my new look blog can be found at:
www.andygeddon.com
see you there!
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
As if my workload at this time of year wasn't hard enough, I have set myself an extra challenge this December - write a blog every day between now and Christmas day. A sort of blog-vent calendar, if you will, of my inane ramblings leading up to that most wonderful of things, my day off!
I don't think it is going to be particularly easy and I don't think the quality is going to be particularly consistent, but these concerns are of little consequence to me. The objective is to force myself, come what may, to jot down some thoughts and opinions on a daily basis, even when I don't want to. Especially when I don't want to. As much an exercise in self discipline as it is in creativity.
The concept of having a regime is not a new one for me. I have been fighting my lack of self discipline for a good couple of years now in an effort to get/keep fit with a combination of activities and with varying degrees of success. The fact is, fitness is its own reward and exercise does actually make me feel good both mentally and physically. You would think, therefore, that it would be relatively easy to pursue a fitness regime. That, after an initial period where you struggle to establish a routine, you would think it would be easy. It would become habit and you would carry it out without much thought or motivation.
You would be wrong. At least in my case.
I have yet to pin down exactly why something that you know on a rational level is good for you, i.e. exercise, that makes you feel good, boosts your energy levels, makes you more mentally alert, etc, etc is so difficult to keep up whereas a bad habit, e.g. eating junk food, which is almost exactly the opposite (makes you feel rough, depletes your energy levels, etc, etc) is so difficult to give up.
I suspect that it has something to do with the effort involved. Ordering a pizza, opening a bottle of wine or lighting a cigarette are all pretty straight forward and require the minimum of planning and effort. Yes, occasionally it might involve an impromptu trip to the corner shop but somehow these extra efforts never seem an inconvenience. Not when compared to having to get up fifteen minutes earlier to squeeze in a quick morning workout, or cycling to work in the lashing rain.
I suppose everybody is different. I know people who are more or less addicted to exercise and for whom the idea of polluting their biology with booze, nicotine or other evils is absolute anathema. I'm sure they have no trouble at all in avoiding the pitfalls of these temptations. Not so for yours truly. There's the rub right there. That little mischievous demon inside enjoys all the things that are bad for me.
A case in point was my realisation a couple of years ago that I had an intolerance to lactose. Rather unfortunate given my love of dairy, cheese in particular. Sparing you all the gory details the physical effects of dairy on my system are an unpleasant irritation. Yet somehow I cannot bring myself to completely give up on it! I know eating cheese, or ice cream or something similar will result in unnecessary physical discomfort, but I can't seem to help myself.
Weak willed? Perhaps. I suppose we shall see over the next 23 days....
I don't think it is going to be particularly easy and I don't think the quality is going to be particularly consistent, but these concerns are of little consequence to me. The objective is to force myself, come what may, to jot down some thoughts and opinions on a daily basis, even when I don't want to. Especially when I don't want to. As much an exercise in self discipline as it is in creativity.
The concept of having a regime is not a new one for me. I have been fighting my lack of self discipline for a good couple of years now in an effort to get/keep fit with a combination of activities and with varying degrees of success. The fact is, fitness is its own reward and exercise does actually make me feel good both mentally and physically. You would think, therefore, that it would be relatively easy to pursue a fitness regime. That, after an initial period where you struggle to establish a routine, you would think it would be easy. It would become habit and you would carry it out without much thought or motivation.
You would be wrong. At least in my case.
I have yet to pin down exactly why something that you know on a rational level is good for you, i.e. exercise, that makes you feel good, boosts your energy levels, makes you more mentally alert, etc, etc is so difficult to keep up whereas a bad habit, e.g. eating junk food, which is almost exactly the opposite (makes you feel rough, depletes your energy levels, etc, etc) is so difficult to give up.
I suspect that it has something to do with the effort involved. Ordering a pizza, opening a bottle of wine or lighting a cigarette are all pretty straight forward and require the minimum of planning and effort. Yes, occasionally it might involve an impromptu trip to the corner shop but somehow these extra efforts never seem an inconvenience. Not when compared to having to get up fifteen minutes earlier to squeeze in a quick morning workout, or cycling to work in the lashing rain.
I suppose everybody is different. I know people who are more or less addicted to exercise and for whom the idea of polluting their biology with booze, nicotine or other evils is absolute anathema. I'm sure they have no trouble at all in avoiding the pitfalls of these temptations. Not so for yours truly. There's the rub right there. That little mischievous demon inside enjoys all the things that are bad for me.
A case in point was my realisation a couple of years ago that I had an intolerance to lactose. Rather unfortunate given my love of dairy, cheese in particular. Sparing you all the gory details the physical effects of dairy on my system are an unpleasant irritation. Yet somehow I cannot bring myself to completely give up on it! I know eating cheese, or ice cream or something similar will result in unnecessary physical discomfort, but I can't seem to help myself.
Weak willed? Perhaps. I suppose we shall see over the next 23 days....
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Things that go bump in the night.....
Horror movies. I love 'em. It's rare for me to be genuinely scared by one, granted, but I love them nonetheless. From the camp shennanigans of Hammer films to extreme Asian torture porn and everything inbetween I always have time for a decent horror flick. I've always been particularly fond of films that use a subtle build up of atmoshpere and mood to freak out the viewer rather than relying on carnival ghost train shocks and gore. The original 1963 version of The Haunting, The Wicker Man, The Exorcist even The Texas Chainsaw Massacre all use this concept to varying degrees in order to terrorise the viewer, manipulating your imagination to make you feel like you've witnessed more than you have and set you up for the real shocks by building your sense of foreboding.
So it was then, that the thought of a film based around a couple who set up a video camera in their home in order to get to the bottom of strange noises and phenomena appealed to me. The critical and public opinion of the film all supported the notion it was a tense and terrifying experience. Despite my reservations about "found footage" horror films (due largely to the somewhat annoying Blair Witch Project) I finally decided it was time I watched Paranormal Activity to see what the fuss was all about. If you haven't seen it already it's only fair to warn you that there are spoilers ahead. If indeed it is possible to spoil the film more than it's makers managed to do!
Being naturally sceptical and a rational thinker it takes a lot for a film to scare me. It has been done in the past. I remember watching the original Japanese version of The Ring when it just came out (it was on VHS!!) and it freaking me out, largely due to the creepy, surreal atmospherics and perfect timing on the shocks. The walk home afterwards, from my friend's house to my own house in the dark, was taken at a slightly quicker pace than normal. The lights went on as quickly as possible when I got in. Not because I thought a dead Japanese schoolgirl was going to leap out of my telly and kill me but because my buttons had been pushed and my senses and imagination were tingling.
