot!
Apostrophes, like all aspects of grammar, are there to assist comprehension and the loss of apostrophes, while it may save the odd half second of time, will lead to confusion and a lack of understanding in the written word.
I realise that, shockingly, lots of people misuse the apostrophe but should we really be lowering our language to the lowest common denominator? Should we try to educate these dullards who find it impossible to obey very simple rules?
Yes, dullards, or fucktards, or idiots, or remedials - there is no justification for the "greengrocer's apostrophe" - if you can't use it correctly, quite frankly, you shouldn't have been allowed to leave school - you are a retard.
Waterstone's is a book shop. They trade, and profit, through the written word. It is treachery of a very serious level for them to turn on the language that has made them money over the years. It is treasonous.
Waterstone's COULD have become Waterstone and nullified the need for any apostrophe. That would have made sense. That wouldn't have betrayed the hundreds of years of evolution through which the English language has developed but, oh no, they've dropped the apostrophe, abandoned the possessive and made themselves into a meaningless plural.
Waterstone's should hang their corporate head in shame and, if they fail to reverse this nonsensical decision, the public should continue to include an apostrophe within their name.
Even better, when they get round to changing their shop signage around the country, I hope the public go armed with bottles of Tippex to reinstate the lost and abandoned apostrophe.
Labels:
Apostrophe,
book shop,
grammar,
waterstone's,
waterstones
REVIEW: War Horse (12A)
I tend to be a blubber, I cry at movies - all sorts of movies. I always cry at the end of West Side Story and, however bizarre it may seem, Scott of the Antarctic. In the past year, have shed a tear or two at both Up! and Toy Story 3. So, having read reviews and notice tweets about War Horse I went prepared, expecting to sob at regular intervals. Sadly, though less embarrassingly, I didn't feel close to tears during the movie, not even a choking feel in my throat. Maybe I'm heartless, maybe I find it hard to empathise with a horse, or maybe the movie isn't quite as good, not emotionally manipulative, as has been made out in the publicity and reviews.
The movie looks amazing. The pre-First World War Devon village is completely believable, as are the conditions the soldiers have to endure in the trenches. Some have suggested that the war scenes are as graphic as Saving Private Ryan - maybe. Certainly it shows the squalor and suffering, something few today can truly imagine. (At least, on the First World War, soldiers generally killed other soldiers, unlike today).
The movie, for all its great cinematography, has its flaws. At the centre of the movie is what should have been a truly touching moment on No Man's Land but, briefly, Spielberg loses his touch and forgets that this is cinema - the script seems awkward and it feels more like second-rate theatre, just projected very tall.
I'm a big fan of John Williams' movie score and this score is always well-judged and does it best to tug at the heart-strings, but, unfortunately, seems to be more of an undergraduate exercise in composing in the style of Vaughan Williams. John Williams' best scores are when he embraces other styles and makes them his own, in War Horse he has become RVW and his originality has been almost entirely consumed, but for the big, emotional theme that sounds like an early sketch for his own "For the Fallen" from Saving Private Ryan.
War Horse is the ultimate Lassie movie, with a horse instead of a dog. It's story is bitty, sometimes too bitty, and that is why, I think, I didn't develop any emotional link to the characters. Perhaps at two and a half hours it actually needed more time and a television mini series would have suited the epicness better.
Some say that Steven Spielberg is the king of schmaltz, and it's true that the storytelling in his best movies always has a strong schmaltzy element but War Horse adds an extra layer of saccharine with the screenplay being co-written by Richard Curtis.
In the end, I found that I simply didn't care enough about the horse, or its various owners. I was suitably shocked by the horror of the trenches but wasn't surprised with how the movie ended. It's a good movie. and nearly two and a half hours flies by, but it's not, in my opinion, a great movie as many have suggested, and I have seen many better movies in my time.
The movie looks amazing. The pre-First World War Devon village is completely believable, as are the conditions the soldiers have to endure in the trenches. Some have suggested that the war scenes are as graphic as Saving Private Ryan - maybe. Certainly it shows the squalor and suffering, something few today can truly imagine. (At least, on the First World War, soldiers generally killed other soldiers, unlike today).
The movie, for all its great cinematography, has its flaws. At the centre of the movie is what should have been a truly touching moment on No Man's Land but, briefly, Spielberg loses his touch and forgets that this is cinema - the script seems awkward and it feels more like second-rate theatre, just projected very tall.
I'm a big fan of John Williams' movie score and this score is always well-judged and does it best to tug at the heart-strings, but, unfortunately, seems to be more of an undergraduate exercise in composing in the style of Vaughan Williams. John Williams' best scores are when he embraces other styles and makes them his own, in War Horse he has become RVW and his originality has been almost entirely consumed, but for the big, emotional theme that sounds like an early sketch for his own "For the Fallen" from Saving Private Ryan.
War Horse is the ultimate Lassie movie, with a horse instead of a dog. It's story is bitty, sometimes too bitty, and that is why, I think, I didn't develop any emotional link to the characters. Perhaps at two and a half hours it actually needed more time and a television mini series would have suited the epicness better.
Some say that Steven Spielberg is the king of schmaltz, and it's true that the storytelling in his best movies always has a strong schmaltzy element but War Horse adds an extra layer of saccharine with the screenplay being co-written by Richard Curtis.
In the end, I found that I simply didn't care enough about the horse, or its various owners. I was suitably shocked by the horror of the trenches but wasn't surprised with how the movie ended. It's a good movie. and nearly two and a half hours flies by, but it's not, in my opinion, a great movie as many have suggested, and I have seen many better movies in my time.
Labels:
Joey,
John Williams,
spielberg,
Steven Spielberg,
Vaughan Williams,
War horse
Sunday, 15 January 2012
366/15
Click here for today's Project 366 photo...
Beetham Tower, Manchester
Life in a Northern Town
Brainchow
Beetham Tower, Manchester
Life in a Northern Town
Brainchow
Saturday, 14 January 2012
366/14
Labels:
bird,
buxton,
crane,
cuckoo,
desinence,
pavilion gardens,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
respighi,
the birds
Friday, 13 January 2012
366/13
Click here for Day 13 of my Project 366.
Labels:
chamber symphony,
elusion,
flower,
John Adams,
photo,
photograph,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
roadrunner
Thursday, 12 January 2012
REVIEW: The Iron Lady (12A)
Everyone over the age of about 30 has an opinion about Margaret Thatcher. One of the most influential, and one of the most controversial, politicians ever to rise through the party ranks to become Prime Minister.
I was never a supporter of hers (the first General Election I could vote in was 1983 when she got re-elected, wiping away the more intelligent, but scruffier, Michael Foot). That was the only election I ever voted Labour, back when that party had principles but wasn't good at presentation. She became PM when I was 14 and stopped when I was 25. She was also the Education Secretary while I was in primary school - "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher!" - so I guess I can be described as a "Child of Thatcher"!
"The Iron Lady" is an odd biopic as it takes one of the world's most powerful women and portrays her as old and frail and suffering from dementia. Her career is shown via flashbacks but, perhaps because of the constraints of being a commercially viable movie, the story of her political career is highly selective and omits many major and significant moments.
Meryl Streep is phenomenal as Margaret Thatcher as firmer grocer's daughter who wants to lead the Tories, as the strident leader who orders the sinking of the Belgrano, as the out of control, maniacal demon she became, and as the old and frail woman who imagines conversation with Dennis, who has been dead for 8 years. Streep has perfected every intonation and every mannerism. Finally, there is a better Thatcher impersonator than Steve Nallon!
Phyllida Lloyd, who directed Streep in "Mama Mia!" seems to want to skim over most of Thatcher's most divisive decisions. Sure, there's scenes if riots and strikes, and police armed with batons, but so much is left out it feels incomplete. For instance, Richard E. Grant looks good as Michael Heseltine, Thatcher's arch nemesis within the Tory party, but in this movie he's hardly seen - in one scene he's there being supportive, and then he's suddenly announcing he'll stand against her in the 1990 coup that saw Thatcher's fall from powe, and John Major becoming Prime Minister.