With this in mind I thought I would give Paranormal Activity every possible advantage. I (contrary to the advice on the cover) watched it alone. Lights down, volume up. Due to recent developments in my life I was also at the most physically and emotionally strained I have been in a while. I tried to clear my mind of any reservations I had and resolved myself to approaching it with an open mind. Then and only then did I press play.
It started sort of promisingly. Already experiencing some strange occurences the guy (Micah) has purchased a high end video camera, planning on recording them during the night to establish the cause. He is the sceptic. The girl (Katie) is the believer. She has suffered from paranormal disturbances since she was a little girl. There is a bit of backstory about her old house burning down under mysterious circumstances. The scene is pretty much set. It's worth pointing out all of this is told via the couple's video camera in a Blair Witch style. Herein lies one of the films main flaws, more on this later.
Initially the buildup is slow. A couple of weird noises. A lot of "did you hear that" moments. A door moving "by itself". Footsteps. You get the idea. Katie wants to phone a demonologist for advice. Micah wants to be a man and get to the bottom of it himself. He uses the phrase "I've done some research" about a million times in this film. His scepticism is understandable. After all there are perfectly reasonable explanations for strange noises and wobbly doors. This leads to some tension between the couple. Quite early on they were warned by a psychic that negative energy can make it worse. He also told them under no circumstances use a Ouija baord in the house. Can you guess what's coming?
Now quite how a Victorian parlour game is supposed to act as an invitation to a demonic entity is a little bit beyond my reasoning but its a horror film so lets roll with it. It was good enough for The Exorcist so I'll let it slide. Micah tries the Ouija board (or Weegee board as he calls it) against Katies wishes and gets nothing from it. He coincidentally leaves the camera recording the board as the pair go on a night out. While they are out the cursor moves about on the board and then spontaneously combusts. This is the first conclusive evidence that there is something genuinely supernatural going on. Frankly its evidence that something pretty malevolent and supernatural is going on. Micah's response? "This is cool, I'm gonna do some research!"
And so it goes on. Talc on the floor reveals demonic footprints (all caught on camera), these lead them to a charred photo of Katie as a child believed burned to ash 15 years prior. Crashing and banging, doors slamming, photos being damaged. It's all pretty conclusive. Even I, a hardcore dyed in the wool sceptic, would be prepared to accept that something pretty scary was going on and professional help was required. I'd phone the demonologist myself. Not Micah. With his "Research! Research! Research!" refrain he soldiers on.
This is where the film lost my support. I had imagined a slow burning story with the various disturbances growing in intensity as the film unfolded but remaining ambiguous, the lack of real evidence leaving Katie and Micah at odds. Him thinking her insane, her losing her trust and faith in him. This could intensify right up to a shocking finale and give everyone a good fright. I've always found the collapse of people's mental state the most effective form of horror. As soon as the film shows a genuinely inexplicable demonic event (pretty much the burning Ouija board) it tips it's hand and ruins the tension. Here is the limitation of the found footage format. An hour and a half of banging and groaning would be dull as dishwater in this context. Once there was a definitive demonic presence my inner sceptic scoffed and my suspension of disbelief was destroyed.
The atmosphere is shattered completely by the "dragging down the hall" scene, where Katie is yanked out of bed by an invisible force and dragged down the hall, much to everyone's consternation. Left terrified and with a vicious bite mark on her back (which is clearly demonic in origin - I would have made it look more human and put it on her arm or something, again for ambiguity) what should be a tense moment of desperate terror on the behalf of the couple just shatters the illusion even more. "I'll do more research" says Micah. Yeah, 'cause that worked.
Then of course is the ending. Now, the DVD has two endings, the one from the theatrical cut and an "alternative" (read as "original") ending that I believe they were made to change at the behest of Steven Spielberg no less. The theatrical cut ending is a complete and total joke. Katie, intent on leaving the house moments earlier, calms down and decides she wants to stay. She does a demon voice to indicate that she is now in the thrall of the spirit (in case the sudden change of plan and demeanour didn't give it away). During the night, Katie gets out of bed and spends some time watching Micah sleep. She goes downstairs and out of sight she screams a terrifying scream. Woken abruptly by this Micah runs downstairs to help her. There's more screaming and shouting and they reappear at the bedroom door. Micah is flung (by Katie) with supernatural strength at the camera which falls over. She then crawls over to the camera and undergoes a "surprising", "horrifying", "shocking" transformation into a demon faced woman before everything goes black. There is a shit postscript message on screen about Micah's body being found by police and Katie never being seen again.
It is seriously on a par with those crap internet things that have an image or video clip and they go "watch for the ghostly shape at the window" and after a little while there's a jump cut to a scream and a scary face. It completely dissipates any sinister atmosphere that remains. Laughable doesn't cover it.
The original ending is far superior (although it still has the stupid demon voice, WHY?!). It is more or less the same up until the point when Micah runs downstairs to help Katie. After the screaming and shouting all goes quiet until Katie appears at the bedroom door covered in blood and holding a kitchen knife. She walks up to the camera and cuts her own throat. Cut to black.
Much more sinister. The look in her eyes as she ends her own life is rather chilling and this scenario fits much better with a concept of ambiguity between paranormal or psychological.
In short, I've done scarier farts. For it to have worked properly it would have to proceed as follows: The start is fine, we join the couple after they have started to experience the weird goings on. Micah the sceptic is determined to disprove a supernatural cause, Katie is convinced due to her past that she is being haunted by something. As the phenomena increase in intensity the relationship between them disintegrates, Micah increasingly convinced she is to blame and her increasingly enraged by his disbelief. Keep the psychic in, his support for Katie's viewpoint being a source of tension between them as Micah writes him off as a charlatan. As the film continues their nerves are shredded by tiredness and arguments and stress. Lose the demon voice but keep the original ending. Avoid any explicitly supernatural occurences. Certainly ditch the "found footage" style, although keep it as an element as Micah fruitlessly attempts to catch something on camera. Build the tension over 80 minutes and then batter the audience with the gruesome conclusion. The ambiguity adds to the horror as you can't be sure whether a demon is at work or a disturbed person. That means it could happen to you and that makes it scarier.
I think the one thing that is definitely true is that you shouldn't watch it alone. I would imagine I would have got more out of the experience had I seen it in the cinema. There are fewer more powerful factors in being scared than group hysteria. A cinemaload of people sitting there, not breathing, jumping at the shocks, covering their eyes, etc, etc can add to your own personal tension and heighten the experience. Having said that I would probably have been laughing too hard at them for it to have an effect.
Anyway. Rant over. If you have seen it and agree or disagree I'd be interested to hear your opinions. If you haven't seen it and read on past the spoiler alert anyway then congratulations, you've just saved yourself a lot of time and energy. Go watch The Haunting instead.