Maybe the selectiveness of the episodes from her life are meant to be symbolic of the Alzheimer's that she is suffering... Or maybe it's just a script that's not quite got the balance right.
The young Margaret Roberts is played, rather well, by Alexandra Roach. She gets in to Oxford, gets involved in politics, loses her first by-election, gets married and gets into parliament but, as a rather staid, middle-class woman who wears hats and pearls and, "does screech too much" - there are few hints of what is to come but, at the point Streep takes over, she suddenly becomes more focused and develops the beliefs that will dominate a nation for over a decade and still have an effect today. However, there is no signs of where these beliefs came from, beyond inspiration from her father.
It's also a shame that the soundtrack limits itself to Thatcher's personal likes (Rodgers & Hammerstein and Bellini operas apparently) and rather insipid original music and doesn't make use of, or explore, the music of the various eras through which the movie travels.
The movie has massively divided opinion. Some, including current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, believe the movie has been made too soon and should have waited until Thatcher had passed to the great Grocer's shop in the sky. Others, from the other end of the political spectrum, find it objectionable that it shows Thatcher in a sympathetic light. I also know some staunch left wingers who have been impressed by Thatcher's drive and vision, even if they disagree with her politics, and some, who supported her at the time, who now have a different view with hindsight. What is great is that the movie has got people talking about movies and about politics.
It's fair to say that I did enjoy watching "The Iron Lady", as, it seemed, did the rest of the audience when I it. It is cinematically structured and presented, with some pleasing moments, and, well, Streep is fantastic and VERY likely to win the Best Actress OSCAR on February 26th.
I was never a supporter of hers (the first General Election I could vote in was 1983 when she got re-elected, wiping away the more intelligent, but scruffier, Michael Foot). That was the only election I ever voted Labour, back when that party had principles but wasn't good at presentation. She became PM when I was 14 and stopped when I was 25. She was also the Education Secretary while I was in primary school - "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher!" - so I guess I can be described as a "Child of Thatcher"!
"The Iron Lady" is an odd biopic as it takes one of the world's most powerful women and portrays her as old and frail and suffering from dementia. Her career is shown via flashbacks but, perhaps because of the constraints of being a commercially viable movie, the story of her political career is highly selective and omits many major and significant moments.
Meryl Streep is phenomenal as Margaret Thatcher as firmer grocer's daughter who wants to lead the Tories, as the strident leader who orders the sinking of the Belgrano, as the out of control, maniacal demon she became, and as the old and frail woman who imagines conversation with Dennis, who has been dead for 8 years. Streep has perfected every intonation and every mannerism. Finally, there is a better Thatcher impersonator than Steve Nallon!
Phyllida Lloyd, who directed Streep in "Mama Mia!" seems to want to skim over most of Thatcher's most divisive decisions. Sure, there's scenes if riots and strikes, and police armed with batons, but so much is left out it feels incomplete. For instance, Richard E. Grant looks good as Michael Heseltine, Thatcher's arch nemesis within the Tory party, but in this movie he's hardly seen - in one scene he's there being supportive, and then he's suddenly announcing he'll stand against her in the 1990 coup that saw Thatcher's fall from powe, and John Major becoming Prime Minister.
Maybe the selectiveness of the episodes from her life are meant to be symbolic of the Alzheimer's that she is suffering... Or maybe it's just a script that's not quite got the balance right.
The young Margaret Roberts is played, rather well, by Alexandra Roach. She gets in to Oxford, gets involved in politics, loses her first by-election, gets married and gets into parliament but, as a rather staid, middle-class woman who wears hats and pearls and, "does screech too much" - there are few hints of what is to come but, at the point Streep takes over, she suddenly becomes more focused and develops the beliefs that will dominate a nation for over a decade and still have an effect today. However, there is no signs of where these beliefs came from, beyond inspiration from her father.
It's also a shame that the soundtrack limits itself to Thatcher's personal likes (Rodgers & Hammerstein and Bellini operas apparently) and rather insipid original music and doesn't make use of, or explore, the music of the various eras through which the movie travels.
The movie has massively divided opinion. Some, including current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, believe the movie has been made too soon and should have waited until Thatcher had passed to the great Grocer's shop in the sky. Others, from the other end of the political spectrum, find it objectionable that it shows Thatcher in a sympathetic light. I also know some staunch left wingers who have been impressed by Thatcher's drive and vision, even if they disagree with her politics, and some, who supported her at the time, who now have a different view with hindsight. What is great is that the movie has got people talking about movies and about politics.
It's fair to say that I did enjoy watching "The Iron Lady", as, it seemed, did the rest of the audience when I it. It is cinematically structured and presented, with some pleasing moments, and, well, Streep is fantastic and VERY likely to win the Best Actress OSCAR on February 26th.
Labels:
conservative,
iron lady,
Jim Broadbent,
margaret thatcher,
Meryl Streep,
movie,
Phyllida Lloyd,
thatcher,
Tory
366/12 - Occupy Nottingham
Click here for day 12 of my Project 366 - Occupy Nottingham, Korngold and bonny!
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
366/10
Click here for today's instalment of my Project 366 - cuddlies, Philip Glass and paregmenon.
Labels:
cuddlies,
Lion,
paregmenon,
Philip glass,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
snowman,
teddy
Monday, 9 January 2012
REVIEW: The Artist (PG)
Everyone's heard about The Artist surely? It's one if the most discussed movies for many a year and, for a change, there seems to be general agreement that this movie is good very good, in fact. It's a sweet and simple comedy set in the Hollywood of the late 1920s and early 1930s and tells its story through the cinematic language of the time: in black and white and, mostly, silent, with an outstanding musical score.
For those who have a love for, or interest in, early cinema it's been a good couple of months for movies looking back and celebrating early cinema. First there was Martin Scorsese's brilliant Hugo, a movie which, better than any other has ever managed, utilises 3D as a genuine cinematic tool. Now we have The Artist, exploring the end of the silent era and the dawn of the talkies.
George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a matinee idol, in the mould of Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn - the romantic action hero who is the biggest name in Hollywood. Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a young hopeful actress, bumps into Vslentin at the premiere of one of his movies and, as is the case in such silent movie romances, she’s cast as an extra in his next movie which he begins shooting the next day.
Valentin is unhappily married and Miller is considerably younger, so his relationship with Peppy never becomes more than flirtatious. Their attraction towards each other, however, is clear. With a little help from George, Peppy soon becomes a star in her own right but, as she becomes famous, his stardom begins to lose its shone. Peppy is ideally placed to benefit from the introduction of sound in movies but he is dropped by his studio as a has been of the silent era.
Writer-director Michel Hazanavicius references various screen classics including Citizen Kane, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, Billy Wilder and even some music borrowed (stolen?) from Bernard Herrmann’s score for Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo.
It's fair to say that, in many ways, the film is slight - it isn't trying to reinvent anything or do anything new, but it is a tremendous pastiche of a significant era in movie history and manages a few twists that add to the style rather than merely seem gimmicky.
The main two stars are tremendous and carry off their roles with aplomb. The main strength of the movie is the love story between them - gentle, sweet and totaly believable within the context of the genre.
Definitely worth seeing - will it win the Oscar for Best Movie? I'm not sure - my guess is it'll either win everything or nothing depending on whether those voting get behind the pastiche. There are probably better movies that have been made this year, but they don't have the same hype and expectation that The Artist has developed.
For those who have a love for, or interest in, early cinema it's been a good couple of months for movies looking back and celebrating early cinema. First there was Martin Scorsese's brilliant Hugo, a movie which, better than any other has ever managed, utilises 3D as a genuine cinematic tool. Now we have The Artist, exploring the end of the silent era and the dawn of the talkies.