So it was then, that the thought of a film based around a couple who set up a video camera in their home in order to get to the bottom of strange noises and phenomena appealed to me. The critical and public opinion of the film all supported the notion it was a tense and terrifying experience. Despite my reservations about "found footage" horror films (due largely to the somewhat annoying Blair Witch Project) I finally decided it was time I watched Paranormal Activity to see what the fuss was all about. If you haven't seen it already it's only fair to warn you that there are spoilers ahead. If indeed it is possible to spoil the film more than it's makers managed to do!
Being naturally sceptical and a rational thinker it takes a lot for a film to scare me. It has been done in the past. I remember watching the original Japanese version of The Ring when it just came out (it was on VHS!!) and it freaking me out, largely due to the creepy, surreal atmospherics and perfect timing on the shocks. The walk home afterwards, from my friend's house to my own house in the dark, was taken at a slightly quicker pace than normal. The lights went on as quickly as possible when I got in. Not because I thought a dead Japanese schoolgirl was going to leap out of my telly and kill me but because my buttons had been pushed and my senses and imagination were tingling.
With this in mind I thought I would give Paranormal Activity every possible advantage. I (contrary to the advice on the cover) watched it alone. Lights down, volume up. Due to recent developments in my life I was also at the most physically and emotionally strained I have been in a while. I tried to clear my mind of any reservations I had and resolved myself to approaching it with an open mind. Then and only then did I press play.
It started sort of promisingly. Already experiencing some strange occurences the guy (Micah) has purchased a high end video camera, planning on recording them during the night to establish the cause. He is the sceptic. The girl (Katie) is the believer. She has suffered from paranormal disturbances since she was a little girl. There is a bit of backstory about her old house burning down under mysterious circumstances. The scene is pretty much set. It's worth pointing out all of this is told via the couple's video camera in a Blair Witch style. Herein lies one of the films main flaws, more on this later.
Initially the buildup is slow. A couple of weird noises. A lot of "did you hear that" moments. A door moving "by itself". Footsteps. You get the idea. Katie wants to phone a demonologist for advice. Micah wants to be a man and get to the bottom of it himself. He uses the phrase "I've done some research" about a million times in this film. His scepticism is understandable. After all there are perfectly reasonable explanations for strange noises and wobbly doors. This leads to some tension between the couple. Quite early on they were warned by a psychic that negative energy can make it worse. He also told them under no circumstances use a Ouija baord in the house. Can you guess what's coming?
Now quite how a Victorian parlour game is supposed to act as an invitation to a demonic entity is a little bit beyond my reasoning but its a horror film so lets roll with it. It was good enough for The Exorcist so I'll let it slide. Micah tries the Ouija board (or Weegee board as he calls it) against Katies wishes and gets nothing from it. He coincidentally leaves the camera recording the board as the pair go on a night out. While they are out the cursor moves about on the board and then spontaneously combusts. This is the first conclusive evidence that there is something genuinely supernatural going on. Frankly its evidence that something pretty malevolent and supernatural is going on. Micah's response? "This is cool, I'm gonna do some research!"
And so it goes on. Talc on the floor reveals demonic footprints (all caught on camera), these lead them to a charred photo of Katie as a child believed burned to ash 15 years prior. Crashing and banging, doors slamming, photos being damaged. It's all pretty conclusive. Even I, a hardcore dyed in the wool sceptic, would be prepared to accept that something pretty scary was going on and professional help was required. I'd phone the demonologist myself. Not Micah. With his "Research! Research! Research!" refrain he soldiers on.
This is where the film lost my support. I had imagined a slow burning story with the various disturbances growing in intensity as the film unfolded but remaining ambiguous, the lack of real evidence leaving Katie and Micah at odds. Him thinking her insane, her losing her trust and faith in him. This could intensify right up to a shocking finale and give everyone a good fright. I've always found the collapse of people's mental state the most effective form of horror. As soon as the film shows a genuinely inexplicable demonic event (pretty much the burning Ouija board) it tips it's hand and ruins the tension. Here is the limitation of the found footage format. An hour and a half of banging and groaning would be dull as dishwater in this context. Once there was a definitive demonic presence my inner sceptic scoffed and my suspension of disbelief was destroyed.
The atmosphere is shattered completely by the "dragging down the hall" scene, where Katie is yanked out of bed by an invisible force and dragged down the hall, much to everyone's consternation. Left terrified and with a vicious bite mark on her back (which is clearly demonic in origin - I would have made it look more human and put it on her arm or something, again for ambiguity) what should be a tense moment of desperate terror on the behalf of the couple just shatters the illusion even more. "I'll do more research" says Micah. Yeah, 'cause that worked.
Then of course is the ending. Now, the DVD has two endings, the one from the theatrical cut and an "alternative" (read as "original") ending that I believe they were made to change at the behest of Steven Spielberg no less. The theatrical cut ending is a complete and total joke. Katie, intent on leaving the house moments earlier, calms down and decides she wants to stay. She does a demon voice to indicate that she is now in the thrall of the spirit (in case the sudden change of plan and demeanour didn't give it away). During the night, Katie gets out of bed and spends some time watching Micah sleep. She goes downstairs and out of sight she screams a terrifying scream. Woken abruptly by this Micah runs downstairs to help her. There's more screaming and shouting and they reappear at the bedroom door. Micah is flung (by Katie) with supernatural strength at the camera which falls over. She then crawls over to the camera and undergoes a "surprising", "horrifying", "shocking" transformation into a demon faced woman before everything goes black. There is a shit postscript message on screen about Micah's body being found by police and Katie never being seen again.
It is seriously on a par with those crap internet things that have an image or video clip and they go "watch for the ghostly shape at the window" and after a little while there's a jump cut to a scream and a scary face. It completely dissipates any sinister atmosphere that remains. Laughable doesn't cover it.
The original ending is far superior (although it still has the stupid demon voice, WHY?!). It is more or less the same up until the point when Micah runs downstairs to help Katie. After the screaming and shouting all goes quiet until Katie appears at the bedroom door covered in blood and holding a kitchen knife. She walks up to the camera and cuts her own throat. Cut to black.
Much more sinister. The look in her eyes as she ends her own life is rather chilling and this scenario fits much better with a concept of ambiguity between paranormal or psychological.
In short, I've done scarier farts. For it to have worked properly it would have to proceed as follows: The start is fine, we join the couple after they have started to experience the weird goings on. Micah the sceptic is determined to disprove a supernatural cause, Katie is convinced due to her past that she is being haunted by something. As the phenomena increase in intensity the relationship between them disintegrates, Micah increasingly convinced she is to blame and her increasingly enraged by his disbelief. Keep the psychic in, his support for Katie's viewpoint being a source of tension between them as Micah writes him off as a charlatan. As the film continues their nerves are shredded by tiredness and arguments and stress. Lose the demon voice but keep the original ending. Avoid any explicitly supernatural occurences. Certainly ditch the "found footage" style, although keep it as an element as Micah fruitlessly attempts to catch something on camera. Build the tension over 80 minutes and then batter the audience with the gruesome conclusion. The ambiguity adds to the horror as you can't be sure whether a demon is at work or a disturbed person. That means it could happen to you and that makes it scarier.