George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a matinee idol, in the mould of Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn - the romantic action hero who is the biggest name in Hollywood. Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a young hopeful actress, bumps into Vslentin at the premiere of one of his movies and, as is the case in such silent movie romances, she’s cast as an extra in his next movie which he begins shooting the next day.
Valentin is unhappily married and Miller is considerably younger, so his relationship with Peppy never becomes more than flirtatious. Their attraction towards each other, however, is clear. With a little help from George, Peppy soon becomes a star in her own right but, as she becomes famous, his stardom begins to lose its shone. Peppy is ideally placed to benefit from the introduction of sound in movies but he is dropped by his studio as a has been of the silent era.
Writer-director Michel Hazanavicius references various screen classics including Citizen Kane, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, Billy Wilder and even some music borrowed (stolen?) from Bernard Herrmann’s score for Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo.
It's fair to say that, in many ways, the film is slight - it isn't trying to reinvent anything or do anything new, but it is a tremendous pastiche of a significant era in movie history and manages a few twists that add to the style rather than merely seem gimmicky.
The main two stars are tremendous and carry off their roles with aplomb. The main strength of the movie is the love story between them - gentle, sweet and totaly believable within the context of the genre.
Definitely worth seeing - will it win the Oscar for Best Movie? I'm not sure - my guess is it'll either win everything or nothing depending on whether those voting get behind the pastiche. There are probably better movies that have been made this year, but they don't have the same hype and expectation that The Artist has developed.
Labels:
Berenice Bejo,
Jean Dujardin,
movie,
silent movie,
The artist
366/9
Click here for day 9 of my Project 366
Labels:
best movie,
Covered market,
derby,
eagle market,
indoor market,
review,
The artist
OPINION: David Cameron and Scottish Independence
I love Scotland. Edinburgh is one of my favourite cities and I love it when I get to the Festival of a summer. The highlands and islands are some of the most fantastic places anywhere on earth. The history is fascinating, if a bit blood thirsty. So it is that I find it very sad that after 300 years of union, David Cameron has offered Scotland the opportunity to hold a referendum for independence.
Scotland has a population of around 4 million. Independence would make it one of the smallest countries in Europe. It has limited industry beyond a successful drinks industry, oil and gas (the ownership of which would, I'm sure, be hotly debated and negotiated) and tourism that's hampered by the weather. London has a population of over double that of Scotland, major businesses and financial companies based there, a huge tourist industry that Scotland can only dream about, and connections to Europe and the rest of the world that make it the envy of many nations, but London isn't calling for independence.
The main problem with Scottish independence, as lovely and romantic an ideal that may appear, is that Scotland is not a viable country in the 21st century. Currently the rest of the UK subsidises every Scottish man, woman and child to the tune of £1,000 per year. Being proud in a long gone heritage isn't grounds for a modern state.
I would have expected the Scottish Nationalists would have thought think it will be better and less embarrassing going cap in hand to the EU than to Westminster, because the only way Scotland could possibly survive is to continue to receive substantial amounts of money from elsewhere.
Scottish Nationalists have often claimed that Scotland was a viable nation economically because of all the oil and natural gas that belongs to Scotland. Wait a moment. The oil "belongs" to Scotland? It was found by British and American multinational companies, funded by them and by the Westminster parliament. Its closer proximity to Scottish soil hardly compares to the millions (billions?) of pounds and dollars of investment put in by people and companies that aren't, when it comes down to it, Scottish.
The same argument is put forward about the fishing industry. Nationalists seem to think that "owning" their own waters, and therefore controlling localised fishing, would make Scotland financially stable. Wrong. It would give the Scottish government control over dwindling fish stocks and see them having to go to Europe for help to save this cruel industry rather than someone from Westminster doing it.
And what of the failed Scottish banking system that was heavily bailed out by the Westminster government and is still now substantially owned by the British government? Maybe Westminster should withdraw the bailout? Let Scotland sort out its own problems?
Of course, David Cameron can see a political benefit to ridding himself of Scotland. There are currently 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies who are returned to Westminster. At the moment 41 of these are Labour seats. Only 1 is Healy by a Tory. If Cameron can lose that block of anti-Tory votes, plus the upcoming boundary changes which appear to benefit the Tories, I'm sure he can see Conservative governments for many decades to come.
But what right does the Scottish Parliament have to hold such a referendum? Absolutely none. And Cameron saying do it now (or at least within the next 18 months) makes no difference. The act of parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament has no authority to hold such a referendum. That power lies in Westminster. Will Westminster support such a vote? It could be thee straw that breaks the coalition's back.
If Scotland is given the right to an independence referendum I think there are two other options that should be considered:
1) The Scots might want to vote for independence but surely the rest of the UK should be allowed a say in losing it. Maybe everyone in the UK should be allowed to vote?
2) Maybe other regions of the UK should be given the chance to become independent too? Not just Wales and Northern Ireland, the obvious places that could, perceivably, want independence but what about Cornwall? East Anglia? Northumbria? the West Midlands? the Isle of Wight? Any of them becoming independent makes as much sense as Scotland going it alone. The problem is that in Scotland there are a bunch of gobby Nationalists who, instead of being mocked as loony extremists, have been given credibility and powers by successive Westminster governments trying to keep them on side for their own political benefit.
Yes, Scottish Nationalists are loony extremists who have no real idea how they'd cope were they to achieve their goal of independence. They're, basically, attention seekers who haven't really thought through their policies. Maybe we should ca their bluff, give them independence and see how long it is before they're begging to rejoin the Union?
You'd expect that Scottish Nationslists on the news today would barely be able to contain their excitement - surely this is like all their Christmasses coming at once. Oddly, Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, isn't happy and thinks that a referendum in the next 18 months is "too soon" - excuse me? "Too soon"? Surely people either want it don't want independence. A full national general election can be held with only 5 weeks' notice. Surely the polling of the opinion of a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom needs less time?
What the SNP want to do, of course, is manipulate history to support their case. Their case is sufficiently weak that holding back and waiting for a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn - that way they hope to scrape a few extra votes. Maybe television stations in Scotland should be compelled to show Braveheart on a loop too?
It has been astonishing how poor the various SNP supporters are at arguing their case on phone ins. As soon as they are questioned on specifics their enthusiasm is seen as a veneer of ill-prepared and badly thought through ideas. They're not even sure who should be able to vote in any referendum - one I heard on the radio thought it should only be Scots currently living in Scitland, so my Englush mother and sister, both of whom have lived in Scotland for a decade would be excluded, as would prominent Scottish Bationalist who hasn't lived in Scotland for many a year despite regularly interfering in Scottish politics. Maybe the Scottish Nationalists would like the vote restricted to members of the SNP?
There was a time when Alex Salmond and the SNP argued that an independent Scotland would be part of an economic grouping with Ireland and Iceland. Whoops! Strange how they've dropped that argument in recent times!
I genuinely fear an independence referendum if it is held in the next 18 months. Most opinion polls put Scottish independence at between 33% and 45% but, at a time when a Tory-lead government is putting in place extreme policies that are very unpopular I many circles, I can see a situation whereby the referendum is hijacked as an anti-Conservative, anti-Cameron vote. Independence could be achieved for the wrong reasons.
Scotland has a population of around 4 million. Independence would make it one of the smallest countries in Europe. It has limited industry beyond a successful drinks industry, oil and gas (the ownership of which would, I'm sure, be hotly debated and negotiated) and tourism that's hampered by the weather. London has a population of over double that of Scotland, major businesses and financial companies based there, a huge tourist industry that Scotland can only dream about, and connections to Europe and the rest of the world that make it the envy of many nations, but London isn't calling for independence.
The main problem with Scottish independence, as lovely and romantic an ideal that may appear, is that Scotland is not a viable country in the 21st century. Currently the rest of the UK subsidises every Scottish man, woman and child to the tune of £1,000 per year. Being proud in a long gone heritage isn't grounds for a modern state.
I would have expected the Scottish Nationalists would have thought think it will be better and less embarrassing going cap in hand to the EU than to Westminster, because the only way Scotland could possibly survive is to continue to receive substantial amounts of money from elsewhere.