I think the one thing that is definitely true is that you shouldn't watch it alone. I would imagine I would have got more out of the experience had I seen it in the cinema. There are fewer more powerful factors in being scared than group hysteria. A cinemaload of people sitting there, not breathing, jumping at the shocks, covering their eyes, etc, etc can add to your own personal tension and heighten the experience. Having said that I would probably have been laughing too hard at them for it to have an effect.
Anyway. Rant over. If you have seen it and agree or disagree I'd be interested to hear your opinions. If you haven't seen it and read on past the spoiler alert anyway then congratulations, you've just saved yourself a lot of time and energy. Go watch The Haunting instead.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Just the facts.....
Fact: (n.) 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurences. 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
These definitions of the word fact are the definitions I personally have been familiar with since I learned the word. The exact time I became educated in the concept of "facts" is lost to me in the hazy mist of half recollection but I know for certain (or for a fact if you prefer) that I've known about what constitutes a fact for more than two decades.
I'm also aware it is a word misused and abused regularly by people trying to add weight to a flimsy argument by mindlessly and arbitrarily using it in conjunction with half baked, groundless notions frequently gleaned from tabloid newspapers. Phrases such as "The fact is, immigrants are coming over here, stealing our jobs and defrauding our benefits system." are commonplace in such arguments and are a blatant misappropriation of the term. The fact is, you read some nonsense in a tabloid and assumed it to be true before regurgitating it as your own opinion at a later junction to make people think you are informed.
Never before today, however, have I experienced such a grotesquely blatant abuse of the word fact.
If you live in the Inverness area then there is a high probability you have a copy of the 100th edition of that free publication of dubious quality, the ICA. If you do, lay it face down on a stable level surface then (including the back cover) turn four pages. This should leave you looking at a full page advert (handily this is pointed out at the top of the page for those who would mistake it for journalism) entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things".
Now, there is a good chance you don't have a copy of the 100th issue of the ICA or that you no longer have it as you have used it in lieu of toilet paper or otherwise disposed of it in a careful manner. Fear not, for I will summarise said advert for the benefit of critical analysis. Brace yourselves, we are in for a bumpy ride.
"WAR is a fact." This is the proud proclamation of paragraph one (under a photograph of a lady with her fingers in her ears). "You can doubt, disbelieve and deny there were world wars but the thousands of crosses spotting the cemeteries of the world cry out these were wars. Facts are stubborn things."
Fair enough. Almost. You can doubt, disbelieve and deny there were world wars but the thousands of first hand accounts, pages and pages of documentary evidence, photographs, film and so on proves that they took place. I would say substantially more so than the "crosses" (what about the non-christian casualties?) "spotting" cemeteries. War is a fact though. Or more accurately there were two world wars is a fact. It's a bit of a general statement otherwise. I'm tempted to let them off.
Having been forced to more or less agree with this assertion we move on to paragraph two where we are invited to ponder on the next statement.
"GOD is a fact." Uh oh. "If you were to find an expensive watch lying on the ground, you would not say it just happened. No, it is too intricate; it had to have an intelligent maker. This world is too intricate and complicated to have just happened. God is its Maker, not a "big bang". Admit this fact to yourself - for facts are stubborn things."
Now see what they did there? They read something in a tabloid (in this case The Bible) and because they believe it to be true they are running around asserting it as a fact. The fact (and it is a fact) that the world seems a bit complicated to us is clearly not evidence of any kind that there is an omnipotent universal designer. The evidence they cite? The Bible. A compiled collection of books, written by human beings over a long period of time, translated, re-translated, edited, adapted, confused and corrupted (all of these are actual facts), not to mention the fact that it is incomplete as there are volumes of scripture that are not included in the "official" canon for whatever reason, the most likely theory being they contradict the aims of organised Christianity and so are deemed heretical. See how I said theory when I was suggesting a possibility as opposed to stating a fact.
There are more paragraphs of more drivel wrongly defined as facts. My favourite is the paragraph "HELL is a fact". The evidence that proves there is actually and actual hell (and a fiery, brimstoney one at that)? "All reason and revelation says men like Hitler did not get their just punishment here. Surely these will not get the same fate after this life as the godly, holy people who accept the Saviour and live for Him."
What?! So, there must be a Hell because otherwise where did Hitler go when he died? Clearly my scepticism has been misplaced. How in the face of such concrete evidence and potent logic can I argue against the existence of Hell? Well for one thing there's the fact that according to Christians God forgives everyone their sins so Hitler wouldn't be in Hell would he, he would be in Heaven. "All reason says.." All reason says Hitler was a bad man, possibly mentally ill, definitely maladjusted and riddled with psychological issues.
I hate it when evangelical Christians appropriate the language of science and reason and apply it to concepts where it doesn't belong. There is a gargantuan gulf between believing something to be true and something actually being true. Fair enough, believe in fairies, but don't bandy around terms like fact and reason and truth when you lack the evidence to prove your so-called facts and truths.
"You can doubt, disbelieve and deny these facts, but that doesn't make them any less true." That's how the "article" ends.
I might be crazy but I'm pretty sure we have an Advertising Standards agency in this country. I feel obligated to investigate if this advert breaches their standards. I'm appalled at the fact the ICA feel it is acceptable to print an advert like this. I'm sure they saw only the amount on the cheque (they don't seem to bother proof reading or fact checking anything else they publish) and didn't stop to consider the content, but when you are producing something that is going to be stuffed through unsuspecting citizens letter boxes you have a responsibility to ensure you are sending accurate unsolicited information into their homes.
As you may have guessed I am not happy about this at all. Between this and the Pope's recent comments on his "state visit" I'm pretty riled up. I am sick to death of getting nonsensical propaganda through my front door from these sorts of groups and so I intend to pursue every avenue open to me to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so in the future. I encourage you all to do the same. I used to be of a more "live and let live" mindset but I have had enough. I'm not taking it anymore.
The organisation responsible for this is the Culloden Gospel Hall. Their website is: www.cullodengospellhall.com and their address is Culloden Gospel Hall, Keppoch Road, Culloden, Inverness.
I'm not talking hate mail, or anything illegal mind. I was thinking more complaints to the ASA and ICA, stern letters to the organisation, peaceful protests, that sort of thing. I doubt it will make any difference to the blind idiocy of these people but we owe it to ourselves, each other and them to try.
Rant over.