Scottish Nationalists have often claimed that Scotland was a viable nation economically because of all the oil and natural gas that belongs to Scotland. Wait a moment. The oil "belongs" to Scotland? It was found by British and American multinational companies, funded by them and by the Westminster parliament. Its closer proximity to Scottish soil hardly compares to the millions (billions?) of pounds and dollars of investment put in by people and companies that aren't, when it comes down to it, Scottish.
The same argument is put forward about the fishing industry. Nationalists seem to think that "owning" their own waters, and therefore controlling localised fishing, would make Scotland financially stable. Wrong. It would give the Scottish government control over dwindling fish stocks and see them having to go to Europe for help to save this cruel industry rather than someone from Westminster doing it.
And what of the failed Scottish banking system that was heavily bailed out by the Westminster government and is still now substantially owned by the British government? Maybe Westminster should withdraw the bailout? Let Scotland sort out its own problems?
Of course, David Cameron can see a political benefit to ridding himself of Scotland. There are currently 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies who are returned to Westminster. At the moment 41 of these are Labour seats. Only 1 is Healy by a Tory. If Cameron can lose that block of anti-Tory votes, plus the upcoming boundary changes which appear to benefit the Tories, I'm sure he can see Conservative governments for many decades to come.
But what right does the Scottish Parliament have to hold such a referendum? Absolutely none. And Cameron saying do it now (or at least within the next 18 months) makes no difference. The act of parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament has no authority to hold such a referendum. That power lies in Westminster. Will Westminster support such a vote? It could be thee straw that breaks the coalition's back.
If Scotland is given the right to an independence referendum I think there are two other options that should be considered:
1) The Scots might want to vote for independence but surely the rest of the UK should be allowed a say in losing it. Maybe everyone in the UK should be allowed to vote?
2) Maybe other regions of the UK should be given the chance to become independent too? Not just Wales and Northern Ireland, the obvious places that could, perceivably, want independence but what about Cornwall? East Anglia? Northumbria? the West Midlands? the Isle of Wight? Any of them becoming independent makes as much sense as Scotland going it alone. The problem is that in Scotland there are a bunch of gobby Nationalists who, instead of being mocked as loony extremists, have been given credibility and powers by successive Westminster governments trying to keep them on side for their own political benefit.
Yes, Scottish Nationalists are loony extremists who have no real idea how they'd cope were they to achieve their goal of independence. They're, basically, attention seekers who haven't really thought through their policies. Maybe we should ca their bluff, give them independence and see how long it is before they're begging to rejoin the Union?
You'd expect that Scottish Nationslists on the news today would barely be able to contain their excitement - surely this is like all their Christmasses coming at once. Oddly, Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, isn't happy and thinks that a referendum in the next 18 months is "too soon" - excuse me? "Too soon"? Surely people either want it don't want independence. A full national general election can be held with only 5 weeks' notice. Surely the polling of the opinion of a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom needs less time?
What the SNP want to do, of course, is manipulate history to support their case. Their case is sufficiently weak that holding back and waiting for a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn - that way they hope to scrape a few extra votes. Maybe television stations in Scotland should be compelled to show Braveheart on a loop too?
It has been astonishing how poor the various SNP supporters are at arguing their case on phone ins. As soon as they are questioned on specifics their enthusiasm is seen as a veneer of ill-prepared and badly thought through ideas. They're not even sure who should be able to vote in any referendum - one I heard on the radio thought it should only be Scots currently living in Scitland, so my Englush mother and sister, both of whom have lived in Scotland for a decade would be excluded, as would prominent Scottish Bationalist who hasn't lived in Scotland for many a year despite regularly interfering in Scottish politics. Maybe the Scottish Nationalists would like the vote restricted to members of the SNP?
There was a time when Alex Salmond and the SNP argued that an independent Scotland would be part of an economic grouping with Ireland and Iceland. Whoops! Strange how they've dropped that argument in recent times!