These definitions of the word fact are the definitions I personally have been familiar with since I learned the word. The exact time I became educated in the concept of "facts" is lost to me in the hazy mist of half recollection but I know for certain (or for a fact if you prefer) that I've known about what constitutes a fact for more than two decades.
I'm also aware it is a word misused and abused regularly by people trying to add weight to a flimsy argument by mindlessly and arbitrarily using it in conjunction with half baked, groundless notions frequently gleaned from tabloid newspapers. Phrases such as "The fact is, immigrants are coming over here, stealing our jobs and defrauding our benefits system." are commonplace in such arguments and are a blatant misappropriation of the term. The fact is, you read some nonsense in a tabloid and assumed it to be true before regurgitating it as your own opinion at a later junction to make people think you are informed.
Never before today, however, have I experienced such a grotesquely blatant abuse of the word fact.
If you live in the Inverness area then there is a high probability you have a copy of the 100th edition of that free publication of dubious quality, the ICA. If you do, lay it face down on a stable level surface then (including the back cover) turn four pages. This should leave you looking at a full page advert (handily this is pointed out at the top of the page for those who would mistake it for journalism) entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things".
Now, there is a good chance you don't have a copy of the 100th issue of the ICA or that you no longer have it as you have used it in lieu of toilet paper or otherwise disposed of it in a careful manner. Fear not, for I will summarise said advert for the benefit of critical analysis. Brace yourselves, we are in for a bumpy ride.
"WAR is a fact." This is the proud proclamation of paragraph one (under a photograph of a lady with her fingers in her ears). "You can doubt, disbelieve and deny there were world wars but the thousands of crosses spotting the cemeteries of the world cry out these were wars. Facts are stubborn things."
Fair enough. Almost. You can doubt, disbelieve and deny there were world wars but the thousands of first hand accounts, pages and pages of documentary evidence, photographs, film and so on proves that they took place. I would say substantially more so than the "crosses" (what about the non-christian casualties?) "spotting" cemeteries. War is a fact though. Or more accurately there were two world wars is a fact. It's a bit of a general statement otherwise. I'm tempted to let them off.
Having been forced to more or less agree with this assertion we move on to paragraph two where we are invited to ponder on the next statement.
"GOD is a fact." Uh oh. "If you were to find an expensive watch lying on the ground, you would not say it just happened. No, it is too intricate; it had to have an intelligent maker. This world is too intricate and complicated to have just happened. God is its Maker, not a "big bang". Admit this fact to yourself - for facts are stubborn things."
Now see what they did there? They read something in a tabloid (in this case The Bible) and because they believe it to be true they are running around asserting it as a fact. The fact (and it is a fact) that the world seems a bit complicated to us is clearly not evidence of any kind that there is an omnipotent universal designer. The evidence they cite? The Bible. A compiled collection of books, written by human beings over a long period of time, translated, re-translated, edited, adapted, confused and corrupted (all of these are actual facts), not to mention the fact that it is incomplete as there are volumes of scripture that are not included in the "official" canon for whatever reason, the most likely theory being they contradict the aims of organised Christianity and so are deemed heretical. See how I said theory when I was suggesting a possibility as opposed to stating a fact.
There are more paragraphs of more drivel wrongly defined as facts. My favourite is the paragraph "HELL is a fact". The evidence that proves there is actually and actual hell (and a fiery, brimstoney one at that)? "All reason and revelation says men like Hitler did not get their just punishment here. Surely these will not get the same fate after this life as the godly, holy people who accept the Saviour and live for Him."
What?! So, there must be a Hell because otherwise where did Hitler go when he died? Clearly my scepticism has been misplaced. How in the face of such concrete evidence and potent logic can I argue against the existence of Hell? Well for one thing there's the fact that according to Christians God forgives everyone their sins so Hitler wouldn't be in Hell would he, he would be in Heaven. "All reason says.." All reason says Hitler was a bad man, possibly mentally ill, definitely maladjusted and riddled with psychological issues.
I hate it when evangelical Christians appropriate the language of science and reason and apply it to concepts where it doesn't belong. There is a gargantuan gulf between believing something to be true and something actually being true. Fair enough, believe in fairies, but don't bandy around terms like fact and reason and truth when you lack the evidence to prove your so-called facts and truths.
"You can doubt, disbelieve and deny these facts, but that doesn't make them any less true." That's how the "article" ends.
I might be crazy but I'm pretty sure we have an Advertising Standards agency in this country. I feel obligated to investigate if this advert breaches their standards. I'm appalled at the fact the ICA feel it is acceptable to print an advert like this. I'm sure they saw only the amount on the cheque (they don't seem to bother proof reading or fact checking anything else they publish) and didn't stop to consider the content, but when you are producing something that is going to be stuffed through unsuspecting citizens letter boxes you have a responsibility to ensure you are sending accurate unsolicited information into their homes.
As you may have guessed I am not happy about this at all. Between this and the Pope's recent comments on his "state visit" I'm pretty riled up. I am sick to death of getting nonsensical propaganda through my front door from these sorts of groups and so I intend to pursue every avenue open to me to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so in the future. I encourage you all to do the same. I used to be of a more "live and let live" mindset but I have had enough. I'm not taking it anymore.
The organisation responsible for this is the Culloden Gospel Hall. Their website is: www.cullodengospellhall.com and their address is Culloden Gospel Hall, Keppoch Road, Culloden, Inverness.
I'm not talking hate mail, or anything illegal mind. I was thinking more complaints to the ASA and ICA, stern letters to the organisation, peaceful protests, that sort of thing. I doubt it will make any difference to the blind idiocy of these people but we owe it to ourselves, each other and them to try.
Rant over.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Are you being served?
Idiotic idea number 43: The Self Service Checkout.
It's a phenomenon that contributed to my absolute hatred of Tesco. Abolish the 10 items or less checkouts, replace them with self service ones and save a ton of money by employing less cashiers on your supermarket checkouts.
It's supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to minimise fuss and queues. That's the evil lie that they spin to propagandise us all into using them. The simple truth is it serves only two purposes - reduce the cost to the business of employing checkout operators and increase their margins on their products as this has a pre-figured element to account for the wages of the employee scanning it through the till for you. It's some scam I tell ya.
My issues with this are manifold. First off the bat, I spend my days serving other people in shops. This automatically predisposes me to resent having to put my own shopping through the till. Especially as I get paid to do it at work but am actually paying the supermarket to put my own shopping through the till. Highly offensive. In fact this is probably my biggest complaint about the whole charade. If I got a couple of percent off the cost of my shopping for doing it I would be quite happy to rattle it through myself, in fact I would go out of my way to do so, but at the back of my mind is the thought that by doing the retailer's job for them not only am I saving them money but I'm working for free.
Furthermore, it's not any quicker. Have you ever used one? I'm pretty quick on a till. I should be, I've been using the damn things for half my life (that's 15 years by the way) and take great pride in my transactions per minute. Setting modesty aside for a moment I am a till operating weapon. So you would think that putting my own shopping would be a breeze right? Right? Wrong.
The technology is a little bit hit and miss. Things don't always register properly. "Unrecognised item in the bagging area" messages became incendiary incitements to riot after the third or fourth one. It's not like a machine can deliberately accuse you of stealing but accuse you it does. Then you have to wait to get security tags removed, get your age verified for various products and before you know it you would have been better waiting in the massive queue for the proper checkouts. Happy days. Oh yeah, and don't forget this is technically costing you more money.
These are the obstacles facing the seasoned till operator. These are insignificant compared to the challenges facing the novice.
Today I observed a woman spend a whole minute and a half scanning the price label on the front of a dvd over the laser beam before she realised that she would have to scan the barcode. There is a strong argument to suggest she failed to exercise the most basic of common sense but I find it difficult to lay the blame entirely at her door. After all, she is paying for a professional to carry out this task for her, a task she clearly lacked the experience to perform efficiently. Instead she has been coerced into taking on the responsibility herself. Having worked with the public for a very long time I am extremely aware that a lot of people are intimidated by what seem on the face of it very straightforward and simple things and so for some the process of scanning their own shopping is less of a new and enticing way to shop and more of a Guantanamo style exercise in torture. I know I'd rather be waterboarded for an afternoon than stand in a queue behind six or seven untrained, inexperienced civilians fumbling with a self service checkout. At least it would be over more quickly.
It's all just so frustrating. We used to be a nation of shop keepers. We used to understand and appreciate service. Within the next ten years we will be a nation of vending machines. I suspect part of the problem is that people think they know better these days. The don't think they need expert knowledge. They have access to Google. That's all you need after all. Wikipedia holds the answers. Who needs a decade and a half of experience in a particular field. Just look it up on the internet. This is a particular issue in the frequently underestimated field of retail. Yes it is technically a very simple job. But it is made more complex by the vast array of human responses to the slightest of stimuli. There are subtleties and nuances in customer service. There are judgement calls you have to make and can only really make with a deep enough back catalogue of similar scenarios to call upon.
Machines cannot do this. They have to treat everybody the same. It's in their programming. They can't tell if you are an accomplished till operator or a total novice. They don't care. They can't work from an opening gambit of "I heard this song the other day I can't remember what it was called do you have it?" to a completed sale of the exact song the customer was looking for. Behind every till there should be a skilled operator. If there was a viable third choice of supermarket in Inverness, I would be using it right now on the condition that they didn't have self service checkouts.
It's just not right.
It's a phenomenon that contributed to my absolute hatred of Tesco. Abolish the 10 items or less checkouts, replace them with self service ones and save a ton of money by employing less cashiers on your supermarket checkouts.
It's supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to minimise fuss and queues. That's the evil lie that they spin to propagandise us all into using them. The simple truth is it serves only two purposes - reduce the cost to the business of employing checkout operators and increase their margins on their products as this has a pre-figured element to account for the wages of the employee scanning it through the till for you. It's some scam I tell ya.
My issues with this are manifold. First off the bat, I spend my days serving other people in shops. This automatically predisposes me to resent having to put my own shopping through the till. Especially as I get paid to do it at work but am actually paying the supermarket to put my own shopping through the till. Highly offensive. In fact this is probably my biggest complaint about the whole charade. If I got a couple of percent off the cost of my shopping for doing it I would be quite happy to rattle it through myself, in fact I would go out of my way to do so, but at the back of my mind is the thought that by doing the retailer's job for them not only am I saving them money but I'm working for free.
Furthermore, it's not any quicker. Have you ever used one? I'm pretty quick on a till. I should be, I've been using the damn things for half my life (that's 15 years by the way) and take great pride in my transactions per minute. Setting modesty aside for a moment I am a till operating weapon. So you would think that putting my own shopping would be a breeze right? Right? Wrong.
The technology is a little bit hit and miss. Things don't always register properly. "Unrecognised item in the bagging area" messages became incendiary incitements to riot after the third or fourth one. It's not like a machine can deliberately accuse you of stealing but accuse you it does. Then you have to wait to get security tags removed, get your age verified for various products and before you know it you would have been better waiting in the massive queue for the proper checkouts. Happy days. Oh yeah, and don't forget this is technically costing you more money.
These are the obstacles facing the seasoned till operator. These are insignificant compared to the challenges facing the novice.
Today I observed a woman spend a whole minute and a half scanning the price label on the front of a dvd over the laser beam before she realised that she would have to scan the barcode. There is a strong argument to suggest she failed to exercise the most basic of common sense but I find it difficult to lay the blame entirely at her door. After all, she is paying for a professional to carry out this task for her, a task she clearly lacked the experience to perform efficiently. Instead she has been coerced into taking on the responsibility herself. Having worked with the public for a very long time I am extremely aware that a lot of people are intimidated by what seem on the face of it very straightforward and simple things and so for some the process of scanning their own shopping is less of a new and enticing way to shop and more of a Guantanamo style exercise in torture. I know I'd rather be waterboarded for an afternoon than stand in a queue behind six or seven untrained, inexperienced civilians fumbling with a self service checkout. At least it would be over more quickly.
It's all just so frustrating. We used to be a nation of shop keepers. We used to understand and appreciate service. Within the next ten years we will be a nation of vending machines. I suspect part of the problem is that people think they know better these days. The don't think they need expert knowledge. They have access to Google. That's all you need after all. Wikipedia holds the answers. Who needs a decade and a half of experience in a particular field. Just look it up on the internet. This is a particular issue in the frequently underestimated field of retail. Yes it is technically a very simple job. But it is made more complex by the vast array of human responses to the slightest of stimuli. There are subtleties and nuances in customer service. There are judgement calls you have to make and can only really make with a deep enough back catalogue of similar scenarios to call upon.
Machines cannot do this. They have to treat everybody the same. It's in their programming. They can't tell if you are an accomplished till operator or a total novice. They don't care. They can't work from an opening gambit of "I heard this song the other day I can't remember what it was called do you have it?" to a completed sale of the exact song the customer was looking for. Behind every till there should be a skilled operator. If there was a viable third choice of supermarket in Inverness, I would be using it right now on the condition that they didn't have self service checkouts.
It's just not right.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
I love it when a plan comes together....
In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a high security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
Few paragraphs evoke such happy childhood memories as these words. As the military drum beat kicks in and that legendary theme swells, I am instantly transported back to Sunday afternoons at my grannies house, watching the A-Team and Monkey (not "Monkey Magic" as it is irritatingly and very incorrectly called by some people). Happy, happy times.