I genuinely fear an independence referendum if it is held in the next 18 months. Most opinion polls put Scottish independence at between 33% and 45% but, at a time when a Tory-lead government is putting in place extreme policies that are very unpopular I many circles, I can see a situation whereby the referendum is hijacked as an anti-Conservative, anti-Cameron vote. Independence could be achieved for the wrong reasons.
Labels:
banks,
bannockburn,
braveheart,
Cameron,
david cameron,
gas,
MPs,
Oil,
scotland,
scottish independence,
SNP
Sunday, 8 January 2012
366/8
Today has been a quiet day at home. Click here for my Project 366 photo, music and word!
Labels:
bolero,
candles,
lordosis,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
ravel,
table centre
Saturday, 7 January 2012
366/7
Click here for day 7 of my Project 366 - another photo of the sun, some electronic music and the word Cimmerian!
Labels:
Cimmerian,
cloud,
composer,
electronica,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
robert steadman,
steadman,
Sun
The Oscars 2012 - the trailer
And so the build up to the 2012 Oscars begins with this trailer for the February 26th ceremony.
US 2012 Presidential election: timetable of primaries
Here's the timetable of the various primaries and caucuses in the US Presidental election.
January 3, 2012
Iowa (caucus)
January 10, 2012
New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012
South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012
Florida (primary)
February 4, 2012
Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012
Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012
Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary)
February 28, 2012
Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012
Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012 - Super Tuesday Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)
March 6-10, 2012
Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012
Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012
Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)
March 17, 2012
Missouri
GOP caucus
March 20, 2012
Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012
Louisiana (primary)
April 3, 2012
District of Columbia (primary)
Maryland (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)
Texas (primary)
April 24, 2012
Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)
May 8, 2012
Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)
May 15, 2012
Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012
Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)
June 5, 2012
California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)
June 26, 2012
Utah (primary)
January 3, 2012
Iowa (caucus)
January 10, 2012
New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012
South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012
Florida (primary)
February 4, 2012
Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012
Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012
Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary)
February 28, 2012
Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012
Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012 - Super Tuesday Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)
March 6-10, 2012
Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012
Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012
Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)
March 17, 2012
Missouri
GOP caucus
March 20, 2012
Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012
Louisiana (primary)
April 3, 2012
District of Columbia (primary)
Maryland (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)
Texas (primary)
April 24, 2012
Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)
May 8, 2012
Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)
May 15, 2012
Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012
Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)
June 5, 2012
California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)
June 26, 2012
Utah (primary)
Friday, 6 January 2012
366/6
Click here for today's instalment to my Project 366, which includes a photo of the sunrise, some music by Michael Tippett and the word Calaboose...
Labels:
calaboose,
Michael Tippett,
piano sonata,
project 365,
Project 366,
Sunrise,
word of the day
Thursday, 5 January 2012
366/5
Click here for day 5 of my project 366
Labels:
gasconade,
Jars,
Michael Nyman,
project 365,
Project 366,
word of the day
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
366/4
Click here for day 4 of my project 366.
Labels:
christmas,
Christmas tree,
David Bedford,
decoration,
project 365,
Project 366,
Walnut
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Stephen Lawrence, a poem
Letters of outrage but
Words cannot bring him back and
Sentences can never be long enough.
Books will be written,
Television programmes made,
Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,
For a young life so needlessly lost.
Shed no tears for his loss
Nor mourn with his family,
It is done. He is gone.
Cry, instead, for a broken society, OUR broken society,
Producing bigots, nurturing their hate, fuelling their ignorance,
And harbouring them from justice for years.
Books will be written,
Television programmes made,
Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,
For a young life so needlessly lost.
Sentences can never be long enough,
Words cannot bring him back.
Robert Steadman
3rd January 2012
The day the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were eventually found guilty
366/3
For most of today the news has been dominated by the weather.
Click here to see my rather appropriate 366/3
Click here to see my rather appropriate 366/3
Monday, 2 January 2012
366/2
Click here for Day Two of my Project 366.
Labels:
aida,
auld Lang syne,
Bournemouth,
football,
goal mouth,
soccer,
Wycombe
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)