It's one of the few tv shows from my childhood than I can actually watch now. Oddly enough Monkey is another, but when I try and watch say, Manimal, Airwolf, Knight Rider, Streethawk or any of their contemporaries I'm generally slightly appalled that I used to watch them. They are frequently tragically bad in almost every respect to the point that even nostalgia can't save them.
For some reason the A-Team has endured the ravages of time. Even as I type this I have season 4 on DVD playing in the background. It's an episode I've seen before and follows the standard formula that every episode (more or less) of the A-Team follows. It should feel boring and pointless and predictable but somehow it doesn't. But why? Can it simply be that my fond familiarity with it cushions me from all the things I should hate about it? Is it just that the warmth of my memories for it are enough to negate it's bad points?
Surely not. I am after all a cold, emotionless machine driven by logic and reason! So there must be more to it.
Firstly the formula is a good one. The setup, bad things happening to good people. No one else can help them so they seek out and retain the A-Team, followed by the first encounter between the team and the bad guys so Hannibal can formulate a convoluted and usually effective plan. The one or more of them are captured, they improvise their escape and soundly whip the baddies, deftly sidestepping the military police who always just narrowly miss the opportunity to capture them. Yeah it's a bit corny, yeah it's a bit predictable, but it's a very satisfying configuration.
At it's heart is a good versus evil conflict where the good prevail. Hannibal and Co. are considered outlaws but in the Robin Hood tradition, standing up for the weak and defenceless in the face of the corrupt powerbase in society. Hannibal particularly is driven by a moral compass that knows little equal and will eschew payment for the team's services if it means they get the opportunity to stick it to the villains. His sense of justice is not limited by man's laws but by an instinct for what is right. He shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness and likes nothing more than to see a bully get his dues.
Criticised for being too violent the makers took great pains to ensure nobody actually gets hurt. The A-Team never kill anyone. Clearly a sidestep to avoid the censors it fits nicely with the A-Team's style. They aren't criminals and aren't interested in murder. Hannibal's love of "The Jazz*" dictates that simply killing his enemy (despite numerous threats of his intention to put slime balls in the ground) is too easy and far too dull. Much more satisfying is the challenge of playing them at their own game and bringing them down for the forces of law and order to deal with. If they nearly get captured by the authorities in the process all the better. That Hannibal. He looooves The Jazz.
For what is essentially pulp tv the writing is surprisingly good. Yes, there are the spectacularly mental episodes (Cowboy George anyone?) but the consistent relationship between the team members is masterful. It's the sort of male bonding experience that Kathryn Bigelow could only ever dream of realising. You get precious little of their back story but you know they all served together in 'Nam, they all got set up together and they all have nobody else to rely on but each other. Brothers in arms in the face of adversity. It's the same dynamic that makes the like of Lethal Weapon succesful and it is no less succesful here. Loyalty is the order of the day. No matter what life throws at the A-Team, they can always rely on each other.
The other great key to the shows success is quite simple. Everybody loves a montage. Especially one in which four guys take some hay bales, a welding torch and miscellaneous scrap that they find lying around and turn it into an armoured assault vehicle. Sure, sometimes they end up with a vaguely peculiar contraption (such as a cabbage cannon, honestly) but it's always satisfying to see those barn doors fly open at the behest of an armoured agricultural machine rolling eagerly out to punish those who would prey on the weak and defenceless.
So anyway, I love the A-Team. The fifth season went a bit mental, with Robert Vaughn pulling their strings in return for a pardon and the weird little special effects come CIA agent being added to the mix, but it's still very satisfying to watch. Tongue in cheek and yet sincere where it needs to be and brimming with a timeless heroism. I recommend it to everyone and feel very, very ambivalent towards the film (casting being my main issue - George Peppard is absolutely irreplaceable as Hannibal, Tommy Lee Jones may have been able to pull it off when he was younger but not now) but will probably watch it anyway just to see. Iconic to the last - the van, the catchphrases (I love it when a plan comes together!) it's deeply satisfying formula - all of these have embedded themselves in our collective popular culture consciousness. I find it difficult to fault.
All hail the A-Team!
*"The Jazz" has nothing to do with the musical style and everything to do with the thrill of the chase. Hannibal is well documented as loving The Jazz and never takes the simple quiet course of action when he can stir up a hornet's nest of danger to keep things interesting. Usually it involves the attentions of a couple of carloads of MP's intent on sending them back to jail.
Few paragraphs evoke such happy childhood memories as these words. As the military drum beat kicks in and that legendary theme swells, I am instantly transported back to Sunday afternoons at my grannies house, watching the A-Team and Monkey (not "Monkey Magic" as it is irritatingly and very incorrectly called by some people). Happy, happy times.
It's one of the few tv shows from my childhood than I can actually watch now. Oddly enough Monkey is another, but when I try and watch say, Manimal, Airwolf, Knight Rider, Streethawk or any of their contemporaries I'm generally slightly appalled that I used to watch them. They are frequently tragically bad in almost every respect to the point that even nostalgia can't save them.
For some reason the A-Team has endured the ravages of time. Even as I type this I have season 4 on DVD playing in the background. It's an episode I've seen before and follows the standard formula that every episode (more or less) of the A-Team follows. It should feel boring and pointless and predictable but somehow it doesn't. But why? Can it simply be that my fond familiarity with it cushions me from all the things I should hate about it? Is it just that the warmth of my memories for it are enough to negate it's bad points?
Surely not. I am after all a cold, emotionless machine driven by logic and reason! So there must be more to it.
Firstly the formula is a good one. The setup, bad things happening to good people. No one else can help them so they seek out and retain the A-Team, followed by the first encounter between the team and the bad guys so Hannibal can formulate a convoluted and usually effective plan. The one or more of them are captured, they improvise their escape and soundly whip the baddies, deftly sidestepping the military police who always just narrowly miss the opportunity to capture them. Yeah it's a bit corny, yeah it's a bit predictable, but it's a very satisfying configuration.
At it's heart is a good versus evil conflict where the good prevail. Hannibal and Co. are considered outlaws but in the Robin Hood tradition, standing up for the weak and defenceless in the face of the corrupt powerbase in society. Hannibal particularly is driven by a moral compass that knows little equal and will eschew payment for the team's services if it means they get the opportunity to stick it to the villains. His sense of justice is not limited by man's laws but by an instinct for what is right. He shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness and likes nothing more than to see a bully get his dues.
Criticised for being too violent the makers took great pains to ensure nobody actually gets hurt. The A-Team never kill anyone. Clearly a sidestep to avoid the censors it fits nicely with the A-Team's style. They aren't criminals and aren't interested in murder. Hannibal's love of "The Jazz*" dictates that simply killing his enemy (despite numerous threats of his intention to put slime balls in the ground) is too easy and far too dull. Much more satisfying is the challenge of playing them at their own game and bringing them down for the forces of law and order to deal with. If they nearly get captured by the authorities in the process all the better. That Hannibal. He looooves The Jazz.
For what is essentially pulp tv the writing is surprisingly good. Yes, there are the spectacularly mental episodes (Cowboy George anyone?) but the consistent relationship between the team members is masterful. It's the sort of male bonding experience that Kathryn Bigelow could only ever dream of realising. You get precious little of their back story but you know they all served together in 'Nam, they all got set up together and they all have nobody else to rely on but each other. Brothers in arms in the face of adversity. It's the same dynamic that makes the like of Lethal Weapon succesful and it is no less succesful here. Loyalty is the order of the day. No matter what life throws at the A-Team, they can always rely on each other.
The other great key to the shows success is quite simple. Everybody loves a montage. Especially one in which four guys take some hay bales, a welding torch and miscellaneous scrap that they find lying around and turn it into an armoured assault vehicle. Sure, sometimes they end up with a vaguely peculiar contraption (such as a cabbage cannon, honestly) but it's always satisfying to see those barn doors fly open at the behest of an armoured agricultural machine rolling eagerly out to punish those who would prey on the weak and defenceless.
So anyway, I love the A-Team. The fifth season went a bit mental, with Robert Vaughn pulling their strings in return for a pardon and the weird little special effects come CIA agent being added to the mix, but it's still very satisfying to watch. Tongue in cheek and yet sincere where it needs to be and brimming with a timeless heroism. I recommend it to everyone and feel very, very ambivalent towards the film (casting being my main issue - George Peppard is absolutely irreplaceable as Hannibal, Tommy Lee Jones may have been able to pull it off when he was younger but not now) but will probably watch it anyway just to see. Iconic to the last - the van, the catchphrases (I love it when a plan comes together!) it's deeply satisfying formula - all of these have embedded themselves in our collective popular culture consciousness. I find it difficult to fault.
All hail the A-Team!
*"The Jazz" has nothing to do with the musical style and everything to do with the thrill of the chase. Hannibal is well documented as loving The Jazz and never takes the simple quiet course of action when he can stir up a hornet's nest of danger to keep things interesting. Usually it involves the attentions of a couple of carloads of MP's intent on sending them back to jail.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Hail To The Chiefs
Well there we have it. Mere weeks to go until our Presidential election and the candidates have gone and had their debate and everyone is talking about it.
Who do I think won? I don't know, I didn't watch it. Not because I'm not interested in politics or what the political parties have to say. No, I didn't watch it because I'm not an American and we aren't electing a President. We are (last time I checked) voting for somebody to represent our localised section of the community in our national parliament who will voice our views and concerns either as part of or in opposition to the government.
Things I'm not voting for:
The party leader I'd most like to kiss (according to a poll I've seen it's David Cameron).
The party leader who talks the best in a group on telly. (I'm assured it's Nick Clegg).
Well any party leader really. As recent history shows you aren't necessarily going to get the party leader you vote for. From Tony to Gordon without a single vote cast (in this instance not necessarily a bad thing) suggests that who's in charge today is not necessarily who will rule the roost for the next few years.
I'm not sure but I think it's the Tories that have turned this into an issue of personality over politics. Who can blame them? The X-Factor, Big Brother and Heat magazine have taught them well. Why have substance and worth when you can have fake tan and a stylist?
For the record based on the available evidence I would say Clegg talks the talk, Brown walks the walk and Cameron is a reprehensible twat. Give me hard working, driven and experienced over posh and smug any day of the week.
I must confess the thought of a Conservative government gives me the fear. I can't believe they will do anything but coddle their rich chums at the expense of the rest of us. It's what they do. Any suggestion of change is laughable at best and definitely downright suspicious.
My recent encounters with politicians have taught me a lot. You can agree with a politician without agreeing with his party politics. The value is in being represented by someone who will grind your axe in parliament, ask the difficult questions and stick to their guns. Someone who won't be swayed by how it looks to his party or the media.
Don't ask me who that is. I thought I had decided on my vote but now I'm not so sure. I need to examine closely my local candidates and try to fathom who is the best person for the job. The only things I'm really certain of are I won't be vting Tory or BNP.
The most vital thing anyone can do is not believe they are protesting or changing anything by not voting. True the events of the last couple of years have disillusioned everyone about the worth of parliament and politicians but don't let that put you off. I guarantee you the Tory and BNP supporters will vote.
If you don't vote I better not hear you complain about the government after the next election.
And we are living in a right wing utopia it will be your fault.
Who do I think won? I don't know, I didn't watch it. Not because I'm not interested in politics or what the political parties have to say. No, I didn't watch it because I'm not an American and we aren't electing a President. We are (last time I checked) voting for somebody to represent our localised section of the community in our national parliament who will voice our views and concerns either as part of or in opposition to the government.
Things I'm not voting for:
The party leader I'd most like to kiss (according to a poll I've seen it's David Cameron).
The party leader who talks the best in a group on telly. (I'm assured it's Nick Clegg).
Well any party leader really. As recent history shows you aren't necessarily going to get the party leader you vote for. From Tony to Gordon without a single vote cast (in this instance not necessarily a bad thing) suggests that who's in charge today is not necessarily who will rule the roost for the next few years.
I'm not sure but I think it's the Tories that have turned this into an issue of personality over politics. Who can blame them? The X-Factor, Big Brother and Heat magazine have taught them well. Why have substance and worth when you can have fake tan and a stylist?
For the record based on the available evidence I would say Clegg talks the talk, Brown walks the walk and Cameron is a reprehensible twat. Give me hard working, driven and experienced over posh and smug any day of the week.
I must confess the thought of a Conservative government gives me the fear. I can't believe they will do anything but coddle their rich chums at the expense of the rest of us. It's what they do. Any suggestion of change is laughable at best and definitely downright suspicious.
My recent encounters with politicians have taught me a lot. You can agree with a politician without agreeing with his party politics. The value is in being represented by someone who will grind your axe in parliament, ask the difficult questions and stick to their guns. Someone who won't be swayed by how it looks to his party or the media.
Don't ask me who that is. I thought I had decided on my vote but now I'm not so sure. I need to examine closely my local candidates and try to fathom who is the best person for the job. The only things I'm really certain of are I won't be vting Tory or BNP.
The most vital thing anyone can do is not believe they are protesting or changing anything by not voting. True the events of the last couple of years have disillusioned everyone about the worth of parliament and politicians but don't let that put you off. I guarantee you the Tory and BNP supporters will vote.
If you don't vote I better not hear you complain about the government after the next election.
And we are living in a right wing utopia it will be your fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)